AHRON SHAPIRO

WHEN the US President told Time magazine in an interview last month that he had erred during his first year in office by raising “too high” expectations of an Israeli-Palestinian peace breakthrough, it was more than an admission that his strategies to date had not been working.

It signalled a re-assessment of expectations for the coming year as well – of what could be realistically achieved and how much time he would devote to it.

Scratching beneath the surface, Barack Obama’s statement reflected a predictable reshuffling of priorities in his Administration that had as much to do with new political realities at home as it did with diplomatic frustrations in Jerusalem and Ramallah.

A successful president needs a supportive Congress to advance his agenda, and Obama is in danger of losing the confidence of his.

Hundreds of miles away from where Massachusetts Republican US Senator-elect Scott Brown gave his victory speech last month, another senator was busy making his own statements to the press.

Virginian Democrat Jim Webb, responding to Brown’s improbable win in a special election for the late Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat, called the results a referendum on Obama’s healthcare reforms and openly questioned the process by which the legislation that has become the president’s signature issue had been handled.

The quick reaction from the moderate Senator sent an unambiguous message to Obama, ahead of his State of the Union address and the first anniversary of his inauguration, that congressional Democrats will not be willing to tune out their constituents merely to accommodate the President.

It’s a message that also has implications for the Obama Administration’s future policies towards Israel, but more on that in a moment. First, some further context.

The United States has 100 members in its Senate – two for each of the 50 states. So what’s the big deal about losing just one of those seats to the opposition? After all, even after Brown’s win, the Democrats outnumber the Republicans 59 to 41 in the Senate. They have an even bigger lead in the lower house of the US’ bicameral Congress, the House of Representatives, where Democrats hold a 78-seat majority out of a total of 435.

Unfortunately for Obama, the loss of that particular seat holds a great deal of significance. First of all, the passage of major policy legislation requires the approval of a full 60 members of the Senate. Until now, under a Democratic Senate supermajority and a pliant lower house, Obama had only to convince senators from his own party to support his agenda. This is no longer the case.

Secondly, the symbolic value of the Republicans taking this particular seat cannot be ignored. Massachusetts has long been considered a Democratic stronghold. For a Republican to have managed to wrest away that of all seats – held for nearly half a century by Kennedy, a champion of the Left flank of the Democratic party – was almost unfathomable to Americans. If Kennedy’s seat can be lost, some say no seat can be considered safe heading into the congressional mid-term elections this November.

Immaterial of the true reason for Brown’s win, it is reasonable to assume that at least some members of Congress will conclude that the vote was a repudiation of Obama by the all-important independent voters who decide elections nationwide, and that is all that matters.

This is why Webb’s statement was so revealing. It suggested that Obama, whose approval rating has been suffering with voters for several months, is also now losing confidence with his party’s lawmakers.

That brings us back to Israel. It is indisputable that the US Congress overwhelmingly supports the Jewish State. There are a number of reasons for this, but none are more important than the fact that the American people themselves are pro-Israel.

Does this mean that the majority of Americans endorse Israel’s version of the Middle East conflict over the Palestinian interpretation? The answer is yes, to an extent that the most passionate Israel supporter in Australia can only fantasise about.

That said, certainly over the past 30 years or so, US foreign policy in practice tends to fall in the Centre-Left of the Israeli political spectrum. Regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat has sat in the Oval Office, Washington has seemed most in sync with the views of Israel’s Labour party.

In the year since Obama took office, however, the US Administration’s words and actions towards Israel have appeared to suggest a drift further Left, closer to that of Meretz.

This move, at the prerogative of the White House and its State Department, has not been coordinated with Congress, which continues to be more comfortable with a more centrist tack in dealing with Israel – once again, in line with the views of American voters.

During Obama’s presidential honeymoon, Congress was willing to give the president leeway to handle the peace process the way he saw fit.

The closer Congress gets to mid-term elections, however, the more you will see many Democrats openly distance themselves from any pressure tactics perceived as unduly harsh that the Obama Administration may consider taking against Israel.

This is simply a matter of political expedience and survival.

It may not come to that. As we saw last week, Obama has thrown his own Middle East peace expectations overboard to help keep other parts of his agenda afloat.

The reason? To quote Bill Clinton’s campaign strategist James Carville, “it’s the economy, stupid”.

America is still suffering painfully high unemployment and until the figure falls, the economy will continue to be seen as a thorn in Obama’s side.

Taking on the Israeli-Palestinian peace quagmire is a luxury a US president can do in a time of prosperity. Obama recognises that until more Americans have secure jobs, it is a luxury his Administration cannot afford.

How will this affect Israel and the Palestinians? Two words: status quo.

Does that mean US envoy George Mitchell is going to be out of work soon? Hardly.

Mitchell and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will continue to shuttle back and forth, reporting on various developments. Israel will surely be asked to make more concessions, and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will no doubt continue to do his best to comply. There may even be a resumption of peace talks between Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

However, will the US try to impose a solution on Israel, as some have suggested, or otherwise take bold actions that would risk raising the ire of pro-Israel Evangelical Christians and Jews? If Netanyahu and his cabinet decide not to cooperate, it is highly unlikely.

In the wake of last week’s “Boston Massacre” that swept a relatively unknown Republican to the Senate, and with mid-term elections looming on the horizon, there are just too many reasons for the US President not to pick this particular battle to fight – at the very least until November.

Obama and Israel: a look back

January 21, 2009 – Signalling a shift in American priorities, Barack Obama chooses Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as the first world leader he calls as US president.

May 18, 2009 – Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu makes his first visit to the White House. While calling for immediate peace talks, Netanyahu disappoints Obama by failing to endorse a two-state solution.

June 4, 2009 – In Cairo, Obama delivers a speech to the Muslim world, demanding that Israeli “settlements must stop”, and calling on Palestinians to accept Israel as a permanent reality in the region.

June 14, 2009 – Netanyahu responds to Obama’s speech with a policy speech of his own, endorsing a two-state solution for the first time, but with the stipulation that any Palestinian state must be demilitarised.

September 22, 2009 – At Obama’s urging, Abbas agrees to meet Netanyahu and Obama on the sidelines of the United Nations. Abbas, who had hardened his position against Israel in response to Obama’s settlement freeze demand on Israel, rejects Obama’s call for an immediate resumption of peace negotiations.

November 26, 2009 – In an attempt to satisfy Obama’s demands, Israel abandons its demand for reciprocal concessions and agrees to a 10-month freeze on new construction permits in their West Bank settlements.

January 21, 2010 – In an interview, Obama says his expectations for Middle East peace had been set too high. He blames Israel and the Palestinians equally for the stall in the peace process.