Obama Widens the Gap with Israel

The rift between the Obama administration and Israel remains real — and is widening by the day.

I felt more comfortable when Barack Obama was openly nasty to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, back in March.

The two leaders met this week to kiss and make up. The U.S. President pledged an “unbreakable bond” with Israel, and raised the issue of Netanyahu’s actions to ease the Gaza blockade. Michelle Obama led Netanyahu’s wife Sara on a tour of the White House. At the end of the meeting, the president personally escorted the prime minister to his limousine.

So all is cordial?

Not so fast.

The rift between the Obama administration and Israel remains real — and is widening by the day.

Item 1: Obama this summer abandoned a 40-year-old understanding between the United States and Israel over nuclear policy. Back in the Nixon administration, it was agreed that Israel would not acknowledge itself a nuclear power and would not threaten its neighbors with nuclear weapons. In return, the United States would protect Israel from pressure to surrender its weapons.

Every administration since Nixon’s has extended this agreement: Yes, even Jimmy Carter’s, and, yes, Barack Obama’s, too.

But as Eli Lake of the Washington Times prophetically warned last year, the Obama administration now is reneging.

The signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) convene every five years. At this summer’s meeting, the 189 nations produced a resolution seeking to ban nuclear weapons from the Middle East, and that called on Israel by name to sign the NPT. Iran’s manifold violations of the treaty, which it has signed, went unmentioned. At the previous meeting in 2005, the Bush administration adamantly and successfully opposed any singling out of Israel. Not the Obama administration.

The New York Times last week reported the administration’s explanation of its actions: “The United States, American officials said, faced a hard choice: refusing to compromise with the Arab states on Israel would have sunk the entire review conference. Given the emphasis Mr. Obama has placed on nonproliferation, the United States could not accept such an outcome.”

Hmm. And what happens when Arab states begin urging nuclear concessions from Israel as part of a deal on the Iranian nuclear program? Will the Obama administration again fret that a “refusal to compromise” will sink some future desired agreement — and will Israel be the victim of such a compromise? In this regard, President Obama’s words in his July 4, 2009, Cairo speech acquire disturbing second meanings:

“I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that’s why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”

Follow-up question: If the administration realizes it is failing to stop the Iranian bomb, will it blame its own failure on Israel’s unwillingness to trade away the Israeli arsenal?

Item 2. Back in April 2004, President Bush and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon exchanged letters of understanding about a future Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. The United States then agreed: “It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” Any final status agreement would reflect “realities on the ground,” including the growth of major Israeli population centers.

In an interview with Obama administration officials this week, Eli Lake asked whether the Obama administration considered itself still bound by President Bush’s commitment. The answer: a lengthy “no comment.”

It’s an answer that reminds one of an ancient Saturday Night Live sketch. President Jimmy Carter visits the Three Mile Island nuclear facility, gets irradiated, and …

Reporter #2: Yes, is it true that the president is 100 feet tall?

Press Secretary: Nooooo! Absolutely not!

Reporter #3: Is the president 90 feet tall?

Press Secretary: No comment.

So the United States and Israel may well be headed for a clash over a second Obama retreat from an inherited bilateral commitment. The Bush letter preceded Israel’s dismantling of Jewish settlements in Gaza and was understood by many as an act of recognition of that Israeli concession. If Obama disavows the Bush letter, it will be one more reminder that concessions by Israel are permanent, but concessions to Israel can be withdrawn at any time.

Everybody is of course glad to see the president and the prime minister smiling together again. But those two ominous summertime items are the more important news from Washington for Israel and her friends.

Originally published in the National Post.