Questions of partisan division and immovable differences in policy between the United States and Israel have plagued the public profile of the relationship in recent weeks.
What can be forgotten is how deep the ideological differences are between the President and the Prime Minister, as well as the platform the President has tried to stick to since getting elected.
Professor Samuel Schneider of Yeshiva University, and expert in Hebrew language and political philosophy, emphasized that Prime Minister Netanyahu was in extremely good form in his words to Congress.
“The speech was perfect in structure – ma’aseh hoshev – as you would say in Hebrew in reference to the skills used to build the Biblical Tabernacle. His grammar and syntax were very good. It was a very well-delivered speech. Even his intonations were perfect. His opponents are even using that as a point of attack: his words were good but they were just words, but they masked a lack of substance.”
Professor Schneider thought his words were extremely convincing for those outside of Congress. Indeed, he sees this speech as generating a lot of debate about the Iran nuclear negotiations that might not have happened otherwise. He is less convinced the timing of the speech will help influence the final leg of negotiations with Iran, at least as far as it goes for American efforts in the talks.
“Barack Obama won’t be receptive to Netanyahu’s words. For everyone in his administration, they feel this is the best deal they can get out of Iran.”
In addition to that, Professor Schneider implied that with the President’s very clear “no boots on the ground” policy in the Middle East, it would be hard to see Obama being more assertive because Iran is perceived in the White House as too strong at this point. For Schneider, it represents a failure of the President’s personal political philosophy.
“He is a far leftist whose views are a product of the 1960s. It can be seen in his policies elsewhere: reluctance to ship arms to Ukraine, reluctance to ship arms to Nigeria and his reluctance to attack Syria in response to their use of chemical weapons.”
But it might also be a slow reaction on the part of the President that Professor Schneider feels was evident in the early days of his administration, when the Obama Administration took a hands-off approach to popular protests against the reelection of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“Obama is not prepared for anything new. Despite encouraging signs from elections in Iran (in 2009), the Obama Administration did not support the student protests.”
This point has been something brought up persistently by America’s allies in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia and even Israel. With so many balks to using force, Iran perceives no true threat from the United States. But just as critically for Schneider, Barack Obama’s domestic focus in conjunction with his political philosophy that is driving his foreign policy.
When asked if Barack Obama’s policy could be declared “isolationist” – the idea that a country should reserve itself and not be involved in global conflicts – he was not willing to draw the comparison with anti-war attitudes in the US prior to the Second World War.
“He is not a ‘world leader.’ He is focused internally and increasingly inward. He is not an isolationist like many before World War II, but he is not in favor of any military action.”
Congress vs. the President
Professor Schneider, despite his sympathies for the Prime Minister’s points and praise of his speaking abilities, did not feel the timing of the speech was suited for its content.
“My feeling is that he should not have come (to make the speech). It did not help the Israeli cause and the Democrats are very entrenched right now. It will also come back. I think Obama will pay him back (for it).”
What mattered also was whether or not Israel could help the Republican Party draw votes from the Democrats to support new sanctions legislation to block a Presidential veto. While not expressing an opinion one way or the other if the GOP could pull it off, it would be very difficult to entice the President’s party to vote against him on such crucial legislation.
“You have this concept of a ‘sitting President’ in the United States. There is a question on the Democrats because you simply do not vote against a sitting President (from your own party).”
On the possibility the GOP itself could pressure Obama on Iran, Professor Schneider felt other priorities and a lack of coordination among Republicans would make that prospect difficult.
“Republicans are distracted by other issues. My opinion is that Obama won’t move on the deal. There is (also) a lack of leadership and the Republican party is split. The budget and immigration weigh on the intensity with which the Republicans might oppose an agreement.”
Partisan in Both Countries
Arutz Sheva asked if the accusations that the Netanyahu government had politicized US-Israel relations distracted from the parallels in Democratic rhetoric in the US and Zionist Camp rhetoric in Israel. He said that was the case, lending credence to the notion the partisan division was not just showing up in the American Congress, but in the Israeli Knesset as well.
“There is definitely a powerful bind between the Democrats and Labor (referring to the Zionist Camp). You can also see that in organizations like J Street. But there is definitely a strong connection between the Republicans and Likud.”
He was not sure of the implications those divisions would have on US-Israel relations in the long term, but the divide at the top is certainly a major ideological gulf.
What is clear to Professor Schneider is that right now, the Obama Administration will not listen to Netanyahu. He addressed the reason why the Prime Minister felt the need for such a public event to press the President on policy:
“Obama says he speaks with Netanyahu often but it could be that Netanyahu realized he could not convince him.”
