EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren and American President Barack Obama agree that Obama’s view of the Middle East is sharply different from previous presidents. While this dramatic difference spells trouble for Israel it also means that Obama’s view has not yet become US policy. No president has the power to make such a “tectonic shift" in US policy by himself. Israel must balance its acceptance of Obama’s policies with the reinforcement of parts of the American policy-making system that have not been converted to the President’s view.

Recent Hebrew-language press reports had Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren telling Foreign Ministry officials in Jerusalem that a great “rift” had developed between the US and Israel. Meanwhile he publicly gave The Jerusalem Post a very optimistic report on US-Israel relations. As the dust settles, it is becoming clear that Oren sought to deliver a single, clear message: that the Israel-US relationship has changed dramatically because US President Barack Obama has a fundamentally different view of the world than previous US presidents and is determined to change US foreign policy.  

Oren’s denial that there is a “crisis,” in the relationship becomes less reassuring, as well as more justifiable, when he explains that there is no crisis because it is not a short-term issue and not caused by any sudden event. However, his metaphor of a “tectonic shift” (not “rift”) in US-Israel relations was poorly chosen, because the phrase implies long-term movement of fundamental forces – and this is not the case.

Click here to download the entire paper in PDF format »

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I just completed an excellent one-on-one discussion with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and I want to welcome him back to the White House.

I want to, first of all, thank him for the wonderful statement that he made in honor of the Fourth of July, our Independence Day, when he was still in Israel. And it marked just one more chapter in the extraordinary friendship between our two countries.

As Prime Minister Netanyahu indicated in his speech, the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable. It encompasses our national security interests, our strategic interests, but most importantly, the bond of two democracies who share a common set of values and whose people have grown closer and closer as time goes on.

During our discussions in our private meeting we covered a wide range of issues. We discussed the issue of Gaza, and I commended Prime Minister Netanyahu on the progress that's been made in allowing more goods into Gaza. We've seen real progress on the ground. I think it’s been acknowledged that it has moved more quickly and more effectively than many people anticipated.

Obviously there’s still tensions and issues there that have to be resolved, but our two countries are working cooperatively together to deal with these issues. The Quartet has been, I think, very helpful as well. And we believe that there is a way to make sure that the people of Gaza are able to prosper economically, while Israel is able to maintain its legitimate security needs in not allowing missiles and weapons to get to Hamas.

We discussed the issue of Iran, and we pointed out that as a consequence of some hard work internationally, we have instituted through the U.N. Security Council the toughest sanctions ever directed at an Iranian government. In addition, last week I signed our own set of sanctions, coming out of the United States Congress, as robust as any that we've ever seen. Other countries are following suit. And so we intend to continue to put pressure on Iran to meet its international obligations and to cease the kinds of provocative behavior that has made it a threat to its neighbors and the international community.

We had a extensive discussion about the prospects for Middle East peace. I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants peace. I think he’s willing to take risks for peace. And during our conversation, he once again reaffirmed his willingness to engage in serious negotiations with the Palestinians around what I think should be the goal not just of the two principals involved, but the entire world, and that is two states living side by side in peace and security.

Israel’s security needs met, the Palestinians having a sovereign state that they call their own — those are goals that have obviously escaped our grasp for decades now. But now more than ever I think is the time for us to seize on that vision. And I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu is prepared to do so. It’s going to be difficult; it’s going to be hard work. But we've seen already proximity talks taking place. My envoy, George Mitchell, has helped to organize five of them so far. We expect those proximity talks to lead to direct talks, and I believe that the government of Israel is prepared to engage in such direct talks, and I commend the Prime Minister for that.

There are going to need to be a whole set of confidence-building measures to make sure that people are serious and that we're sending a signal to the region that this isn’t just more talk and more process without action. I think it is also important to recognize that the Arab states have to be supportive of peace, because, although ultimately this is going to be determined by the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, they can't succeed unless you have the surrounding states having as — a greater investment in the process than we've seen so far.

Finally, we discussed issues that arose out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Conference. And I reiterated to the Prime Minister that there is no change in U.S. policy when it comes to these issues. We strongly believe that, given its size, its history, the region that it’s in, and the threats that are leveled against us — against it, that Israel has unique security requirements. It’s got to be able to respond to threats or any combination of threats in the region. And that's why we remain unwavering in our commitment to Israel’s security. And the United States will never ask Israel to take any steps that would undermine their security interests.

So I just want to say once again that I thought the discussion that we had was excellent. We’ve seen over the last year how our relationship has broadened. Sometimes it doesn’t get publicized, but on a whole range of issues — economic, military-to-military, issues related to Israel maintaining its qualitative military edge, intelligence-sharing, how we are able to work together effectively on the international front — that in fact our relationship is continuing to improve. And I think a lot of that has to do with the excellent work that the Prime Minister has done. So I’m grateful.

And welcome, once again, to the White House.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Thank you, Mr. President.

The President and I had an extensive, excellent discussion in which we discussed a broad range of issues. These include of course our own cooperation in the fields of intelligence and security. And exactly as the President said, it is extensive. Not everything is seen by the public, but it is seen and appreciated by us.

We understand fully that we will work together in the coming months and years to protect our common interests, our countries, our peoples, against new threats. And at the same time, we want to explore the possibility of peace.

The greatest new threat on the horizon, the single most dominant issue for many of us, is the prospect that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons. Iran is brutally terrorizing its people, spreading terrorism far and wide. And I very much appreciate the President’s statement that he is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

That has been translated by the President through his leadership at the Security Council, which passed sanctions against Iran; by the U.S. bill that the President signed just a few days ago. And I urge other leaders to follow the President’s lead, and other countries to follow the U.S. lead, to adopt much tougher sanctions against Iran, primarily those directed against its energy sector.

As the President said, we discussed a great deal about activating, moving forward the quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. We’re committed to that peace. I’m committed to that peace. And this peace I think will better the lives of Israelis, of Palestinians, and it certainly would change our region.

Israelis are prepared to do a lot to get that peace in place, but they want to make sure that after all the steps they take, that what we get is a secure peace. We don’t want a repeat of the situation where we vacate territories and those are overtaken by Iran’s proxies and used as a launching ground for terrorist attacks or rocket attacks.

I think there are solutions that we can adopt. But in order to proceed to the solutions, we need to begin negotiations in order to end them. We’ve begun proximity talks. I think it’s high time to begin direct talks. I think with the help of President Obama, President Abbas and myself should engage in direct talks to reach a political settlement of peace, coupled with security and prosperity.

This requires that the Palestinian Authority prepare its people for peace — schools, textbooks, and so on. But I think at the end of the day, peace is the best option for all of us, and I think we have a unique opportunity and a unique time to do it.

The President says that he has a habit of confounding all the cynics and all the naysayers and all those who preclude possibility, and he’s shown it time and time again. I think I've had my opportunity to confound some cynics myself, and I think if we work together, with President Abbas, then we can bring a great message of hope to our peoples, to the region, and to the world.

One final point, Mr. President — I want to thank you for reaffirming to me in private and now in public as you did the longstanding U.S. commitments to Israel on matters of vital strategic importance. I want to thank you, too, for the great hospitality you and the First Lady have shown Sara and me and our entire delegation. And I think we have to redress the balance — you know, I’ve been coming here a lot. It’s about time –

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm ready.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: — you and the First Lady came to Israel, sir.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We look forward to it. Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Any time.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Thank you.

All right, we’ve got time for one question each. I’m going to call on Stephen Collinson, AFP.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As part of the steps which need to be taken to move proximity talks on to direct talks, do you think it would be helpful for Israel to extend the partial settlement moratorium, which is set to expire in September?

And if I could just briefly ask the Prime Minister, with regards to the sanctions you mentioned, do you think that these measures will contain or halt Iran’s nuclear program where others have failed?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me — let me, first of all, say that I think the Israeli government, working through layers of various governmental entities and jurisdictions, has shown restraint over the last several months that I think has been conducive to the prospects of us getting into direct talks.

And my hope is, is that once direct talks have begun, well before the moratorium has expired, that that will create a climate in which everybody feels a greater investment in success. Not every action by one party or the other is taken as a reason for not engaging in talks. So there ends up being more room created by more trust. And so I want to just make sure that we sustain that over the next — over the next several weeks.

I do think that there are a range of confidence-building measures that can be taken by all sides that improve the prospects of a successful negotiation. And I’ve discussed some of those privately with the Prime Minister. When President Abbas was here, I discussed some of those same issues with him.

I think it’s very important that the Palestinians not look for excuses for incitement, that they are not engaging in provocative language; that at the international level, they are maintaining a constructive tone, as opposed to looking for opportunities to embarrass Israel.

At the same time, I’ve said to Prime Minister Netanyahu — I don't think he minds me sharing it publicly — that Abu Mazen working with Fayyad have done some very significant things when it comes to the security front. And so us being able to widen the scope of their responsibilities in the West Bank is something that I think would be very meaningful to the Palestinian people. I think that some of the steps that have already been taken in Gaza help to build confidence. And if we continue to make progress on that front, then Palestinians can see in very concrete terms what peace can bring that rhetoric and violence cannot bring — and that is people actually having an opportunity to raise their children, and make a living, and buy and sell goods, and build a life for themselves, which is ultimately what people in both Israel and the Palestinian Territories want.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I think the latest sanctions adopted by the U.N. create illegitimacy or create de-legitimization for Iran’s nuclear program, and that is important. I think the sanctions the President signed the other day actually have teeth. They bite.

The question is — how much do you need to bite is something I cannot answer now. But if other nations adopted similar sanctions, that would increase the effect. The more like-minded countries join in the American-led effort that President Obama has signed into act, into law, I think the better we’ll be able to give you an answer to your question.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Is there somebody you want to ask here?

Q Mr. President, in the past year, you distanced yourself from Israel and gave a cold shoulder to the Prime Minister. Do you think this policy was a mistake? Do you think it contributes to the bashing of Israel by others? And is that — you change it now, and do you trust now Prime Minister Netanyahu?

And if I may, Mr. Prime Minister, specifically, did you discuss with the President the continuing of the freezing of settlements after September? And did you tell him that you’re going to keep on building after this period is over?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, say that the premise of your question was wrong and I entirely disagree with it. If you look at every public statement that I’ve made over the last year and a half, it has been a constant reaffirmation of the special relationship between the United States and Israel, that our commitment to Israel’s security has been unwavering. And, in fact, there aren’t any concrete policies that you could point to that would contradict that.

And in terms of my relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I know the press, both in Israel and stateside, enjoys seeing if there’s news there. But the fact of the matter is that I’ve trusted Prime Minister Netanyahu since I met him before I was elected President, and have said so both publicly and privately.

I think that he is dealing with a very complex situation in a very tough neighborhood. And what I have consistently shared with him is my interest in working with him — not at cross-purposes — so that we can achieve the kind of peace that will ensure Israel’s security for decades to come.

And that's going to mean some tough choices. And there are going to be times where he and I are having robust discussions about what kind of choices need to be made. But the underlying approach never changes, and that is the United States is committed to Israel’s security; we are committed to that special bond; and we are going to do what’s required to back that up, not just with words but with actions.

We are going to continually work with the Prime Minister and the entire Israeli government, as well as the Israeli people, so that we can achieve what I think has to be everybody’s goal, which is that people feel secure. They don't feel like a rocket is going to be landing on their head sometime. They don't feel as if there’s a growing population that wants to direct violence against Israel.

That requires work and that requires some difficult choices — both at the strategic level and the tactical level. And this is something that the Prime Minister understands, and why I think that we’re going to be able to work together not just over the next few months but hopefully over the next several years.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: The President and I discussed concrete steps that could be done now, in the coming days and the coming weeks, to move the peace process further along in a very robust way. This is what we focused our conversation on. And when I say the next few weeks, that's what I mean. The President means that, too.

Let me make a general observation about the question you posed to the President. And here I’ll have to paraphrase Mark Twain, that the reports about the demise of the special U.S.-Israel relations — relationship aren’t just premature, they're just flat wrong. There’s a depth and richness of this relationship that is expressed every day. Our teams talk. We don't make it public. The only thing that's public is that you can have differences on occasion in the best of families and the closest of families; that comes out public — and sometimes in a twisted way, too.

What is not told is the fact that we have an enduring bond of values, interests, beginning with security and the way that we share both information and other things to help the common defense of our common interests — and many others in the region who don't often admit to the beneficial effect of this cooperation.

So I think there’s — the President said it best in his speech in Cairo. He said in front of the entire Islamic world, he said, the bond between Israel and the United States is unbreakable. And I can affirm that to you today.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much, everybody.

• A clear majority – 61% – of the overall Israeli public defines the relations between the United States and Israel as very good or good, however only 14% define the relations as “very good” versus 47% who call them “moderately good”.  This finding is consistent with the prevailing view – 46% – that these relations have recently deteriorated.
   
• The majority – 56% – give Israeli Prime Benjamin Netanyahu a good or very good grade for managing US-Israel relations while 48% gave U.S. President Barack Obama a poor or very poor grade on managing his relations with Israel.
   
• The majority of the Israeli public – 55% – felt the U.S. president leans in favour of the Palestinians; only 5% said Obama supports the Israeli stance, while 31% said they feel he is neutral.

Click here to download the entire War and Peace Index in PDF format »

With very few exceptions, the coverage of the two-day Nuclear Security Summit, held in Washington D.C. early last week, remained focused on the summit’s stated goal: to secure loose nuclear material worldwide and prevent its falling into the hands of terrorist groups.

While there had been reports in the lead-up to the summit that Turkey and Egypt planned to make an issue of Israel’s non-participation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – ostensibly one reason Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided not to attend, and to send his deputy Dan Meridor instead – in the final analysis, Israel was not singled out as feared.

Instead, attention was fixed upon what U.S. President Barack Obama said April 11, on the eve of the summit: “The single greatest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term, and long-term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon…We know that organizations like Al Qaeda are in the process of trying to secure nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, and would have no compunction at using them.”

However, as Steven Hurst and Anne Gearan of the Associated Press reported on April 12, Obama’s sense of urgency about the imminent threat of nuclear terrorism isn't shared by all, and particularly not by some whose nuclear arsenals are most vulnerable. They noted that at an unofficial conference of 200 international nuclear experts (also held in Washington at the same time as the summit), well-known Pakistani physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy remarked: “Unfortunately, I do not see this concern either in Pakistan or in India about nuclear terrorism. Both countries do not see the seriousness of the situation.”

This indifference is especially worrisome to those experts who warn that Pakistan’s expanding nuclear arsenal (which Pakistan claims is needed for “deterrence” – a reference to its enemy India) could fall into the hands of Al Qaeda given the instability in that country and in South Asia generally.

Even though Obama has generally received commendation for convening a 47-nation summit (Iran, North Korea and Syria were not invited) to tackle the nuclear terrorism threat, there has also been criticism that since the summit’s declaration about securing weapons-usable nuclear material within four years is non-binding, it is accordingly of limited effectiveness.

The challenge for the United States and the international community is immense. As the Globe and Mail’s Konrad Yakabuski wrote from Washington (April 14): “Indeed, Mr. Obama has so far made no progress in containing the biggest non-terror-related atomic threats – nuclear buildup in India and Pakistan, the prospect of nuclear-capable Iran and an obdurate North Korea. Mr. Obama talked tough [April 13] on pursuing sanctions against Iran, but in the same breath acknowledged that China’s dependence on Iranian oil is still an obstacle to getting a UN Security Council resolution with any teeth.”

A rare instance of sustained attention on Israel at this time was Patrick Martin's April 13 Globe and Mail article, "Universal assumption is that Israel has nuclear weapons," filed from Jerusalem. Martin wrote that Netanyahu's decision not to attend the Washington conference drew attention to the "question of Israel's alleged nuclear arsenal."

Martin's own question, "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" appears to be rhetorical since, as he noted, despite Israel's policy of ambiguity (neither affirming or denying having an arsenal), "it is universally assumed that Israel does, in fact, have nuclear weapons." So there's nothing new in mentioning this long-assumed "open secret."

More controversially, Martin wrote that "Ironically, the universal assumption that Israel possesses nuclear weapons may have contributed to Iran's desire to also possess the bomb." The phrase "may have contributed" has its own ambiguity, as it leaves open the possibility that it may not have contributed.

In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons was motivated by factors unconnected to Israel's program – namely, Tehran's pursuit of regional hegemony (which is as much a threat to the Sunni-dominated Arab states as it is to Israel, a country Iran has repeatedly threatened to destroy).

The prospect that Iran could soon develop nuclear weapons and place nuclear material in the hands of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah is what keeps people, including many Arabs, awake at night.

U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel last week was met with controversy when Israel’s Interior Ministry announced plans for 1,600 new homes in east Jerusalem, prompting Biden and the U.S. administration in Washington to strongly criticize the announcement.  The controversy arose just as Israel and the Palestinian Authority were set to resume indirect peace talks.

Headlines in Canadian  media on March 10 were almost uniform: “Biden condemns Israel over new homes” (National Post); “Biden condemns Israel’s latest settlement plan” (Ottawa Citizen); “Biden condemns Israeli settlement expansion move” (Edmonton Journal); “U.S. hits Israeli east Jerusalem plan” (Winnipeg Free Press); “Biden slams new Israeli settlements” (Toronto Sun).

The Toronto Star carried two reports by Olivia Ward. Her lead story, “Middle East talks stumble,” dealt with Biden’s reaction to the housing issue.  Ward’s second story, “Washington ‘committed’ to ensuring Israel secure,” described the main thrust of Biden’s visit – to assure Israeli leaders that the United States will do everything necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and, thereby, also to  convince Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Globe and Mail was alone in placing Biden’s comments on Iran front and centre.  In Paul Koring’s story, “Biden aims harsh words at Iran on visit to Israel,” he confined Biden’s reaction to the housing announcement to the latter part of the report.

In Israel, media analysis and comment was harshly critical of the Interior Ministry’s move, especially its timing while Biden had just begun his visit and, as some commentators noted, was blindsided.

The March 10 Jerusalem Post editorial “Dysfunctional government” called the Interior Ministry’s announcement “a staggering example of diplomatic obtuseness” and added that “the timing of the announcement immediately threatened the ‘proximity talks’ in which Netanyahu has stressed Israel has a profound interest. It united the Palestinians, the Arab world and much of the international community in a chorus of anti-Israel condemnation.”

In his Ha’aretz column “Broken glass,”  Ari Shavit wrote that “The [Iranian] threat against Israel is unprecedented. Our need for the United States is unprecedented. At this critical juncture, any national interest should be subservient to the supreme interest of strengthening this alliance.”

In “Visiting Biden slams E. J’lem housing plan” (March 10) Ha’aretz reporters noted that Netanyahu told Biden  that he did not know in advance about the decision to authorize the additional construction.

They added: “Netanyahu also told Biden that the planning and building councils are not under the government’s direct authority, and that his administration tries not to interfere with their work. ‘No one was seeking to embarrass you or undermine your visit,’ the prime minister reportedly said. ‘On the contrary – you are a true friend to Israel.’

“Nevertheless, a high-ranking official in Jerusalem said, Netanyahu has ‘no problem’ with construction in Jerusalem and has no intention of apologizing for building there.”

On March 10,  CBC News Network’s News Now host Carole MacNeil interviewed Mark Regev, Netanyahu’s spokeperson.

MacNeil: “Is your prime minister embarrassed that he didn’t know about this [housing announcement]“?

Regev:  “Well let’s say it wasn’t our finest hour.  But anyone who works in a democratic system [knows that] only in totalitarian countries does the central government control every aspect of society.  When you have local governments, when you have different ministries, these things are bound to happen.  Obviously you want to try to keep it to a minimum…The most important thing is that…we want to move forward in the peace process, we want to deal with the issue of Iran to make sure they don’t go nuclear – there’s a whole series of issues where Israel and the United States – and also Canada – are working together to try to deal with these challenges.”

This column recently argued that housing and settlements, though an important final status issue, are not “the” key impediment to progress as much of the world claims, and that other more critical final status subjects need to be examined.

However, with incidents like the controversy described above, “settlements” is all the international community is likely to remain fixated on in the foreseeable future.

I would like to provide some insights into the recent developments in Israel-US relations.  It is important to flag some key points for understanding the current situation.

Last week, during the visit to Jerusalem of US Vice President Biden, Israel’s interior ministry announced the approval of 1600 new housing units of the city’s Ramat Shlomo neighbourhood.  The timing of the announcement was an obvious error.  Prime Minister Netanyahu has been forthright and unequivocal in apologizing to Vice President Biden for the inappropriate circumstances surrounding the announcement.

The American reaction has been inappropriately harsh, given that the substance of the announcement did not violate the US-Israel understanding on settlement building. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s formulation of a 10-month settlement freeze in the West Bank, which excludes the Jerusalem municipality, was endorsed by the American administration and hailed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as an “unprecedented” step. The Ramat Shlomo neighbourhood straddles the Green Line and reflects the Israeli consensus that Jerusalem is a united city; it is not a settlement in the middle of the West Bank.

It is particularly distressing that a disagreement of this nature would distract the United States from confronting the urgent threat of Iranian nuclear proliferation. The harsh tone of the American reaction undermines Israel’s security and emboldens its enemies, leading them to believe that the strategic relationship between Israel and the US is significantly weakened.

Further, the intense focus on Israel ignores completely the Palestinian Authority’s glorification of terrorists (naming a square after a terrorist responsible for killing 37 civilians in a single operation) and incitement to violence,  particularly as it relates to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Putting all the onus on Israel is counterproductive and only serves to encourage these actions. In the coming days, as diplomatic tempers calm, there is hope that all parties, Israel, the Palestinians, and the United States as mediator, will rededicate themselves to a process leading to meaningful resolution of the conflict.

* * *

For further information and analysis please click here to read the Ha’aretz Middle East Security Survey, and here to read a more detailed report by Robert Satloff from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Vice President Biden, Joe, welcome to Israel and welcome to Jerusalem.  We’ve been personal friends for almost three decades.  Can you believe it’s been that long?

Vice President Biden: No, you’re getting older, Bibi.  I don’t know…

Prime Minister Netanyahu: And you remain younger all the time.  And in all that time you’ve been a real friend to me and a real friend to Israel and to the Jewish people and you’ve come to Israel many times since you came here first on the eve of the Yom Kippur War.  But now you’re coming as the Vice President of the United States of America and this is deeply appreciated and for me deeply moving.

President Obama has said in Cairo and he’s repeated this many times since that the bonds between Israel and the United States are unbreakable and he has shown that, in the last year in things that are known to the public and in some things that are not known to the public: in pursuing for example the joint military exercises for military defense between the Israeli Army and the American military, in securing Israel’s qualitative military edge, and in many other activities along the world scene including the battle against the infamous Goldstone report.  I think that the bonds exactly as President Obama has said, the bonds are unbreakable.  And your visit demonstrates how strong they are.  I think this unbreakable bond will help our two countries meet the two historic challenges that we face today in the Middle East.

The first and foremost among them is the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and the second is the need to advance a secure peace between Israel and our Palestinian and other Arab neighbors.  I very much appreciate the efforts of President Obama and the American Government to lead the international community to place top sanctions on Iran.  The stronger those sanctions are, the more likely will be that the Iranian regime will have to choose between advancing its nuclear program and advancing the future of its own permanence.  I think that the international community and the leading countries of the international community have to join the American effort and Israel has been helping out with key countries and will continue to do so.

I also appreciate the Administration’s effort to advance peace in the region.  I know that this has been difficult and has required a great deal of patience, but I’m pleased that these efforts are beginning to bear fruit and we have to be persistent and purposeful in making sure that we get to those direct negotiations that will enable us to resolve this conflict.

I look forward to working with President Obama, and with you and your entire Administration to forge an historic peace agreement in which the permanence and legitimacy of the Jewish State of Israel is recognized by our Palestinian neighbors and in which Israel’s security is guaranteed for generations to come.

Again, Vice President, my friend Joe, it’s a pleasure to welcome you to Jerusalem.  Welcome.

Vice President Biden: Thank you very much.  Mr. Prime Minister, it’s a pleasure to be back.  It’s been too long between visits here and it is true that you and I have been friends a long, long time and a matter of fact, when each of us were in the minority, occasionally I’d get a phone call at home and I’d call you as well to get a sense of what’s going on.  Our friendship is real, but what’s even deeper is the relationship between the United States and Israel.

Mr. Prime Minister, I’m sure you’d agree, we had a very productive discussion spanning a wide range of issues that affect both our nations.  The relationship between Israel and the United States has been and will continue to be a centerpiece – a centerpiece of American policy and it’s been that way since Israel’s founding in 1948.  And quite frankly, it was a major focus of my work for all those years as a United States Senator and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.  Our two countries are bound by historic and cultural ties and so many shared interests that it would take too long to enumerate and also by a wide range of deep seated personal relationships and friendships that span the time even before 1948.

Our ties have been strengthened by our deep cooperation in many fields including science and economic development and a range of other policy areas as well, but the cornerstone of the relationship is our absolute total unvarnished commitment to Israel’s security.  Bibi, you heard me say before, progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there’s simply no space between the United States and Israel.  There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security and for that reason and many others addressing Iran’s nuclear program has been one of our Administration’s priorities.  We’re determined.  We’re determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and we’re working with many countries around the world to convince Teheran to meet its international obligations and cease and desist.   Iran must also curb its other destabilizing actions in the region, well beyond their desire to acquire nuclear weapons and that is their continued support for terrorist groups that threaten Israel and I might add our interest as well.

President Obama and I strongly believe that the best long-term guarantee for Israel’s security is a comprehensive Middle East peace with the Palestinians, with the Syrians, with Lebanon, and leading eventually to full and normalized relationships with the entire Arab world.  It’s overwhelming in the interest of Israel, but it’s also overwhelming interest to the Arab world and it’s in our interest as well.

And so Mr. Prime Minister, toward that end, I’m very pleased that you and the Palestinian leadership have agreed to launch indirect talks.  We hope that these talks will lead and they must lead eventually to negotiations and direct discussions between the parties.  The goal is obviously to resolve the final status issues to achieve a two-state solution with Israel and a Palestine living side by side in peace and security. An historic peace is going to require both parties to make some historically bold commitments.  You have done it before and I’m confident for real peace you would do it again.  Over the last year, Mr. Prime Minister, you have taken significant steps, including the moratorium that has limited new settlement construction activity and you have significantly increased freedom of movement across the West Bank.

Palestinian leaders are beginning to make progress on their determined willingness to – especially their efforts to reform their institutions of government and with their security force – their security forces becoming much more reliable.  It’s easy to point fingers particularly in this part of the world at what each side has not done.  But it’s also important to give credit where things have been done in order to be able to move forward.

Mr. Prime Minister, the United States will always stand with those who take risks for peace and you’re prepared to do that and I am hopeful and I’ll be having discussions with Palestinian leaders.  It is my hope and expectation that they will be prepared as well.  The proximity talks are just that, a start.  They are not designed to finish the process and so Mr. Prime Minister I thank you for all the time you’ve given me and it’s just quite frankly good to be back in your company and see you again.

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Thank you.  Thank you Joe.  I have one thing to offer you right now and it’s broken glass, so what I’m going to do is I’m going to sign but I need a pen.

Now, this is a significant piece of paper.  I will say that agreements are dependent on the arrangements not on paper, but on the ground.  Here’s a piece of paper that reflects an arrangement on the ground.  We have planted a circle of trees in Jerusalem in memory of your mother; Catherine Eugenia Finnegan Biden because you have said many times that she was a source of immeasurable strength which I recognize in you, Joe.  We planted a tree to serve as a tribute, a circle of trees next to the leaders of the nations.  We have a forest of the leaders of the nations and right next to it are the trees that we have planted in memory of your mother as a tribute to her immeasurable strength and I want to offer it to you on your visit to Israel.

Vice President Biden: Well, thank you very much.  If you don’t mind my saying Mr. Prime Minister, my love for your country was watered by this Irish lady who was proudest of me when I was working with and for the security of Israel, so it’s a great honor.  Thank you very much.

Two recent newspaper pieces – one in Canada and one in Lebanon – made the same argument: that U.S. President Barack Obama has failed to develop a cohesive, effective policy for the Middle East.

In “Obama’s Mideast Vision: Confusion” (Daily Star, Aug. 27) Michael Young, the opinion page editor and columnist for the Beirut-based English-language Daily Star, wrote that Obama’s efforts to make America better liked in the Mideast will only serve to make its adversaries more inflexible. “That explains the upsurge of bombings in Iraq lately, and it explains why the Taliban feel no need to surrender anything in Afghanistan.”

Young wrote: “Engagement of Iran and Syria has also come up short, though a breakthrough remains possible. However, there was always something counterintuitive in lowering the pressure on Iran in the hope that this would generate progress in finding a solution to its nuclear program.

“By placing most of his chips on engagement, the president has failed to develop a more multifaceted strategy while relinquishing other forms of coercion that could have been effective in Washington’s bargaining with the Islamic Republic.”

Obama’s efforts to engage Syria in an attempt to move it away from Iran shows no sign of succeeding. On the contrary, Syria “has facilitated suicide attacks in Iraq and encouraged Hamas’ intransigence in inter-Palestinian negotiations in Cairo.”

While Young agrees with Obama’s opposition to Israeli settlement growth, he faults the president for placing too much emphasis on it: “Obama is exerting considerable political capital to confront Israel, but it may be capital wasted at a moment when Hamas [backed by Iran and Syria] can still veto any breakthrough from the Palestinian side. In other words, Washington is working on a narrow front whereas its failure to weaken Hamas may render the whole enterprise meaningless.”

Young concluded: “The president is being tied up every which way by his foes, who can plainly see that the Obama vision is an unsystematic one.” The result, Young claims, is that the U.S. is marginilizing itself.

In “Obama’s Mideast fumbles disappoint Israel, Arabs” (Winnipeg Free Press, Sept. 1), Mideast correspondent Samuel Segev concurred with Young that “Obama’s shotgun approach to the region and his determination to reverse – at any cost – all of former president George W. Bush’s policies without a cohesive alternative strategy, have disappointed many of his supporters in the region.”

On an emboldened Iran, Segev wrote: “As far as Israel and the moderate Arab countries are concerned, however, there is no more important issue than the need to contain Iran. It’s not just Iran’s hegemonial ambitions and the nuclear threat to Israel, but also the Iranian support to seditious Sunni groups in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gaza Strip, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. All these countries feel that Obama’s constant signals that the U.S. is eager to leave and go home have created a vacuum that Iran is ready to fill.”

Segev also addressed the issue of Iran’s determination to develop nuclear weapons. He argued that a recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s nuclear program provided indirect confirmation of this aim. This report, Segev wrote, revealed that “Iran is still refusing to turn over important documents related to its military nuclear program. It concluded that if Iran’s current stockpile of low-enriched uranium was further purified, Iran could have close to enough for two warheads.”

The Globe and Mail is a staunch defender of freedom of speech. But its editorial “Don’t blame Sweden” (Sept. 1) failed to understand the seriousness of the anti-Semitic “blood libel” conveyed in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, which alleged that Israeli soldiers have engaged in organ theft from dead Palestinians.

The Globe said that Sweden, like any democratic government, is not “accountable for what is published in free societies.” While noting that the piece was shoddy journalism, the Globe nonetheless argued that “not every piece of bad journalism is the blood libel.” It failed to understand that the Aftonbladet article was not a “slight and marginal piece,” but rather that it reveals the growing tolerance in mainstream European media for the most hideous depictions of Israel and Jews. It’s this legitimization of the illegitimate that should elicit the Globe’s condemnation.

Back to Reality
Is there actually reason to be excited about the upcoming Israeli-Palestinian peace talks?
By Shmuel Rosner, Aug. 31, 2009

President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are reportedly planning to meet next month on the sidelines of a UN conference in New York. An international Arab-Israeli peace summit might follow, which Israeli diplomats have already nicknamed “Obamapolis” after the most recent failed attempt to re-launch negotiations, the Annapolis Summit. The disappointment and skepticism felt by most observers is not unreasonable; in what has become almost an annual ritual, peace talks are “relaunched” with much fanfare and enthusiasm, only to yield little in the way of substantive progress.

On the most basic level, this September meeting is indeed an “important step” for the peace process. If there’s no talking, there can be no progress. And even though real progress toward the coveted “final status agreement” seems unlikely – both American and Israeli officials understand that differences in position between the two sides are probably too wide to bridge at this point in time – talks can still be valuable, at least for reducing tensions and avoiding misunderstandings.

But perhaps more importantly, the agreement of all sides to meet signals an end to the antagonism and bluster that have characterized U.S.-Israel relations since the beginning of Obama’s term. Netanyahu has essentially agreed to some form of a of settlement freeze. Obama’s peace envoy, George Mitchell, has accepted the de-facto reality under which Jerusalem can’t be part of any freeze agreement. (The Americans seem satisfied with these quiet “understandings” regarding Jerusalem.) And Abbas has accepted the invitation to New York, even though he insisted just days ago that no negotiations would take place until there was “a halt to all forms of settlement activity without exception in Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories.” On Wednesday, his spokespeople tried to justify the New York “meeting” as somehow different from “negotiations,” insisting that there had been no change of heart on the part of the Palestinian leader. Netanyahu, though, was quick to seize the moment and commend Abbas on this move, saying, “I have said that we must convene and sit down without any preconditions. This is the simplest and most convenient thing for resuming the process.” No one is actually worried that, when the time comes and Abbas is called for talks, he will actually refuse to attend.

And while Abbas will be talking, his second in command will be doing the more important work. Earlier this week, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad announced his intention to “establish a de facto state apparatus within the next two years.” On the face of it, his plan sounds quite detached from reality, eliciting guffaws from Israeli politicians such as Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, who said that “[t]here is no place for unilateral actions.” The plan ignores “a central component of the framework in which Fayyad himself is permitted to function, and from which he derives his own authority,” warned Alan Baker, a former legal adviser to Israel’s foreign ministry.

However, other Israeli officials with whom I spoke were less apprehensive about Fayyad’s announcement. His general approach, they said, should be supported, as Fayyad is the one Palestinian leader who understands that Palestinian efforts are necessary before the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. That approach has been key in making Fayyad the darling of American officials in recent years, focusing on building infrastructure and governance rather than on resistance and intransigence. It also makes him the most valuable partner in Lieutenant General Keith Dayton’s efforts to help the Palestinian Authority establish a reliable security force.

Dayton’s process shows many signs of success, but it is also a momentum-based scheme. Reform of Palestinian forces and other institutions will only continue if they are building toward something – real improvement in Palestinian lives, and, ideally, from a Palestinian point of view, the establishment of a state. Hence, Fayyad felt it was necessary to lay out the goal toward which he’s working. He has always downplayed (though not publicly) the importance of symbolic battles against “settlements” and “occupation,” understanding that these are more likely to be resolved with the establishment of credible Palestinian governance.

Thus, despite the cynicism and low expectations greeting the announcement of new peace talks, this week’s news seems to signify a positive development: that the moment of unrealistic dreams – a total freeze, final agreements, and prompt establishment of a Palestinian state – has passed. Based on the details of the understanding reached by Netanyahu and Mitchell, it seems that we’re finally returning to the better approach of gradual progress, rather than attempting to achieve too much in one decisive stroke. And if that is the outcome of many months of U.S.-Israeli bickering and tension – the outcome of a period in which all parties have learned the limitations and tested the red lines of the others – it was worth it.

Listen to the Michael Oren interview on NPR (MP3 format; 14 minutes)

Just a few weeks after his appointment, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, gave his first television interview on the CNN current events show GPS, hosted by Fareed Zakaria.

In a wide-ranging discussion, Oren talked about the threat of a nuclear Iran – including his opinion that Israel would not attack Iran by year end – as well as Israel’s conditions for Palestinian statehood;  therelationship between the Obama administration, and much more.

You can watch the entire interview below (it goes until about 21 minutes) and read a transcript here »