Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was enthusiastic about a summit on nuclear security, but decided to stay away at the last minute. The excuse was that the White House might support the stance of Arab and Muslim countries as they broach the issue of Israel's nuclear capabilities. Is this correct? Has the dispute between the two sides reached this point? Has Israel begun to hesitate, or fear a confrontation with the Arabs in the presence of the Jewish state's American sponsor? Circles close to Netanyahu accuse Washington of organizing a campaign to weaken and get rid of him. It is a campaign, according to those close to Netanyahu, that was prepared by politicians, journalists and businessmen, with a goal of mobilizing public opinion against him, as a threat to both American and Israeli interests. Peace talks, in Washington's view, and the achievement of any progress in negotiations with the Palestinians, will convince more Arab states to open up to the Jewish state and help split Syria from Iran. Such an effort will also lead to the formation of a front made up of all sides, to confront Iran's nuclear and non-nuclear aspirations. Pro-Israeli Americans who are explaining to the Jewish state this American stance, which the Israelis consider naïve, say that several Arab countries have expressed their readiness to go ahead with such a plan. The proof is the longevity of the Egyptian-Israeli and Jordanian-Israeli peace agreements, despite all of the obstacles that have been placed before these arrangements. This includes all of the wars launched by Tel Aviv against Lebanon and the Palestinians, the pressures of public opinion in the two countries, and the grandstanding by non-Arab countries, such as Iran and Turkey, with respect to the issues of Gaza and Jerusalem. They add that Israel believes the Islamic regime in Iran to be an existential threat, but that Israel is not helping Washington or itself to remove this threat via political or diplomatic means, and that Israel prefers military solutions, to which it has become accustomed. In this view, Israel has yet to realize that wars are not a solution; instead, they complicate matters and allow enemies to form considerably important fronts that oppose such steps, as proved during the war on Lebanon. Meanwhile, the current US administration has learned the lessons of the wars that were launched by its predecessor, acting unilaterally, or in cooperation with client states. The Obama administration prefers international cooperation and is making strong efforts in this regard. The White House is about to convince Russia and China to adopt harsh sanctions that will help bring down the Iranian regime, and believes that a strike against Iran will re-shuffle the cards in the Middle East, and impede the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, while complicating the war in Afghanistan. In addition, Arab and non-Arab states in the region are advising against a strike on Iran, not out of love for the Islamic regime, but because these states will be the most harmed, whether in material or less-tangible terms, and prevent an eruption of civil strife that turns into chaos and instability, and serves the interest of extremists. In Israel, the viewpoint of Netanyahu and his government appears to be quite different, if not actually opposed to the US stance. The rightwing government in Tel Aviv dreams of and is planning for wars. For the government, only military might has forced, and will force, the Arabs to make concessions. The Jewish nature of the state and society fortifies Israel; thus, there can be no compromises over Jerusalem as the “eternal capital.” Netanyahu is prepared to escalate his stance, relying on his relations in the US as a weapon in the confrontation. His critics are afraid that the artery to their state will be ruptured. For the first time, the US is using its influence in Israel to confront its government, and confront AIPAC at home. Tzipi Livni has said that “the government is entirely evil,” affirming that she and her Kadima Party will not take part in it, even if it changes its policies. The dispute between Washington and Tel Aviv over the method of protecting Israeli and American interests is not over the legitimacy of these interests. As for us, it is if we are watching a theatrical performance, and we do not care how it ends.
