Jerusalem: Obama the Pragmatist Puts A Challenge to Israel

Related Post: After the Obama Speech - Hamas Asks, “Is He Ready to Walk the Way He Talks?”
Related Post: After the Obama Speech: Israel Re-Positions on Settlements, Two-State Solution

On Friday, the Obama Administration announced that it was delaying the decision on moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem for another six months.

The decision is significant in two ways. First, it separates Obama the President from Obama the Presidential candidate. Last spring, when he was still not quite the Democratic nominee for President, Obama declared to the conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Second, the delay is a gesture of goodwill to Arab states, hoping that they in return will make some symbolic step of reconciliation with Israel. Leaders of these states would prefer a longer-term US suspension of the move to Jerusalem but will weclome this as an initial signal from Washington in the start-up of the peace process.

With this decision, Obama the "pragmatist" has again come to the fore, rebuffing the declaration of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on 21 May that “Jerusalem would be the capital of Israel forever”. On the same day, Obama outlined this pragmatism in an  interview with C-SPAN:

SCULLY: Your Senior Advisor David Axelrod describes you as a pragmatist, what does that mean?

OBAMA: Well, I think what it means is that I don’t approach problems by asking myself, is this a conservative – is there a conservative approach to this or a liberal approach to this, is there a Democratic or Republican approach to this. I come at it and say, what’s the way to solve the problem, what’s the way to achieve an outcome where the American people have jobs or their health care quality has improved or our schools are producing well educated workforce of the 21st century.

And I am willing to tinker and borrow and steal ideas from just about anybody if I think they might work. And we try to base most of our decisions on what are the facts, what kind of evidence is out there, have programs or policies been thought through.

I spend a lot of time sitting with my advisors and just going through a range of options. And if they are only bringing me options that have been dusted off the shelf, that are the usual stale ideas, then a lot of times I ask them, well, what do our critics say, do they have ideas that maybe we haven’t thought of.

Now that issue of pragmatism crosses to Israel. Given the Friday decision and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's guarantee that East Jerusalem would be the capital of the Palestinian state, how does Netanyahu --- facing a difficult position in his Cabinet and with Israeli public opinion --- respond?

Comments

[UJ]

It's fascinating that the debate has entered the level of "Will the US topple the Israeli government?" I absolutely don't approve of the tactic* on the principle of non-interference with other countries' internal affairs, but Obama did promise change. We've certainly moved a million miles from the Bush Administration's "free hand."

It begs the question, can the US ever actually accomplish anything without doing something illegal or at the very least unscrupulous? What's up with that?

*I prefer the tactics that the US uses against North Korea, that is multilateral negotiations balanced with sanctions/blockades and terrorist organization/fundraising designation (Settler paramilitaries)

[Ali Yenidunya]

Actually this world system is not based on pure positive principles as they have already been written on the UN Charter. Yes, unfortunatelly, it is a realist-paradigm-constructed realm urging its actors to pursue their 'national interests' through a zero-sum game perspective. Again, unfortunatelly, there is no way to pursue hegemonic interests with merely carrots. Promise may require those tactics you mentioned. However, in that case, the question comes: Until when? Until when human beings are going to suffer under this illusion?

Today, there is no point left to advocate those'national interests' in the name of 'non-intereference.' Obama promised change. He has not shown the stick but when he does, I have doubts the way he will chose will be strong enough - even he personally wants to change the flow of the river- to shake the current institutions through legal actions.

[Dave]

*I prefer the tactics that the US uses against North Korea, that is multilateral negotiations balanced with sanctions/blockades and terrorist organization/fundraising designation (Settler paramilitaries)
***********

But hasn't worked on the Korean peninsula. It's a very different dynamic there. 50+ years of American intimidation and other confrontational behavior that has undermined the effectiveness of the Armistice takes the wind right out of those sails. Multi-party negotiations fall short in the Middle East as well. It becomes a set of post office boxes. And sanctions usually hurt the people more than the regime.

[UJ]

Dave,

I do have to point out that my position on this is based on principle rather than dictated by events, but even still, you make some good points, some of which I can defend.

1. "But hasn’t worked on the Korean peninsula. It’s a very different dynamic there."

I'd restate this as "hasn't worked on the Korean peninsula...YET." I'd go with your line of blaming the dynamic, but in Korea I believe the major problem is Seoul's obstructionism, not the North's belligerence or American intimidation (paralleled to Israel's obstruction problem, not the Palestinian's resistance movements or America's interference)

2. "Multi-party negotiations fall short in the Middle East as well. It becomes a set of post office boxes."

The Saudis in tandem with the Arab League have had a very reasonable offer on the table with Israel for decades. American backbone could lend this offer the legitimacy it deserves. (And yes, I get the accidental racism in saying the Arab plan isn't legitimate until we say so, it's totally unintentional)

3. "And sanctions usually hurt the people more than the regime."

Yeah, I got nothing on this. I guess I could say it's slightly better than slaughtering them with bombs and missiles, but it's still the uncomfortable position of choosing starvation over execution. Earth is ugly sometimes.