Along the way to a new American peace plan due next month, U.S. President Barack Obama lost the hearts of many Israelis. This happened not because they support the settlements or object to a Palestinian state (they don't); nor, for that matter, because Mr. Obama changed long-standing American positions (he hasn't). Like much else in Mideast politics, Israeli mistrust of Mr. Obama is irrational and illogical – but if it isn't addressed, the U.S. peacemaking effort will founder.
On substance, there isn't a big gap separating Israeli public opinion and Mr. Obama: A majority of Israelis support a Palestinian state, removing outposts and freezing construction in settlements – all elements of the President's approach. Yet in the past two months, the percentage of Israelis who believe Mr. Obama is supportive hovers at the single-digit mark, down from over 30 per cent in May. According to the latest Pew Global Attitudes Project, Israel is the only country among 25 surveyed where America's image is worsening rather than improving. In the zero-sum game of the Israeli-Arab conflict, Mr. Obama's effort to recalibrate relations with the Arab and Muslim world, while professing his commitment to Israelis' security, makes them nervous.
Where fears and history run deep, words and atmosphere are all-important. Regardless of national interest, Israeli and Arab leaders alike often default to mantras that cater to emotion and history. On the Arab side, these are the plight of Palestinian refugees (for whom Arab governments did nothing for decades) and the right of return (which they know is unrealistic). On the Israeli side, it's often the impassioned call for a united Jerusalem (when they know that keeping more than 200,000 Palestinians in the city is to Israel's detriment). Above all, security and survival resonate at a primal level.
Aaron David Miller, a fellow of the Woodrow Wilson Centre, describes Mr. Obama as “tone-deaf” to Israeli sensibilities on this emotional level. The President is convinced he supports Israel and believes this should suffice for Israelis to take risks. But at the 2000 Camp David summit, Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak (the current Defence Minister) painfully learned that believing he was right wasn't enough to rally the nation behind him. Mr. Obama's charisma notwithstanding, he has failed to reassure Israelis that he understands and cares – something that with all their differences, his predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, successfully conveyed.
To regain what he's lost, Mr. Obama will have to balance the toughness he's already demonstrated with a hefty dose of sensitivity and reassurance.
Of course, it isn't all up to Mr. Obama. Palestinian and Arab leaders are unreasonably balking at renewed negotiations and normalization gestures that would increase Israeli confidence. And to date, Benjamin Netanyahu has done little to demonstrate his stated acceptance of a Palestinian state. Instead, in an effort to gain support for a push-back on American pressure, the Israeli Prime Minister is playing emotive chords that touch the very sensibilities Mr. Obama has been missing. Besides, for Mr. Netanyahu, media hype about a crisis in Israel-U.S. relations yields political benefits at home, and strident policy statements made by his foreign minister and deputy foreign minister position him as a leader doing his best to juggle domestic constraints.
Bravado aside, both the United States and Israel know that a solid relationship is critical. For Israel, international isolation is as great a threat as any other. Washington, in turn, knows that a reasonable working relationship with Israel's leader is essential if progress is to be made on two key files: Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
When they meet today to try once again to resolve their differences on a settlement freeze, Mr. Netanyahu and U.S. envoy George Mitchell may come closer to a formula after all.
