With the expected designation of Avigdor Lieberman as Israel’s next foreign minister in a narrow right-wing coalition led by Benjamin Netanyahu, the stage seems set for a political collision course between Jerusalem and the rest of the world, including the United States.
Indeed, giving Israel’s most im-portant diplomatic post to a man reviled in much of the world as a racist for his calls for a loyalty oath from Israeli Arabs, whom he views as a fifth column, seems like a willful move toward confrontation.
And it couldn’t come at a worse time, when reports suggest that Iran could develop a nuclear bomb by the end of this year and Israel’s window to take military action against Tehran has passed, placing more reliance than ever on working with Washington to avoid an unspeakable disaster.
Yet despite the need for closer cooperation between the United States and Israel, it is not difficult to imagine an early showdown between the Obama administration, which is set on encouraging dialogue with enemies like Iran and Syria as part of an effort to prove to the Arab world that Washington has changed, and a Netanyahu government that seems likely to resist what the U.S. wants.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in her visit to the region earlier this month, set in motion U.S. talks with Syria, reiterated America’s opposition to Israeli settlement expansion and reaffirmed commitment to a two-state solution with the Palestinians. The next Israeli government seems to be on the other side of all three issues.
Indeed, Washington and Jerusalem appear to be headed in different directions. Obama wants change in the name of new foreign policy paradigms through dialogue; Netanyahu wants to hold the line and hang tough.
While everyone acknowledges privately that the two-state solution is at best a distant dream, since Israel’s maximum concessions don’t match the Palestinians’ minimum level of acceptance, for Netanyahu to not endorse such a move is a recipe for further Israeli isolation. After all, the “Quartet” of Middle East peacemakers — Russia, the U.N., the European Union and the U.S. — is committed to the two-state solution, as are most Israeli political leaders.
But not Netanyahu.
The Lieberman appointment is most worrisome, signaling a decision to put narrow coalition agenda politics above Israel’s ability to deal diplomatically with the international community, especially at a time when the Jewish state’s standing continues to erode. We must face the fact that Israel is seen increasingly as a pariah state, particularly among Europeans.
Since Netanyahu can’t say no on every diplomatic front, some say he will look to negotiate with Syria over the Golan Heights, believing that such a deal would be simpler to achieve than one involving the Palestinians, with their own bitter internal conflict.
Washington would welcome such an overture, hoping that a deal between Jerusalem and Damascus would calm the region. The problem is that Syria is highly unlikely to abandon its strong ties to Iran, and it has a long and ugly record of thwarting every Israeli overture of peace over many years.
Not only has Syrian President Bashar al-Assad made clear that Israel would first have to give up the Golan and make peace with the Palestinians before commencing talks, but his government has stated that any deal would be a first step toward dismantling the Jewish state.
Not exactly grounds for fruitful discussion.
The potential silver lining amid these bleak scenarios is that Clinton, and by extension Obama, would have a George Shultz experience.
Some may remember the fear in the pro-Israel community when Shultz, then an executive at the Bechtel Corporation, was named to his post by President Ronald Reagan in 1982. But by the time he left the State Department in 1989, he was considered one of Israel’s great supporters. What seemed to put him in that camp was having been thwarted and lied to repeatedly by Yasser Arafat and other Arab leaders in repeated negotiations.
So there is the hope that as the U.S. engages Syria and Iran in talks, it will become evident that neither is sincere about compromise or equitable alternatives to confrontation.
The fact that the new Obama administration engaged in preliminary talks on the Durban II conference, then pulled out after recognizing that the meeting promises to be a sham and disgrace in its anti-Israel agenda, is a positive and hopeful sign.
The question is how much time will be wasted, particularly as Iran speeds its nuclear timetable, before the U.S. concludes that such talks are an empty pretense for stalling. And what will the U.S. do then to prevent Tehran from achieving its nuclear ambitions?
There are no easy answers, but the incoming Netanyahu government will need to find ways to work with Washington, not give the administration an excuse to keep its distance from an increasingly marginalized Jerusalem.
Gary Rosenblatt is editor and publisher of the New York Jewish Week, where this column previously appeared.