During a meeting with Israeli diplomats held late last month at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, Israel's ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, said his country's relationship with the United States under Barack Obama was facing several crises. Oren said that the crises between states usually experience periods of ebb and flow; however, Israel's relationship with the US is facing profound fissures. “Relations are in the state of a tectonic rift in which continents are drifting apart.” he noted. These statements follow those made by Oren in the wake of Israel's decision to expand settlements in Jerusalem during the visit by US Vice President Joe Biden in March. At the time, the ambassador said that US-Israeli relations were undergoing their worst crisis in 35 years. Oren, in addition to being a diplomat and occupying one of the most important posts in the Israeli Foreign Ministry, is an academic and historian of the region's conflicts and the establishment of its states. He is also a native of New York. In other words, we can assume he knows what he is talking about, through his experience following the two countries' relations. He believes that the current fissure between Obama and Netanyahu is headed toward becoming even wider, until it reaches the destructive fault line, which has come to worry Israeli policymakers. Naturally, this analysis, which goes beyond diplomatic statements, is not the kind that Netanyahu wants to hear while he is on his way to meet with Obama in the White House, especially since the Israeli ambassador believes that the Jewish lobby has a limited impact on the administration. This is because Obama takes his decisions related to Israel based on cold calculations, unlike his predecessors Bill Clinton and George W Bush. Their decisions were governed by historical and ideological considerations, which have imposed themselves on bilateral relations ever since the Jewish state was established, as the ambassador put it. He adds that Obama is less influenced by Israel supporters inside and outside the White House than past presidents. Obama's policy is a “one-man show,” as Oren said. It is difficult to ignore the exaggeration in the ambassador's comments. The so-called confrontation between Washington and Tel Aviv has not had any tangible consequences that have radically changed the balance of power in the struggle in the region, the kind that would allow us to say that US policy is moving forward at the expense of Israeli policy. What is happening is that the rules of engagement between the two countries, despite the fault line that Oren is talking about, remain governed by the US concern with the security of the Jewish state. This is confirmed by the repeated statements by the current occupant of the White House, and the conditions and requirements of this security will continue to be dictated by Israel, requiring the White House, in turn, to respect these conditions. Thus, it is not unlikely that the ambassador's statements, which were leaked from a closed diplomatic meeting to the pages of Israeli newspapers, then confirmed by officials in the Foreign Ministry, are aimed at hemming in Obama on the even of his meeting with the Israeli prime minister. Also, they represent an attempt to draw in support from influential forces in Congress, to exert the pressure that prevents this meeting from being a copy of their last one, when Obama prevented the media from photographing the discussions, indicating the depth of differences between the two men with regard to settlements. The settlements issue remains pending, and the stances by Netanyahu's government and its foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, have not changed. The American side has merely sought to blackmail the Palestinians, by inviting Israel to extend its freeze on settlement construction, which has been announced in the West Bank, and will last until September, if the Palestinians agree to sit down with the Israelis, face to face, for direct negotiations. Is this the earthquake that frightens the Israeli ambassador?
