BICOM

This briefing updates BICOM Analysis: Netanyahu’s US Visit and Forthcoming Challenges – 5/7/2010′.

To read the transcript of the press conference click here.

To read the White House readout click here.

Key Points

• The overriding importance of this meeting was to send a message of improved relations between the two leaders, after a year of tension in the US-Israel relationship.
• Netanyahu and Obama agreed on the need to move to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians and Netanyahu offered “concrete” confidence building measures in the “coming weeks”. It remains to be seen whether there is agreement on exactly what Israel should have to give to get the Palestinians to agree to direct talks.
• Israel will welcome the firm reiteration of US support for its security interests, including with regard to its nuclear policy.

What can be understood from the leader’s comments?

Whilst President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu do not exude natural warmth in their relationship, there was a clear and deliberate effort by both sides to project a positive outcome from the meeting. Both leaders described the discussion as “excellent”, with President Obama reiterating his commitment to the US-Israel relationship and Israel’s security interests. Judging from the joint press conference and White House press release, the leaders spoke in private about steps to improve the situation in Gaza and the importance of keeping pressure on Iran’s nuclear programme, but the most detailed discussion was about how to move forward in the peace process.

This issue is given urgency because, at the end of September, both Israel’s ten month moratorium on new settlement construction and the four month period endorsed by the Arab League for indirect talks will expire. Obama described the discussion on this topic as “extensive”. Both leaders expressed the desire to see proximity talks develop into direct talks, and the question of the moment is what Israel should have to give to get the Palestinians to agree. Part of the answer, as both leaders publicly stated, will be some set of as yet undefined confidence building measures. Netanyahu spoke about “concrete steps” that would be taken in the “coming weeks”. Neither leader got into specifics, but Obama spoke of measures with regard to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad which would “widen the scope of their responsibilities” in the West Bank. Possibilities that have been discussed in the past include granting more control of more areas of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, and further reducing Israeli security activity in Palestinian areas. Salam Fayyad presented proposals on this issue to Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak on Monday.

However, both leaders avoided talking directly about the settlement freeze, or whether Israel will meet a Palestinian demand to outline its positions on borders and security in advance of direct talks. It therefore remains to be seen whether the US and Israel can find common positions on these issues. Obama stressed the need to send a signal to the region that the process was “serious” and not just “process without action”. Netanyahu stated that Israel was prepared “to do a lot” but was determined to avoid a situation whereby territory vacated by Israel was “overtaken by Iran’s proxies”.

Also discussed was the singling out of Israel in the final statement of the NPT conference in May, and the call in that statement for a special conference in 2012 to lay the groundwork for a nuclear free Middle East. Obama gave backing to Israel by stressing there was no change in the US position – which has long accepted Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity – and stressed that Israel “has unique security requirements”. The subsequent White House statement elaborated on this issue, and appeared to provide safeguards for Israel with regard to the conference, including by stating that, “any efforts to single out Israel will make the prospects of convening such a conference unlikely”.

How did the meeting reflect the interests of the two leaders?

The overriding importance of this meeting was to project a tone of improved relations between the two leaders, which has suffered considerably in the past year. There are a number of possible reasons that the Obama administration wanted to do this. One is that the mistrust of the US administration in Israel makes it harder for Obama to act as a broker in the peace process. Another is the domestic political concern among Democratic congressman ahead of November’s midterm elections that the public disagreements with Israel have been damaging for the party politically. A further reason is the need to send a message to the Arab world. In heavily pressuring Israel in the first year, the result was that the Palestinians and the Arab world toughened their positions, perceiving that the pressure was on Israel, and not on them to make concessions. This has not been conducive to rapid progress in the peace process, with the Palestinians, backed by the Arab League, placing preconditions on entering direct negotiations with Israel. Keeping the diplomatic process alive is an important strategic interest to the US, and this requires cooperation from both sides. The administration believes that an absence of diplomatic momentum damages US standing in the region and the wider Islamic world, and impedes the US’s wider strategic goals of isolating Iran and confronting extremism.

From Netanyahu’s perspective, there is a clear need to project, both domestically and internationally, that he has not burnt Israel’s vital strategic relationship with the US. In particular he will have welcomed explicit reassurances that there was no change in US attitude to Israel’s nuclear stance, and a reaffirmation of US commitment to maintaining Israel’s “qualitative military edge”. He also had to take a line that maintains the balance of his coalition, in which the centre left Labour party is demanding more diplomatic progress, whilst the right-wing parties are reluctant to make concessions.