Israel abuzz: Guess who’s coming to visit?



The announcement that President Obama will visit Israel in the spring came as a total surprise. Not that a visit of the leader of the greatest nation on earth (still) and the closest ally of Israel should be unwelcomed, but the circumstances seem a bit odd.

First of all, Prime Minister Netanyahu is in the middle of his attempts to form a new coalition government. Being significantly weakened in the last elections, he is now more dependent on partners who might force him to adopt policies not of his liking. If he follows his heart, Netanyahu will pick Habayit Hayehudi (The Jewish Home), a hawkish party, as his main partner. This, however, will signal a continuation of settlements and more antagonism with the United States.

If, on the other hand, Netanyahu leans on Yesh Atid (There is a Future), a new, centrist party led by ex-journalist Yair Lapid, and augments it with Zipi Livni’s party, which is for a resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians, then he will send a message to Washington that he is ready to make good on his promise to agree to a two-state solution. This, however, will alienate many of his own hardline Likud voters.

Suddenly, Netanyahu is faced with the Obama visit. It is hard not to see it as an American meddling in Israeli politics, trying to influence which kind of coalition Netanyahu should be forming. As if President Obama is saying to his Israeli counterpart: You interfered in my elections, hoping that Mitt Romney got elected, so now I’ll interfere with your business, and will coerce you to form a government to my taste.

One must assume that an American president who decides to visit Israel for the first time has more serious reasons and objectives than just interfering in internal Israeli politics. The question is what these reasons are and what their objectives might be.

Restarting the failed peace process is the obvious answer that immediately comes to mind. Except that an American president traditionally steps in to conclude a process only after the two parties have reached a basic agreement. This is what President Carter did in Camp David in 1978: Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had agreed in principle to trade Sinai for peace. Only then did President Carter use his power to convince — indeed, sometimes to coerce — the two parties to agree on the details. President Clinton in 1993 didn’t even do that: All he offered Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat was a photo opportunity on the South Lawn of the White House. All the rest had been agreed upon before in Oslo, between the two parties alone.

Given the present poor state of Israeli-Palestinian relations, it seems like an extraordinary move by President Obama to come to Israel, if his idea is to jump-start the peace process. Not only does he come at the beginning of the process rather than at its end, but one wonders if the parties involved actually give him credit for being an honest broker. Israelis have a grudge against him for forcing them to freeze the settlements as a precondition for talks with the Palestinians, while the Palestinians never showed up at the negotiating table. Palestinians, on the other hand, hold against him the fact that the United States opposed the motion to recognize a Palestinian State at the United Nations.

Both sides may also question Obama’s competence in dealing with the Middle East. Israelis remember his 2009 speech in Cairo University, where he spoke about “a new beginning” in relations between America and the Muslim world, and wonder, in hindsight, how realistic those words were, considering the situation in the Middle East today. Arabs, for their part, may also ponder Obama’s seriousness, in light of America’s blatant inaction vis-à-vis the tragedy in Syria.

Why then, against all odds and contrary to conventional wisdom, is Obama nevertheless coming to Israel?

I think that the answer lies in the words he spoke at the White House Rose Garden on Oct. 9, 2009, when he learned that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize. He said he was “surprised” by the honor, but did not feel worthy of the company this placed him in. Then he added: “I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.”

That, I believe, is the key to Obama’s decision to come to Israel now, knowing perfectly well that he might “fail” by not achieving a breakthrough in the peace process. Being an idealist, he will come to Israel just to maintain hope in the hearts of Israelis and Palestinians.

With all the mixed feelings about the presidential visit, there is something all of us Jerusalemites agree on, whether we are Arabs or Jews: Traffic in Jerusalem during the visit will be a nightmare. Speaking for myself, though, this is a sacrifice I’m willing to make, a little personal thank you to President Obama for his noble gesture.

Uri Dromi is a columnist based in Jerusalem.

Read more Uri Dromi stories from the Miami Herald



    Release Jonathan Pollard

    In a last, desperate, attempt to save the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks from failure, a tripartite deal was hurriedly cooked: Israel would reportedly freeze settlements and release Palestinian prisoners, the Palestinians would stay at the negotiating table, and the Americans would release Jonathan Pollard, the former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, who was jailed for life in 1987 for passing secret documents to Israel.

Israeli soldiers unload bags from a seized cargo ship’s container in the port of Eilat. Israeli officials say the ship was carrying weapons en route from Iran to Gaza.


    Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Cuban missile precedent

    In light of a ship caught carrying aggressive weapons, aimed at terrorizing his fellow countrymen, the leader delivered a firm message, warning that neither his country “nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril”.



    Israel can’t turn its back on the world

    Recently, at the Jerusalem Press Club, I hosted Marcella Rosen, the author of Tiny Dynamo: How One of the Smallest Countries Is Producing Some of Our Most Important Inventions. Amazon advertises this book as a “fascinating collection of 21 stories detailing Israel's inventions that benefit all of mankind. From desalting the ocean to the tiny PillCam that videos your insides, the Flash Drive to spinal surgery robots, watering the desert with drip irrigation, blasting breast tumors and curing major diseases: Israel is a hotbed of start-ups and idea incubation wildly disproportionate to its tiny size.”

Miami Herald

Join the

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category