ISRAEL/usa: Why Israelis weren't interested in this week's Netanyahu-Obama meeting

Why Israelis weren't interested in this week's Netanyahu-Obama meeting

“Starting Over” — that was the headline that Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth gave to the meeting between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Nov. 9. It was accompanied by a photo of a formal handshake between the two men. Daily Maariv chose “Reconciliation Meeting” as its headline and featured a picture of the two leaders smiling. The other media, both print and digital, also described the summit meeting in terms that seemed overly positive. Channels 2 and 10 reported that the meeting had been conciliatory. Also, all media outlets stressed that the meeting went 45 minutes over its allotted time, indicating that the mood in the Oval Office was good.

In the end, however, the meeting between the two men — after over a year in which they did not see each other, and with their tense and fragile relationship hovering in the background — did not create any real headlines, or any interest at all for that matter. The only interesting thing was that it took place, which is in itself important.

Their past meetings took place as part of Netanyahu’s efforts to stop the Iran nuclear deal, and even involved him intervening in US politics. This created enormous interest and huge headlines about the crisis surrounding his relationship with Obama. This time, however, the visit was anti-climactic. The agreement with Iran is now a fait accompli and seen as something of a failure for Netanyahu and a victory for Obama. Given all of that, the Israeli prime minister  was the last person in the world who wanted to bring up the iss ue, which he focused on so intently for two terms and which caused an unprecedented fissure in Israel-US relations.

Over the years, the Israeli media and public have gotten used to Netanyahu stoking the drama and making intimidating speeches about the Iranian nuclear program during all of his previous meetings with the president. These resulted in dramatic headlines and ongoing coverage of very tense and volatile meetings. This time, the press had to make do with a relaxed meeting without any surprises or any blaring headlines. Obama announced to the cameras that he was committed to Israel’s security, and Netanyahu kept reiterating his respect and appreciation for the American president. Nothing was out of the ordinary, apart from the fact that everything was said after a lengthy hiatus during which the two men did not meet.

When Netanyahu announced to the cameras that he is committed to a vision of peace with the Palestinians in the spirit of the two-state solution, his very words evaporated almost as soon as he said them, despite their professed significance. The reason for this is clear. It has been almost 6½ years since he delivered his “Bar Ilan speech” in June 2009, in which he expressed for the first time his commitment to the two-state vision, raising the hope for a diplomatic solution. Now, the Israeli public, including politicians on the right, see these statements as nothing more than lip service, intended to appease Obama.

Even reports about the US compensation package to Israel following the nuclear agreement did not evoke much interest. Nor did Netanyahu’s declaring his commitment to take steps to reduce Palestinian terror by easing economic restrictions.

Unlike the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu that, as we have noted, provided only limited headlines, the European Union’s dramatic decision to label Israeli products manufactured in the settlements became the main story on the diplomatic front. The decision was made on Nov. 11, during Netanyahu’s visit to Washington. With this development in the background, it was, according to media reports, quite obvious that Netanyahu was back in his element, when he launched a focused attack on the EU’s hypocrisy. This development immediately became the focus, effectively removing the Obama-Netanyahu meeting from the agenda.

The truth is that interest in Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama subsided as soon as the meeting was over. It was barely mentioned in the main newscasts in Israel the following day, and it could hardly be found in the newspapers either. The best indication that the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama was not considered too important or interesting is the fact that politicians, especially Netanyahu’s rivals, did not bother to respond to it. For the most part, Netanyahu’s previous meetings with Obama were regularly accompanied by critical attacks from the opposition, claiming that Netanyahu is destroying the US-Israel relationship. But this time, however, the mood at the meeting was conciliatory. Neither Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid nor Zionist Camp leader Isaac Herzog had very much to say. In that sense, Netanyahu was the winner again. It was impossible to claim that he destroyed the relationship with the United States.

It is reasonable to assume that this lack of interest in the Obama-Netanyahu meeting among the political classes also contributed to the limited volume and scope of its coverage.

A glimpse at the Israeli social networks shows that interest in the visit and meeting was even more limited there than it was in the established media, and was restricted to journalists who covered the event. Online accounts of flash flooding in the city of Ashkelon because of the torrential rains, the passing of Israel’s fifth president, Yitzhak Navon, Nov. 7 and the wave of terrorist knifings by Palestinian youth were of greater interest to Israelis than the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu.

In the end, with no innovations, surprises or drama, along the lines of Obama planning to launch a new peace initiative, the overall impression is that the media regarded the visit as the end of an era and nothing more. Maybe that was because Obama is at the end of his second term, and this week’s meeting was, apparently, the last time that these two men will meet.
 

2 peas in one pod