The relationship between U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will presumably fill a noteworthy chapter in Obama's memoir, but the 44th U.S. president has to finish his last year in the White House before he can write that book. And this year, if the meeting between the two leaders in the Oval Office this week is anything to go by, will not add any drama to their relationship. Both sides have all the reasons in the world to let the year pass quietly. Their working relationship, until the upcoming American elections (in which the Democrats need the Jewish vote), will likely get a passing grade for good behavior. Not because Obama and Netanyahu have suddenly become friends (they haven't), but simply because neither one has a choice. Many words were written and spoken ahead of this past Monday's meeting between Obama and Netanyahu. Commentators prophesied "Apocalypse Now." If the prime minister had to rely on expert predictions, he would have done well to approach the pilot of the El Al Boeing 777 jet and tell him to land anywhere but in Washington. But Netanyahu knew what the commentators also knew: Winds of reconciliation, not of war, would blow through Washington. The only problem that remains after the meeting is the embarrassment now faced by those who predicted a different sort of meeting, in which Obama's main focus would have been the comments of newly appointed communications director Dr. Ran Baratz, instead of the Islamic State group ... ridiculous. Only the reporters remain skeptical In reality, Obama and Netanyahu sought common ground. It's not surprising that shortly after their meeting ended, CNN had already posted an article online titled, "Obama and Netanyahu lay down the gloves (for now)." Headlines in the United States talked about a warmer relationship between the two leaders. In America, they even wondered whether the meeting signaled a reboot in relations. Only the Israeli reporters remained skeptical when reality did not match up with their predictions. While Israeli reporters had their doubts about the prime minister's statement that the meeting was "one of the best I've had with President Obama," NPR in the U.S. reported that "the two leaders sat before the Oval Office fireplace doing their best to look like allies. Obama and Netanyahu have never had a warm relationship, and it turned downright icy this year when Netanyahu, along with congressional Republicans, tried to torpedo the president's nuclear talks with Iran. ... Now that the nuclear deal's in place, Obama says it's time to move on." That is how the situation was reported. There was also another sign that Obama and Netanyahu had decided to turn over a new leaf in their relationship. "Unlike some of their past meetings, the two leaders took care not to lecture one another in front of the cameras today. Instead, they both stressed the strong partnership between their countries and promised to work together to confront their common security challenges in an increasingly volatile Middle East," NPR reported. Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and former U.S. Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations Martin Indyk said that the meeting was a success in that sense. "This was a meeting in which they would agree to bury the hatchet and not in each other's backs," he said. Now, we must ask the question, "Why-" Why did Obama choose to reset his relationship with Netanyahu instead of exacting "revenge," as foreseen by the prophets of doom in the Israeli media? The chaos in Syria, Islamic State's growing power, the question of the future of Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime, Russian actions in Syria -- all of this requires the United States and Israel to work together. Generally speaking, the American administration understands that the situation in the Middle East is not about to improve any time soon. It's doubtful that things will get sorted out during Obama's final year in the White House. The war in Syria is a matter of several years. And the Islamic State phenomenon is not a passing phase either. The rampant terrorism in the region, which also directly threatens the U.S., has forced the American government to cooperate with its natural allies. Israel is one of them, and it has experience with fighting terrorism. Now is not the time to talk about peace -- it is the time to talk about lowering the flames. They prefer a draw It is for exactly this reason that Netanyahu was not subject to pressure about the Palestinian issue during the meeting. In a letter published by The New York Times, one reader wondered why Obama didn't apply more pressure about the Palestinians. We are far away from the days when Obama would bring up the topic of returning to 1967 borders and his desire to strike a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians during his term in office. Nowadays, the story is a bit different. Palestinian terrorism is running rampant through Israeli streets. Obama felt the need to declare that he is dedicated to Israel's security, and he even condemned the terrorism. Netanyahu responded with continued adherence to a two-state solution, with certain well-known conditions: recognition of a Jewish state and a demilitarized Palestinian state. It should be known that while Obama didn't pressure Netanyahu, the prime minister's maneuvering space has shrunken -- but so has that of Obama. These are two strong leaders who do not fear conflict -- they have clashed in the past, and they prefer to finish with a tie. Netanyahu seems to have succeeded in convincing Obama that peace with the Palestinians will not be achieved on the latter's watch, but that the two-state dream is still alive. So instead of making peace with the Palestinians, Netanyahu decided to make peace with the Democrats, and he went to lecture at a liberal democratic research institute. Obama knows that Israel has more than 70% support among Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike. The U.S. administration does not need to fight with the Prime Minister of Israel. It would hurt the next person to be voted into office. This is another reason why Obama is looking to lower the flames. In fact, the biggest disagreements between the two leaders were solved with compromises: With the Iranian issue, a joint committee of two countries will monitor the implementation of the deal, and with the Palestinian issue, Israel does not need to add fuel to the fire. This means that until Obama's term is over, we shouldn't expect renewed building in Judea and Samaria. The idea is not to anger one another. They only need to make it through a year. That is certainly a feasible task. And meanwhile, Israel and the United States will start discussing increased support from the U.S. to Israel, hopefully to the tune of $50 billion over 10 years. A deal may not be signed until after Obama is out of office, but to be fair, it will still be attributed to his legacy. It won't hurt him, and it certainly won't hurt us.
