Analysis: A shift in tone

Jerusalem needs to define for itself what it wants the foreign policy agenda in Washington to be.

By HERB KEINON
obama in israel 224.88 ap (photo credit: )
obama in israel 224.88 ap
(photo credit: )
Both Israeli and American officials, when asked what Barack Obama's election will mean for Israeli-US relations, generally say the relationship is so deep and so wide that the election of one man won't have that much of an impact. The underpinning pillars will remain the same, they say; the difference will be one of nuance. But, of course, the devil's in the nuance. Obama will definitely bring a different style, a different "music" to the White House, and - by extension - to Washington's dealings with Israel. Israel was comfortable with US President George W. Bush's style, with the nuances of his attitude toward Jerusalem. It was non-confrontational. Bush Jr., unlike his father, didn't scold Israel, didn't publicly call it onto the carpet. Not that harsh words weren't expressed in private; they were. But very, very rarely in public. Bush's style was to let Israel carry out the steps it felt were necessary for its own security - like Operation Defensive Shield, the Second Lebanon War and Tuesday night's incursion into Gaza to blow up a smuggling tunnel - without publicly second-guessing or condemning. He gave Israel a free hand to do what it thought it needed to do to combat terrorism. There is no guarantee that Obama's handling of issues like these would be fundamentally different from Bush's. But the atmosphere will likely be different. For instance, while the US government - especially US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - vocalized opposition to Israel's settlement activities, that opposition has been rather subdued. One change that Jerusalem is bracing for now is that this criticism may, under Obama, become more vociferous and that the US may be less forbearing of Israel's failure to remove the settlement outposts. Or, as one official put it, the US is likely to show more "vocal vigilance" in this matter. Likewise, the different nuances might be revealed in a different tone to the White House statements following Israeli military actions, statements that during the Bush years were generally marked by a declaration of Israel's right and duty to protect its citizens. A change in nuance now may mean more of an emphasis in those White House reactions on Israel needing to be careful not to harm civilians, or not to poison the "atmosphere necessary to create peace," or not to damage attempts by the Palestinian Authority to set up a security apparatus in the West Bank, or to refrain from hurting Palestinian economic opportunities. It's "just" nuance, but it gives an overall tone to the relationship. Obama comes to his job with a firm belief in the power of dialogue. And while Israel is somewhat concerned about the efficacy of dialogue when it comes to Iran, it is also clear that if Obama thinks there's a need to talk to enemies, he will most definitely also think there's a need to talk to friends. He will want dialogue with Israel; he'll want to hear us out. He'll want to hear what our red lines are, and where we feel we can and can't compromise. And what Israel needs is a government that will know what to tell him; a government that will have clear priorities, positions and guidelines. Or, as Ariel Sharon's former spokesman Ra'anan Gissin said on Wednesday, Israel can't complain that Obama backtracked on an undivided Jerusalem when Prime Minister Ehud Olmert himself has said he was willing to make concessions on the capital. The dream of the left is that the new president will walk in and pressure Israel to do "what's good for it," to administer some tough love, to impose American will. Obama, who has espoused dialogue, doesn't seem cut of that cloth. For the next 12 to 18 months the new administration will be involved in stock-taking, dialogue, and getting the lay of the land. Israel, and its supporters in Washington, will have a strong ability to influence the foreign policy agenda in Washington. But first, Jerusalem needs to define for itself what it wants that agenda to be.