President Barack Obama sat down with Channel 2's Ilana Dayan last week for a captivating and intelligent interview that was broadcast in full on Tuesday night on Dayan's news magazine, "Uvda" ("Fact"). Obama showed that it is not only Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who knows how to run a campaign. Netanyahu is adept at pulling the heartstrings of the ordinary American; Obama, of the typical Israeli. Obama was articulate and calculated. He went out of his way to show that he considers Israeli's security paramount; that the strategic alliance with Israel is ironclad, that he would never imperil the Jewish state. He became almost philosophical in talking about the relationships between peoples and states: the understandable role of fear in state decision-making against the need to leave enough room for hope. He said he understands the Israeli anxiety over its security against Iran's nuclear program and also against an increasingly powerful Palestinian-Arab world, although he could not quite understand why Israel is singularly focused on those fears. It was clear from the start that this interview would be one big charm offensive and that his words would be "sweeter than honey." But even with the polite words, he showed he had a long list of accounts to settle. According to him, the emerging agreement with Iran will address Israeli fears; and if it is breached, the sanctions would automatically return; and that the concerns Netanyahu raised at the United Nations would be addressed by a final deal. But what if Obama is wrong? Or, to paraphrase Dayan's question: What if the first nuclear bomb hits Tel Aviv- A particular difficulty emerged on the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Obama believes Israel is losing its basic moral values and moving away from the national security doctrines that guided former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. At the top of Obama's list of complaints is his lack of confidence in Netanyahu as the person to realize the principle of a two-state solution. It is the first time that an American president has not been satisfied with just saying that an Israeli prime minister is in error, but also added that he does not believe him. And this is where Dayan missed out on asking the obvious question: Why does Obama place more emphasis on Netanyahu's pre-election rhetoric about the unfeasability of a two-state solution than on his re-stated commitment to the idea after the election? Surely Obama understands that in this first statement, Netanyahu was simply playing to his right-wing base, and that his subsequent clarifications underscore his real views on the matter. Of course, the opposite may be true too, but why choose one version over the other? Those Israelis who care woke up on Wednesday to a growing debate over Obama's interview: Should his statements be accepted or rejected? In plain words, should we believe him or not? When public opinion polls are held about the interview, many respondents are going to keep their impressions to themselves. For my part, Obama now has more questions to answer.
