…And? So? Or as they say here, nu?
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the U.S.A. President Barack Obama have met. Pleasantries were exchanged, both said the other was a swell guy, pictures show them smiling and laughing as if they were old buddies, and now we move on.
Oh, there are differences between the two sides. None of the expected gaps were bridged as hoped. Obama says Palestinian state, Netanyahu says Palestinian self-government. Netanyahu says three months for diplomacy in Iran, Obama says no artificial deadlines. But it’s all the same: shake hands, leave the scene, on to the next round.
There is plenty to hope for, however.
On one hand, a positive relationship between the two leaders can only bode well for a shared front between the U.S. and Israel on these two vital issues. In remarks to Israeli reporters, Netanyahu said, “it was a good meeting, friendly. There was a deep commitment to relations with the U.S., with whom we have a special relationship.”
As long as there is that “special relationship,” the two sides can influence one another, and the stronger can get the weaker to budge. Both in terms of relative political and global standing, and in terms of Netanyahu’s future, Obama seems sure to wear the pants in this relationship. After all, if Netanyahu doesn’t get major results on Iran or the peace process by the end of say 2010, he’s likely to be out of a job with his shaky coalition, and even those conditions offer no guarantee.
Beyond the leverage for potential arm-wrestling, the Netanyahu-Obama relationship that held up through their differences and the well-scripted first meeting offers a normalizing agent to Israel’s actions. Friends ask me if Israel is about to attack Iran vigilante unilateral style. That was a highly unlikely move before the end of this year anyway, but if there’s trust between the two leaders, presumably that leap becomes even more far-fetched (and the inevitable retaliation of missile attacks destroying Tel Aviv just after its centennial along with it).
Nu?
Isn’t that obvious? What the hell else does this meeting mean?
For that, we have to look more in mirrors. It’s an obvious point as well, but with loud newspapers and louder TV analysts, these meetings are met with enormous expectations. In Israel, the hype and anticipation over this meeting has been building for over a month, with the final ball rolling on the past two weeks, taking only the merest of bumps with the visit of the Pope. A cursory glance at American news websites suggests that the meeting was treated as a pretty big deal over there too, if not quite on the level of the economic crisis, swine flu, or the NBA playoffs.
So, newspapers, blogs, cable TV and websites like this one parse each phrase for true meaning. Did he say two states? Are all options still on the table? Was that a true laugh at that joke or a polite one? Such is post-millennial, post-modern, meta-politics. Perspective, actions, and letting situations develop take a backseat to the immediate, the spoken, and the quantifiable.
Which is to say that in the end, this meeting isn’t going to mean much. No major concessions were made on either side, no grand road maps were plotted, and at the same time, no feelings were gravely hurt. The latter is the thing to hang onto, because as much as many peaceniks hoped Obama would put Netanyahu in his place, a working comfort level is the best we could have hoped for from this meeting.
And now we can hope that their words and future actions will supercede the state of affairs. Then answering that persistent “nu?” will be much easier.
I think that “special relationship” could be the solution to the looming Iranian missile problem.
I think one possible answer to your question of “nu?” may be answered in this quote from Haaretz: “An Israeli official said on Tuesday that Israel will be forced to take on Iran’s contentious nuclear program alone once U.S. President Barack Obama’s overture for dialogue with Tehran fails.” (as quoted by Newsy)
Although the common courtesy might not usually carry much weight, as long as Iran thinks the US may be willing to support Israel should push come to shove, it’s possible the common courtesy may stalemate Iran out of being too forward with their weapon development. But I suppose time will tell.
@Daniel — “… the common courtesy may stalemate Iran out of being too forward with their weapon development.”
I respectfully disagree, although I realize your comment is meant to be understood as speculative rather than conclusive.
The Iranian government might not be deterred by the prospect of a U.S.-approved Israeli air strike, given Iran’s recent successful test-launch of a solid-fuel medium-range missile*.
With this new missile (the Sajjil-2), which has a 1240-mile range that includes Israel and, I think, Europe, the Iranian government may believe that it has gained a bargaining chip that can only be improved by moving forward to the development of nuclear warheads, although it is not clear that the Sajjil-2 itself can carry nucear warheads.
Rather than give up the prospect of enhancing this bargaining chip by moving onto developing nuclear warheads, the Iranian government may very well be willing to endure air strikes, despite the likely impact of air strikes on the Iranian economy and civilian population. In previous years, Ahmedinejad and/or the mullahs have claimed that Iran could survive aerial bombing, just as Iran survived the war with Saddam Hussein. With the success of its new missile, Iran may be willing to put that claim to the test, rather than give up the prospect of even greater Iranian firepower.
But, as you note, only time will tell.
*As reported in the BBC News website article entitled “Iran ‘test launches’ medium-range missile,” dated 20 May 2009 at 21:06 GMT, found at http://news/bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8059104.stm.