Jonathan Todd

Donald Macintyre wrote yesterday:

“Assuming that (Benjamin) Netanyahu does not take the world by surprise tomorrow, confront his nationalists head on, pledge a total settlement freeze, and commit himself to a Palestinian state during his premiership, then the American response will be all-important. Tomorrow night will be a crucial test for the Israeli Prime Minister. The day after, an almost as crucial one for the President of the United States”.

As much as the Guardian reports that “Netanyahu (tonight) said for the first time he would accept an independent Palestinian state”, he cannot really be said to have confronted his nationalists head on. This is because, as the Guardian report, ”Netanyahu’s conditions were strict. He said the Palestinians could not form an army or sign military agreements with any other state”. Moreover, he “also praised the Jewish settlers who live in east Jerusalem and on the occupied West Bank and refused US calls for a halt to all settlement growth”.

Macintyre defined tonight’s speech as “Netanyahu’s moment of decision” but the way in which he faced it means that tomorrow is one of President Obama’s moments of decision. He will have to decide whether to maintain his pressure on Israel in respect of settlements against the backdrop of Iran’s disputed election - which creates another moment of decision for Obama.  

This disturbing context might suggest that Obama will tone down his rhetoric but Peter Beinart explains why the opposite may be the case:

“He’s taking on Netanyahu where the Israeli Prime Minister is weakest. Israelis may not be thrilled about freezing settlement growth, but it’s not an issue like Iran’s nuclear program, which they consider important enough to risk their relationship with the U.S. over. A poll published in Israel’s largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, on June 5 found that 56% of Israelis would rather cave on the settlements issue than face sanctions by the U.S”.

Beinart goes on to say:

“Netanyahu has bigger fish to fry. He knows that sometime in the next year or two, he could well end up paying a visit to the White House to ask for U.S. support for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program. For an Israeli Prime Minister, alienating a U.S. President is almost always bad politics, but it’s particularly bad politics when you need his help to stop what you’ve called an existential threat. If Israelis decide Netanyahu can’t negotiate with the U.S. effectively over Iran, they may demand that he be replaced with someone who can”.

Obama has been right to tackle Israel over settlement growth and, oddly enough, events in Iran may make it easier for him to push back against Netanyahu. What is happening in Iran makes it even more important to Israel to retain American support, which, under Obama, they are more likely to get by changing their line on settlements. This is to say nothing of how America responds directly to events in Iran. That is another moment of decision. They do come thick and fast in the White House.