Although plausible, I'm not so sure about the "consent" part of this story. Israel probably consults with Washington before such large-scale military operations. But consultation and consent are two different things. Can Washington really veto Tel Aviv's national security decisions? If the Israelis are determined to do something, they can and will do it. They have a tendency to share their plans with Washington, often because if things go wrong, it is not Israel but the US that has to clean up the mess left behind. In the meantime, for the Bush administration life goes on in a depressingly usual way. The White House is watching the carnage in Gaza and reacts with the same stale language supporting Israel's right to defend itself. The big question is whether an Obama administration would have acted differently. For now there is nothing but a deafening silence coming from the president-elect. The tight-lipped and disciplined Obama camp is quite vocal on finance and the economy. Apparently the often-heard "There is only one president at a time" argument makes an exception for bailouts, stimulus plans and many other domestic issues regarding the economy. But in foreign policy, Obama appears determined to enjoy the luxury of silence as long it lasts. After all in just two weeks he will inherit this whole mess, and the world will discover the approach his administration will take towards the problems of Israel and Palestine.
Those who expect Obama to adopt a critical stance towards Tel Aviv may be disappointed. After all, the president-elect had already given earlier indications during his visit to Israel in July that he understands the Israeli dilemma. "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." Obama used some similar "business as usual" language about Hamas. "In terms of negotiations with Hamas, it is very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation-state, does not recognize your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon, and is deeply influenced by other countries," he said at the time.
One may argue that he needed the votes of the pro-Israel camp during the campaign. After all, there were rumors and emails circulating among Jewish American groups that he was a Muslim with deep sympathies for the Arab world. Yet there is no reason to doubt the honesty of the president-elect's remarks last summer. Just last week, his top adviser and strategist, David Axelrod, said the president-elect stood by the remarks he made and noted the "special relationship" between the United States and Israel. The appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state also can be seen as further evidence that the Obama administration will maintain its traditional pro-Israel tilt.
All this could lead us to conclude that the Obama administration will be no different than the previous one when it comes to relations with Israel. Yet there is one area where the next administration will probably push for new policies: the Syrian-Iranian alliance. During his campaign Obama gave all the indications that he wants to engage with Iran and Syria in a serious "unconditional" diplomatic dialogue. His grand strategy appears to focus on de-coupling the Tehran-Damascus axis. After all, this alliance is more a marriage of convenience than a genuine alliance. Obama's foreign policy advisors seem to understand that the absence of an Arab-Israeli peace process enables Iran to play the Hezbullah and Hamas cards in Lebanon and Palestine. It is that same absence of a peace process that is pushing Syria towards Iran. Such an American decision to re-engage the Middle East process from where Bill Clinton left it eight years ago is very good news for Turkey. The new American administration will be much more supportive of Ankara's efforts to mediate between Damascus and Tel Aviv. They may even decide to use the Justice and Development Party's (AKP) political capital with Hamas.
In the meantime, let's not forget that it takes two to tango. Israel will also need to have an administration willing to engage Syria and the Arab camp after the Feb. 10 elections. The good news is that the Gaza operation strengthens the hand of the anti-Likud coalition government. The super hawk Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu must be watching the Israeli military performance with a sense of dismay. Let's hope there will be some good coming from all of this tragedy.
