The art of disagreement

Before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with U.S. President Barack Obama, their aides get to spend some quality time with one another. They do so as the analysts and pundits spout about the litany of divisions, misunderstandings and soured relations between the two leaders.

We've seen this movie before, with Jimmy Carter and Yitzhak Rabin and then Menachem Begin; and George H. W. Bush with Yitzhak Shamir. There were always those around who found a way to soften the harsh tones, and if they were unable to completely bridge the gaps, they were at least able to camouflage some of the verbal bickering. In the field of diplomacy words are a tool, and this is also important.

It was clear in advance that the White House would notice that Netanyahu's speech to the U.N. General Assembly failed to mention the two-state solution. It was also expected that Obama's representatives would react sourly. This gap is presently unbridgeable, but in this classic situation, it is the job of the aides to soften the blow. For example, Obama will reiterate the two-state solution; Netanyahu will say he would like to return to that path, but that there is no Palestinian partner right now and he is waiting for one to emerge. This is mitigation, instead of disregarding.

The same applies to the almost mathematical formula Netanyahu presented at the General Assembly -- Islamic State equals Hamas. The U.S. does not see it this way. Many Israelis don't either. The job of the aides on both sides is to find a formula the leaders can "live with," for instance: Hamas equals half of Islamic State. Not in mathematical terms, of course, but in verbal terms.

Even on the Iranian issue, the terminology can be bridged, even if the disagreements remain. The United States, which has become a serial misinterpreter of all things related to developments in the Arab and Middle Eastern world, is now toying with a proposal allowing Iran to activate 4,000 centrifuges. Netanyahu believes this is a grave mistake. The sides can issue a joint statement saying that despite qualms over certain details, the U.S. is still adhering to its declared (even if unreliable) stance that it will prevent Iran from ultimately building an atomic bomb.

Obama has no interest in parading a rift with Israel on the precipice of next month's congressional elections. Netanyahu never has an interest in presenting a fissure with the U.S., even when the contrasting diplomatic policies oblige him to do so.

There is little question that if the meeting turns into a controversy, Netanyahu will have enough examples in his possession to illustrate the current administration's fundamental lack of understanding of regional developments.

What would Netanyahu have to gain, though, from hurling truths at Obama, who almost certainly understands on his own just how wrong he has been? Especially when the current president -- who has vehemently disagreed with Israeli policy in the past but has provided the country with national security on a level that few of his predecessors ever did (even if belatedly) -- is in the middle of a just war against Islamic State.