When Arutz Sheva first spoke to Dr. Jonathan Rynhold on Thursday about the latest rift between the Prime Minister and the President, we did not anticipate having to return to ask follow-up questions upon Binyamin Netanyahu’s unexpected comments in which he seemingly retracted his opposition to a Two State Solution.
Rynhold had predicted that if Bibi’s immediate concern was relations with the US that he’d have to issue a retraction, but now that he has, it might not be good enough for the President. As for credibility among Israelis, Netanyahu likely will have fewer issues.
“Israelis tend to be very dismissive of what their leaders say,” says Dr. Rynhold, who is a researcher of US-Israeli and UK-Israeli relations at the Begin-Sedat Center for Security Studies. “Moshe Dayan said they wouldn’t withdraw from Sinai. Yitzhak Rabin said we would not withdraw from the Golan, yet he considered it.”
“This is not a Bibi thing – it’s an Israeli thing.”
If Netanyahu’s only option to repair ties was to cave entirely on a Two State Solution, he would have to do something serious to prove his credibility on it, but he is not in a hurry.
“The Obama Administration is looking at it in two ways. I don’t think they are going to come forward with another initiative. For one, at this point they want to manage the conflict, because if they cannot resolve it then at the least they won’t let it slide into open conflict.”
“The second thing is they might say ‘stir in your own juices for a while’ as long as he does not do anything too drastic (for them). They’re probably going to give him the cold shoulder, but not too cold a shoulder.”
That desire not to rock the boat also explains US anger over Mahmoud Abbas’s move to join the ICC, which Rynhold thinks the Obama Administration will not stop trying to defeat.
When asked if this strategic shift to managing the conflict brought the US closer to the Israeli position, Rynhold highlighted an important difference.
“The US thinks that managing the conflict is only a short-term solution. For Israel’s center-right, they see it as a long-run strategy.”In fact, the White House has not been investing President Obama’s personal capital into solving the conflict. The recent (failed) peace talks initiative was John Kerry’s alone. According to Rynhold, the White House has been apprehensive about being too assertive on solving things for quite a while, but was surprised John Kerry actually carried the negotiations as long as he did.
That however should not give people the perception that John Kerry is the actual attack dog in the US government right now regarding Netanyahu. Au contraire says Rynhold.
“John Kerry has been Binyamin Netanyahu’s best friend in the Obama Administration. He has fought for him and defended him many times. If people got the perception Kerry was the problem, it would be a great tragedy for the Israeli government.”
Rynhold emphasizes though that this has more to do with Kerry’s intentions and sincerity, hardly his effectiveness as the Secretary of State.
This was the case “even when Kerry screwed up. He might be a bit foolish or not a very good Secretary of State, but he is still a friend to Israel. He is the most important pro-Bibi figure in the administration.”
The Kerry-Netanyahu relationship is more professional than personal, but by and large it has been a moderating force in the Obama Administration.
“There’s a sense [on Netanyahu’s part] that Kerry has an emotional commitment to Israel,” Israeli Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer was quoted as saying last year in the New Republic.
Consider after all that it was John Kerry who decided to call Binyamin Netanyahu to congratulate him on his election victory even though Barack Obama still had not. It was also Kerry who on March 1st tried to calm tensions between the White House and Netanyahu before Bibi’s speech before Congress.
With the United States taking a less active approach (at least as so long as Barack Obama is President), it should not be seen as the first time the White House has disengaged.
“This was a position the US has taken in the past. Reagan did this in 1982. George W. Bush largely did when he took office immediately after Clinton’s effort failed. However, the US still sees the status quo as a temporary thing.”
