Alliance under stress

WASHINGTON – For years, American politicians have waxed poetic about the “shared values” of the United States and Israel – ideals that typically aren’t spelled out but usually are taken to mean the basic tenets of Western democracy.

That time-worn phrase came under scrutiny this week in the aftermath of a particularly ugly Israeli election. Some Americans, both Jews and non-Jews, have questioned what the common threads are as Israeli provocations force the Obama administration into the uncomfortable role of having to publicly rebuke an ironclad ally.

In the past several weeks, Americans have seen Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu undermine their president before Congress over differences on Iran, use anti-Arab language about his own citizens, and jettison the two-state framework that international powers have agreed for years is the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Meanwhile, the Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, made headlines this month by saying that any Arab Israeli who isn’t sufficiently loyal to Israel should take an ax to the head.

“Can you imagine a foreign minister anywhere else in the world saying that his citizens should be beheaded? We’ve gotten to this environment of complete impunity,” said Diana Buttu, a former legal adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian negotiators. “It’s not just that Netanyahu won – it’s that the entire country has shifted to the right.”

Analysts said that such inflammatory conduct by top Israeli officials runs the risk of fueling what they described as a glacial, grass-roots shift in American public opinion from unconditional support for Israel to greater skepticism about policies such as the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza or settlement construction. And while the United States is no stranger to racial politics, the overt anti-Arab sentiment coming from Israel’s highest offices probably isn’t what American politicians have in mind when they talk of shared values.

At Thursday’s White House briefing, spokesman Josh Earnest brought up the values issue “to make note of it,” even though he hadn’t been questioned on the topic. He launched into a mini-soliloquy, beginning by describing Israel as a vibrant democracy that’s tethered to the United States by “shared values and a commitment to a set of values that are deeply integrated into our country, our government and our citizens.”

Earnest continued by saying that Netanyahu’s “cynical, divisive election day tactics” only serve to “erode at the values that are critical to the bond between our two countries.”

AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby, responded to a query about shared values with a statement saying that Tuesday’s election demonstrated that Israel “is the one genuine democracy in the Middle East, holding the only truly free and fair elections.”

But in print, on TV and across social media, commentators took aim at the notion of shared democratic values.

A piece in the leftist magazine The Nation said that the “illusion of ‘shared values’ ” was now shattered. Chemi Shalev, the U.S. editor of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, tweeted the day Netanyahu made his anti-Arab remarks that no matter who won the election, “in terms of Israel’s so-called moral superiority and ‘shared values’ with U.S., this day will live in infamy.”

Strong support

Such strong reactions are hardly mainstream in the United States. Public opinion polls continue to reflect strong U.S. support for Israel, though some demographic segments – young people, women, Democrats – have shown pockets of concern about Israel’s human rights record and settlement building, analysts said.

Palestinian activists hope that, over the long term, that translates into greater support for nonviolent strategies such as the Palestinians’ United Nations campaign or the boycott, divestment and sanctions push, though no one expects an overnight change.

A Pew Research Center poll from February showed that Americans are split in their views of Netanyahu: 38 percent regard him favorably, 27 percent unfavorably, 23 percent had never heard of him and 12 percent wouldn’t answer. A Gallup survey a month later found that 38 percent of Americans viewed Netanyahu favorably; 29 percent unfavorably.

And 63 percent of respondents in a CNN/ORC poll last month said they thought U.S. congressional leaders “did the wrong thing” by inviting Netanyahu to address Congress without first notifying the White House.

Survey results weren’t available for any polls conducted in the past week, when Netanyahu trounced his opponent, Isaac Herzog, with tactics that President Barack Obama’s former top adviser, David Axelrod, called “shameful 11th-hour demagoguery.”

Timely flip

First, in an interview, Netanyahu pledged that no Palestinian state would emerge under his watch, effectively killing the two-state plan while he’s in office. Then on Tuesday, election day, he urged voters to head to the polls by warning that Arabs were streaming to vote in droves – a tactic his critics labeled race-baiting. Arab Israelis make up some 20 percent of Israel’s population.

“Masks off, gloves off,” said Lara Friedman, director of policy and government relations for Americans for Peace Now, a liberal U.S.-based advocacy group.

“(Netanyahu) had clearly demonstrated over the past six years that he wasn’t a partner,” she added, noting the expansion of settlement building under Netanyahu in defiance of international condemnation. “In some ways, this is clarifying.”

Or maybe not so clear. On Thursday, two days after his win, Netanyahu somewhat backtracked on his remarks about the two-state solution, telling NBC News that he wants a “a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution” but that “circumstances have to change” for that to happen, because of the wave of Islamist extremists seizing control of ungoverned areas across the Middle East.

The Obama administration wasn’t buying it, with spokespeople at both the White House and the State Department questioning Netanyahu’s conveniently timed flip.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters Thursday that “Netanyahu was the prime minister three days ago as well,” and that it was the Obama administration’s belief that “he changed his position” on the creation of a Palestinian state.

“If he’d consistently stated that he remained in favor of a two-state solution, we’d be having a different conversation,” Psaki said.

Tough decisions

Analysts who monitor Israeli and Palestinian issues said that the Obama administration will face some tough decisions as it grasps for a Plan B now that its main partner in the peace process is gone, torpedoing the two-state framework that U.S. officials still insist is the only way to resolve the long-running conflict.

Without even the pretense now of a peace process, analysts said, Palestinians might find more room to plead their case at the United Nations, though it’s as yet unclear whether the United States would go as far as abstaining or removing its long practice of vetoing any Security Council resolution targeting Israel’s internationally condemned settlement building and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

“This is going to put wind in the sails of the Palestinians’ international campaign,” predicted Matt Duss, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, which advocates a two-state solution.