An Alliance of Interests? Russia and Israel in Obama's New World

As the advent of the Obama Administration brings back the "multipolar" in international relations, some of its most enthusiastic backers are in Moscow. During the Bush years, President Vladimir Putin publicly criticized Washington's unilateralism. Sometimes the challenge was rhetorical to the "new bombs" of the US. Sometimes it was much more:  when the Bush Administration tried to isolate Russia from NATO’s "impact zone" in Eastern Europe by proposing a missile umbrella in the Czech Republic and Poland, Putin raised the threat of a nuclear attack if Poland accepted a US missile interceptor base on its soil.

The intensity of attention to the "change" in Barack Obama’s rhetoric, especially toward the Israeli-Palestine/Arab problem, has contributed to this transformation. While Washington disowns the policies of the Bush era and puts pressure on Israel for sufficient concessions to start negotiations with Arab states, France has opened its first military base in the gulf region since the 1960s. And Russia becomes one of the first beneficiaries of the "soft power" of the US.

After Russia agreed last year not to sell S-300 missiles to Iran in 2008 and halted the sale of advanced MIG-31 fighter jets to Syria last month, Israel expedited the production of unmanned aerial vehicles to Russia. This was more than a bit of military equipment: as Israel manoeuvres agianst the Arab Peace Initiative, Tel Aviv is seeking a new relationship with Moscow. The Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman, visited with President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin and declared that he would expand and deepen the strategic ties between two countries, albeit without any intention of replacing the US. "We are expanding in additional directions, including Russia, South America, central Asia and India, but our ties to America come first," asserted a senior official in Lieberman's office.

So the Netanyahu Administration is trying to use Kremlin as leverage against the pressure of the Obama Administration, using Russia's manoeuvring vis-a-vis the US to its advantage. Still, Israeli officials might want to remember that the multipolar works in more than one direction: Moscow has just welcomed Palestinian Authority representatives as part of its interest in a Middle Eastern peace process. If Russia finds common ground with Washington on issues from Eastern Europe to the Caucasus to Central Asia, will Tel Aviv again find itself isolated in this Very New World?

Meanwhile, the Saudi Arabian (and US?) Proposal: Cut Aid to Israel

Perhaps the great unnoticed paradox of Barack Obama's Middle Eastern trip came before his Cairo speech, when he stopped in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia has kept a low public profile over the post-Inauguration discussions on Israel and Palestine, yet here was the US President making it clear that the Saudi rulers still have a major part in the ongoing drama.

Even more intriguing, however, was the little-noticed aftermath.

One of the major strands for talks, the Arab Peace Initiative referred to by Obama in his Cairo speech, stems from proposals put forth by the Saudis in 2002. Riyadh's post-Cairo intervention, however, did not refer to this platform. Instead, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal proposed a more immediate plan: the US should use economic and military assistance. as leverage to get Israeli concessions. He explained, "If you give aid to someone and they indiscriminately occupy other people's lands, you bear some responsibility."

The Saudi message is simple: if there is to be a grand plan, there has to be a preamble with an Israeli concession. And to get that concession, it's a case of diplomacy walks, money talks.

In late February, Israeli officials were concerned that there could be a cut in US military aid to Israel, which had been set out in a 2007 Memorandum of Understanding promising that Israel would receive $30 billion over 10 years. In the second week of March, Washington assured the Israelis that there was no plan to reduce military assistance.

However, with the emergence of the Israeli settlements as a touchstone issue --- if there is to be an Israeli-Palestinian process, there has to be a freeze and possibly a partial rollback --- aid-as-pressure returns to the foreground. There are some signals such as the report on Israel Radio that “officials in Jerusalem [have] assessed that Israel will eventually have no other option but to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state”. However, the prospect remains that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, from personal conviction or the political opposition within his Cabinet, will not shift significantly.

So what does the US do then? Less than a week after President Obama stopped by to see King Abdullah and Prince Saud, let's put it another way:

While Obama puts the Grand Plan A, is Saudi Arabia publicly proposing Washington's private, less-grand, but just-as-necessary Plan B against its Israeli ally?

if Netanyahu cannot convince its cabinet members and faces with strong opposition? Do you think that the Obama Administration can take Prince’s proposal serious and consider the threat of cutting aid to Israel as a leverage in face of the institutions of strong alliance between two countries constructed since 1967?

Palestine: Is Hamas Digging Away Its Political Ground?

The diplomatic fencing since President Obama's Cairo speech has been mainly between the US and Israel over the issues of Israeli settlements and a two-state solution. This is far from the only development, however.

While Washington and Tel Aviv manoeuvre, another often-violent intra-Palestinian dance is going on between Hamas and Fatah. Indeed, that conflict is so intense that one might ask if Hamas is undermining its international legimitacy and giving extra time to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he positions himself towards and against Palestine.

In Cairo, Obama said:

Violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.”

While Hamas gave a cautious welcome to engagement with the US, tension escalated in the West Bank and Gaza. A Damascus-based Hamas spokesman Talal Nasser called on Palestinians to fight the Palestinian Authority as though they were fighting the Israeli occupation. Moreover, Hamas security forces abducted several Fatah leaders and loyalists in the Gaza Strip overnight and killed one.

This was not just a one-sided shift, as Fatah has been upping the pressure on Hamas in the West Bank. Several members of Hamas' military wing, including two prominent leaders, were killed in fire-fights with Palestinian Authority forces in the last week. Yet Hamas's role in escalation of tension risks being seen as more emotional rather than rational, dragging its policy towards a dead end. The organisation can be portrayed as "extremist", rationalising a decision to exclude it from the peace process.

And so Israel's need for some political breathing space, perhaps ironically, is met not in Washington but in the streets of Palestine.

Video and Transcript: Hillary Clinton on "This Week" (7 June)

This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the US political chat show, has just posted its interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, conducted in Cairo during President Obama's tour. It's little more than a puff piece, with Stephanopoulos (who served as an aide to President Bill Clinton) lobbing up questions such as, "The President has a very high-powered team: Vice President Biden, National Security Advisor Jones, Secretary of Defense Gates. You've got envoys for Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea. How do you fit in?" (Surprisingly, Clinton's answer was not, "I make the coffee.")

Stephanopoulos did toughen up a bit in subsequent questions. Clinton repeated Obama's Cairo aspirations on the Israel-Palestine issue, holding the US line against an expansion of Israeli settlements. She maintained the general balance of "engagement" vs. "no nukes" on Iran, and she put out the rhetorical threat, in light of North Korea's recent nuclear and missile testing, that the US might return Pyongyang to its list of states sponsoring terror.

Still, the fact that the best headline that This Week could cobble together was "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Obama Has Passed '3 A.M. Test'" (rather than saying, for example, "My campaign charge was right: the President is a callow youth who wets his pants at the first sign of crisis) is testimony to the light weight of this interview.

Watch the interview  (in two parts) ....

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: Madam Secretary, thanks very much for doing this.

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: I'm glad to see you, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, we were just talking about Cairo, did you ever imagine you'd be here as secretary of state?

CLINTON: Never. (LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: Never crossed my mind. And what an extraordinary honor to be here, especially for this speech today.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The president has a very high-powered team, Vice President Biden, General Jones, Secretary Gates. You've got envoys for Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea. How do you fit in?

(LAUGHTER) CLINTON: Well, I…

STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your role, exactly?

CLINTON: Well, my role is as the chief diplomat for the United States of America. And, you know, when I agreed to do this job, I made it very clear to the president that I would be able to run the State Department and USAID, and that we would have to forge a team that I think we've done very well. And that I wanted special envoys, because we were inheriting so many hotspot problems that I knew you could never have one person possibly address all of that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It also gives you the ability to get out of the crisis management and carve out areas where you're really going to take initiative. What are those?

CLINTON: Well, I'm having to do both. I mean, I spend a lot of my time on the problems that you would imagine, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Middle East, Iran. But I'm also working to create a strategic set of priorities that will guide our efforts.

So for example, there are specific regional and country-based endeavors that we are teeing up. We are going to work really hard on our relationships with, for example, Indonesia and Turkey and India.

We have a strategic and economic dialogue that will start the last week in July with China that Secretary Geithner and I are going to co-lead. I mean, we… (CROSSTALK) STEPHANOPOULOS: Plenty of work to go around.

CLINTON: There is plenty of work to go around. But then there are transnational problems. I mean, the president asked me to lead the effort on food security. The president also wants us to focus on Haiti. And ironically the United Nations…

STEPHANOPOULOS: The -- you know, President Clinton…

CLINTON: … secretary-general asked Bill to be the special envoy. So we're really going to have a united effort by our government and by the international community. Those are just some of the, you know, very specific and more general challenges that we are taking on and managing.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You're also developing a reputation for blunt talk as secretary. You talked about Pakistan abdicating its responsibilities, about the idea that we get into negotiation with North Korea is implausible. And especially on this issue of settlements with Israel, you were very strong last week, so was the president. And I don't know if you've seen the headlines in Israel, headlines talking about the American threat. Publicly the prime minister is saying that this is just unreasonable, these demands from the United States. And privately he was reported to have said, and this is a quote: "What the hell do they want from me?"

CLINTON: Well, George, I think it's very clear, as you heard in the speech from the president here in Cairo, that he wants to focus from the very beginning of his term in office on doing everything he can to try to bring the Israelis and the Palestinians together. We were very close in 2000. And it's heartbreaking to see where we are today. And we can't just stand by and expect time to work its magic. So that means, as the president said in his speech, and as he has said on several other occasions prior to it, that we have to do our very best to reassure Israel, to demonstrate our commitment to Israel's security, that the bonds we have are unshakeable and durable. But we do have a view about Israel's security. We see historical, demographic, political, technological trends that are very troubling as to Israel's future. At the same time, there is a legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people that needs to be addressed.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Not only Elliot Abrams? You wrote about that.

CLINTON: Nobody in a position of authority at the time that the Obama administration came into office said anything about it. And in fact, there is also a record that President Bush contradicted even that oral agreement.

But, the fact is that the road map which was agreed to officially, adopted by the Israeli government said something very clear about settlements.

So, I think that what the president is doing is saying, look, everybody should comply with the obligations you've already committed to. And for the Palestinians, let's not forget. They must end incitement against Israel. They must demonstrate an ability to provide security.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what I wanted to ask you about. Abbas was in Washington, last week, He had an interview in the "Washington Post" where he sure seemed to suggest that he doesn't have to do anything right now.

CLINTON: Well, I think you're seeing public positions taken, which is understandable in a process like this. But, we've made it very clear to President Abbas, what we expect from him, as well.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about Iran? You reported in the papers back in March, when you met with the Foreign Minister of the UAE that you were skeptical of the possibility that diplomacy would work to stall or stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. Are you still that doubtful?

CLINTON: Well, I am someone who's going to wait and see. I mean, I want to see what the president's engagement will bring. We have a team of people who we have tasked to work on this. I think there's an enormous amount of potential for change if the Iranians are willing to pursue that --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, what do you think they want deep down? You know, you read some of their public declarations by their supreme leader and others saying that they consider nuclear weapons un-Islamic. Yet, they continue to pursue the nuclear program.

CLINTON: But George, one of the values of engagement is we need to have better information, and maybe about each other. Not just about a one-way street of information. The idea that we could have a diplomatic process with Iran means that for the first time, we would actually be sitting at a table across from Iranians authorized by the supreme leader to talk with us about a whole range of issues. That gives us information and insight that we don't have. Of course there's a contradiction because we don't have any really clear sense as to what it is they are seeking.

Now, one of the things that you heard the president say is, you know, we understand the legitimate right of nations to have access to peaceful, nuclear energy. If that is at the core of what they want, there are ways of accommodating that do not lead to a nuclear weapon. But, we have to test that and we have to be willing to sit and listen and evaluate without giving up what we view as a primary objective of the engagement, which is to do everything we can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your own envoy Dennis Ross has said one way to strengthen the position the United States going into these negotiations is to make it very clear that if Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel or any U.S. ally, that would be met as an attack on the United States -- full response. Now, that was your position during the campaign, as well.

Is it U.S. policy now?

CLINTON: I think it is U.S. policy to the extent that we have alliances and understandings with a number of nations. They may not be formal as it is with NATO, but, I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: By the United States?

CLINTON: Well, I think there would be retaliation. And I think part of what is clear is we want to avoid a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries in the Middle East. And we want to make clear that there are consequences and costs. Now, let me just put it this way. If Iran is seeking security, if they believe -- and you know, you have to put yourself into the shoes of the other party when you negotiate -- if they believe that the United States might attack them the way that we did attack Iraq, for example --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Before they attack, as a first strike.

CLINTON: That's right, as a first strike. Or, they might have some other enemies that would do that to them. Part of what we have to make clear to the Iranians is that their pursuit of nuclear weapons will actually trigger greater insecurity because right now, many of the nations in the neighborhood, as you know very well --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Because Israel will strike before they can finish.

CLINTON: Well, but not only that. I mean, other countries -- other Arab countries are deeply concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons. So, does Iran want to face a battery of nuclear weapons countries -- (CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Can you get those other Arab nations to say that publically? That was part of the president's theme today.

CLINTON: Well, you know, we've been there a little over four months. And clearly a lot of what we're doing is teeing up our framework for decision making. We are aggressively pursuing diplomacy, not as an end in itself, but as a means to try to resolve some of these outstanding and very difficult problems. We are trying to make clear that the United States is of course going to pursue our interests in values. But, frankly, we believe there are ways that we can make them consonant with the issues and values that are important to others, as well.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, when I saw President Ahmadinejad last month, he said the U.S. wasn't really walking the block here and he cited the idea that President Obama never responded to his initial letter of congratulations. Why not?

CLINTON: Well, I think that President Obama has made very clear that he is going to put forth an open hand. But not as part of an electoral ploy or propaganda.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you have to let the elections play out.

CLINTON: I think just like in every country. There is a process that takes place during an election. That will be over soon. And then we're going to hope to get a positive process going.

STEPHANOPOULOS: With North Korea it seems like nothing has worked. Engagement doesn't work, isolation doesn't work. They keep on pursuing their nuclear ambitions. And the problem with North Korea is that they've tried to sell every single weapon they've ever made.

CLINTON: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, what does that mean? How do we stop them now and what happens if they try to sell nuclear material?

CLINTON: One of the positive developments, George, in the face of what has been very provocative and belligerent behavior by the North Koreans is that it has actually brought the members of -- six-party process -- Japan, South Korea, China, Russia, the United States, much closer together in how we view --

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that process isn't going anywhere, is there?

CLINTON: Well, but I think what is going somewhere is additional sanctions in the United Nations. Arms embargo, other measures taken against North Korea with the full support of China and Russia.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Including enforcing past resolutions which gives the U.N. the ability to board North Korean ships?

CLINTON: Well, we are working very hard to create a mechanism where we can interdict North Korean shipments. Obviously some countries -- not just the ones I named -- but others have some legitimate concerns about setting precedent and alike. But, we are working very hard. I've personally talked with all the foreign ministers. Some of them many more times than just a couple. We've been in very close communication. Obviously we're working closely with our team in New York. We think we're going to come out of this with a very strong resolution with teeth that will have consequences for the North Korean regime.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And what are the consequences if they try to ship nuclear material elsewhere?

CLINTON: We will do everything we can to both interdict it and prevent it and shut off their flow of money. If we do not take significant and effective action against the North Koreans now, we'll spark an arms race in Northeast Asia. I don't think anybody wants to see that. And so part of what we're doing is again, sharing with other countries our calculus of the risks and the dangers that would lie ahead if we don't take very strong action.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Several senators wrote the president a letter just the other day that North Korea should go back on list of the states who sponsor terrorism. Will you do that?

CLINTON: Well, we're going to look at it. There's a process for it. Obviously we would want to see recent evidence of their support for international terrorism.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have any?

CLINTON: Well, we're just beginning to look at it. I don't have an answer for you right now.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Because the senators say they never stopped with these actions.

CLINTON: Well, we -- you know, we take it very seriously. I mean, obviously they were taken off of the list for a purpose and that purpose is being thwarted by their actions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One other issue on North Korea. The trial has begun for the American journalists.

CLINTON: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And the families of the journalists have come out very clearly and said, the only way this is going to be solved is if the United States government gets involved directly. Have you been involved directly in any way?

CLINTON: I have been. I have been involved directly in working with our team as they have made approaches and requests for information through the channels we use with North Korea. The Swedish ambassador in Pyongyang is taking care of our interests there. He has visited both young women I think, now three times, if I'm not mistaken. I've met with the families. We have made it clear through statements, both public and private that we view this as a humanitarian issue --

STEPHANOPOULOS: We were told that you sent a letter saying that the girls didn't mean -- the women didn't mean to go into North Korea, and asking for their release.

CLINTON: I have taken every action that we thought would produce the result we're looking for. We think that the charges against these young women are absolutely without merit or foundation. We hope the trial ends quickly, it's resolved and they're sent home.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Have you gotten any hopeful signs back?

CLINTON: We have gotten some responses but we're not sure exactly who's going to be making this decision and what the reasons for the eventual decision are. So, we've been very careful in what we've said because clearly we don't want this pulled into the political issues that we have with North Korea, or the concerns that are being expressed in the United Nations Security Council. This is separate. It is a humanitarian issue and the girls should be let go.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's an interesting point: you don't know who is going to make this decision. Do you believe these reports that Kim Jong-il has tapped his youngest son as his successor?

CLINTON: We obviously are following this very closely. We don't yet know what the outcome of that decision… (CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: What would that mean?

CLINTON: We don't know. I mean, we would have to wait and evaluate it, the time of it, who might be essentially, you know, put in place to supervise him, if he were the choice. We have to evaluate all of that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: This week is also the anniversary of -- the 20th anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square. And you put out a very strong statement on that anniversary. Yet when you went to China earlier this year, you basically said the Chinese know what we think about human rights.

And I guess what I'm trying to get at is, how do you approach that issue? When do public statements make a difference? When should diplomacy be conducted privately? And who is your real audience with these statements?

CLINTON: You know, George, it's such a great question. And there is no one easy answer, because I think so much of it depends upon what our objectives are. We have made very clear time and time again our concerns about religious freedom in China, treatment of Tibet, Tibetan culture. So that is -- we're on the record with that. We've had these, you know, very strong statements that we've made historically, going back years, and so of course we want everyone to know that we still feel very strongly about it. But we also would like to see if there is some way we could actually chip away at Chinese resistance to providing some more, at least cultural and religious autonomy for Tibetans. So we -- it's a constant weighing process. You know, I think a lot of times the public statements can turn out to be counterproductive. They can harden positions. Yet at the same time, the public statements can hearten those who are the dissidents. So trying to keep that in balance so that we don't ever turn our backs on those who are struggling for the very rights that we believe in so strongly and that we think are universal rights, and yet looking for ways that we can actually get results, not just score debating points or, you know, have somebody say, good for you, you made a strong statement.

So what we're trying to do, and I think you hear it from what the president and I have been saying over the last four months is to really focus in on where we can make progress.

STEPHANOPOULOS: A year ago, you bowed out of the presidential campaign, very graceful speech. It was a bitter campaign. And I'm just wondering, how did president Obama convince you to come on his team?

(LAUGHTER) CLINTON: Well, you know, George, I never had any -- any dream, let alone inkling that I would end up in President Obama's cabinet. When I left the presidential race after getting some sleep and taking some deep breaths, I immediately went to work for him in the general election. I, you know, traveled the country. I worked hard on my supporters. I made the case, which I believed strongly in making sure that we elected him our president. And I was looking forward to going back to the Senate and, frankly, going back to my life and representing New York, which I love. And I had no idea that he had a different plan in mind. So when…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Since the primaries.

CLINTON: Well, but I had -- I mean, that was certainly never expected. And after the election, I started seeing little, you know, tidbits in the press, I thought it was absurd. I thought, you know, this is the kind of silly stuff that ends up in the press. And then when he called and asked me to come see him, and we had our first conversation, I said, you know, I really don't think I'm the person to do this, I want to go back to my life. I really feel like I owe it to the people of New York. And I gave him a bunch of other names of people who I thought would be great secretaries of state. But he was quite persistent and very persuasive. And, you know, ultimately it came down to my feeling that, number one, when your president asks you to do something for your country, you really need a good reason not to do it. Number two, if I had won and I had asked him to please help me serve our country, I would have hoped he would say yes. And finally, I looked around our world and I thought, you know, we are in just so many deep holes that everybody had better grab a shovel and start digging out.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Final question. The Economist magazine said this week that the question you raised in that famous "3 a.m." ad is right back in the center of American politics.

Has the president answered it for you?

CLINTON: Absolutely. And, you know, the president in his public actions and demeanor, and certainly in private with me and with the national security team, has been strong, thoughtful, decisive, I think he is doing a terrific job. And it's an honor to serve with him.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Madam Secretary, thank you very much.

CLINTON: Thanks. Good to talk to you.

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?