Obama’s calculations were wrong
I admit I was mistaken about the direction the relationship between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government would take. From the pragmatic point of view, it seemed consensual that the two-state solution was on its way to the freezer with a tag attached: see under “solutionism”. This would have placed the differences between President Barack Obama and PM Binyamin Netanyahu on the level of principle. In view of realities on the ground, Obama would avoid confrontation with Israel and work with Netanyahu to accelerate economic cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis.
Instead, Obama chose to embark on a collision course between the two new administrations in Israel and the US. Among Netanyahu’s advisers there are some who believe that those who set Obama on this course of confrontation are close advisers like Rahm Emmanuel who think they understand Israeli society and politics and who detest Netanyahu from the time they served in the Clinton administration. This confrontation apparently started from day one of Netanyahu’s tenure; when he visited the White House for the first time a month and a half after taking office he already encountered a chilly reception.
This is unprecedented. Even during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, whom many compare to Obama, the first visits by prime ministers Yitzhak Rabin and later Menachem Begin were warm and friendly, at least on the surface, despite grave disagreements on central issues.
This strategy of confrontation from the outset was a mistake; Obama was misled by his advisers. People like Emmanuel and David Axelrod saw Israel in the context of a problematic domestic policy that is designed to suppress the American Jewish community and silence the so-called Jewish lobby. They had two goals in mind: to contain Israel and deter it from taking any initiative, especially against Iran, and to change Netanyahu’s order of priority from Iran first to “peace in our time” in Palestine.
Obama and his people thought that concentrated pressure on the settlements issue would do the trick. It would split the Israeli political system and Israeli society wide open and plunge the country into socio-political crisis. Toward that goal they had access to a vehicle that no ordinary ruler has in a conflict, whether with an adversary or an ally: some of the leading voices and commentators in Israel who harbor pathological hatred toward Netanyahu were willing to collaborate in psychological warfare against the Israeli government. Because the settlements are not a consensus issue either in Israeli society or among Israel’s friends in America, the Obama people thought they could create a rift between Israel and American Jewry.
Obama’s calculations were wrong. Although the Israeli public is far from unified on the settlements and many would dismantle them if this was needed for a final peace agreement, there is broad agreement with three current Netanyahu positions.
First, the nuclearization of Iran is of the utmost urgency and may require military action.
Second, the Palestinians have thus far proven incapable of establishing their own state based on the requisite security regime and implementation of the rule of law, meaning that any territory ceded to them will turn into a terrorist base and eventually fall to Hamas.
And third, any Palestinian state that is ultimately created must not pose a threat to Israel.
By endorsing Palestinian statehood with all the preconditions, Netanyahu in his Bar Ilan speech closed the last gap that separated him from most of the Israeli public. The public, which is not infatuated with Netanyahu, nevertheless rallied to his support because it perceived as absurd the unique and disproportional pressure directed at Israel at this juncture in its history, which reeks of appeasement. The way Obama fixed upon Israel as an ugly vehicle for rapprochement with the Muslim world was simply too transparent.
Thus President Obama, who initially was much loved and admired by many in Israel, failed in his attempt to create a political crisis here and instead reaped a harvest of hatred. These days he is despised in Israel, with his lack of moral fiber regarding Iran and the elections putsch there adding fuel to the fire. Both his policy toward Iran and that regarding Israel have exposed US weakness.
One outcome that is now emerging is a rapprochement between Israel and Egypt. Both countries are concerned about sharing a border with an Islamist fundamentalist regime in Gaza; both feel threatened by Iran; and both are most disturbed by the destabilizing effect of President Obama’s initiatives in the region and elsewhere. Thus one positive outcome of the developments of the last couple of months is Egypt and Israel hugging each other tightly in the dark.-
Amnon Lord is a senior editor and columnist at Makor Rishon newspaper.
Pingback: Posts about Barack Obama as of July 24, 2009 » The Daily Parr
The point is Obama thought Israel would simply fold like a house of cards. Instead Israel has been unified in the face of international hostility. Obama’s policy of one-sided pressure upon Israel has reached the point of diminishing returns.
I question whether Lord is correct in saying “Although the Israeli public is far from unified on the settlements and many would dismantle them if this was needed for a final peace agreement”. “Many” maybe but the majority, hardly. Its one thing to uproot as many as 70,000 Israelis as Kadima appeared likely to do, but its another thing to up 100,000 or 200,000 Israelis as Obama is trying to do. Its another thing to demand Israel not build in Jerusalem. Remember Israelis voted for the right this time because it was against Kadima’s offers.
Did I miss something? Jerusalem is capital of Israel, home of the Jews as provided by G-d.
When someone says Jerusalem the first thing you think of is Jewish. Of course.
What does Barak Hussein (Muslim) Obama know. He is a community organizer impersonating a president.
Barak keep your nose out of Israeli affairs.
ron the above is not from me somebody is hacking my name!
I’m glad to hear that, Yamit. Actually, it sounded so much like you, I was wondering if your retraction was a joke. But I’ll take your word for it.
Oat are you nuts I would post in my name Christian conspiracy theories?
Sounds like either Bland or Peskin. Both are nuts and need to be confined.
Obama hasw never had the passion for his people or his country to qualify him for the Presidency. Although he is an intelligent person, he fits into the category of Johnson and Carter, who never gave a damn about any of his followers or the citizens of the USA. They were both arrogant in their power and, that, was their killer. Each either gave up the presidency or lost it in the next election. So will it be in 2012.
His popularity will drop at a very fast rate. By the elections in 2010, he could actually lose control of the Congress. This depends on whether or not the Republicans can find a leader. In my opinion, Newt Gingrich is the most able, intelligent and patriotic of all Conservatives, even though, because of his past marriage, he has a stain. If the truth be known, all of Congress would probably be ousted.
ED D:
Excellent point. I could not agree with you more. You get right to the gritty nitty and tell it as it is. We need more like you at Israpundit. Too much namby panby from the regular boring contributors.
Peskin you are about to run out of aliases!
Is Yamit82 your family name or is it an alias?
Ed:
I hope you are right, but it is not over until its over, however it has only begun.
Chucky:
Why don’t you leave mr. yamit alone?. He seems to be having some problems today. Kindness soothes the soul.
RONNGRAND:
I am new to this site, I notice that you seem to be very shrill and discordant. You might be more effective if you adopt a more gentle tone.Try to see the positive side of things and you might produce better blogs.
Obama’s calculations were wrong and so are BB’s calculations wrong
‘Netanyahu gone out on a limb and is looking for a way down’
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277897622&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Despite vocal opposition among senior Likud lawmakers, coalition chairman Ze’ev Elkin (Likud) told associates Sunday that he planned to present the “Mofaz bill” for its first reading on the Knesset floor Monday, and then push it through a marathon committee hearing in time for a final vote as early as the next night.
The bill – which would allow any group of “rebel MKs” totaling at least seven to form its own faction or join another Knesset faction – would be the first – and only – of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s “governance laws” to reach its second and third (final) readings on the Knesset floor during the summer session, which ends this week.
The five bills had taken a central position in the government’s agenda for the session, but one by one, they encountered roadblocks en route to the house floor.
“Bibi has gone out on a limb by insisting on the Mofaz bill and is looking for a way to get down off it,” said one Likud Knesset official, but dismissed claims that the bill – if approved – would quickly be applied to the Likud to allow right-wing MKs within the party to split and form their own faction.
A second governance law – the so-called “mini-Norwegian bill,” which would allow one cabinet member from each party in the coalition to resign their Knesset seat for the duration of their service as minister and be replaced by the next name on their party’s candidate list – seems to have stalled.
Last week, a joint session of the Law and House committees decided to divide the bill for debate after it passed its first reading, but no second or third readings have been scheduled for the last week of the session.
Much to Netanyahu’s consternation, the three other governance bills – raising the number of votes required for a no-confidence and for a spending bill, and allowing deputy ministers to vote in Knesset committees – have not even been submitted for first readings.
The Likud official emphasized that any failure on the Mofaz bill would be disastrous for the coalition following last week’s blockage of the Israel Lands Administration reform bill.
He added that Netanyahu had begun to suffer within his own party once MKs and ministers saw that despite his threats, the prime minister never punished freshman MK Miri Regev for her outspoken opposition to the attempt to impose value-added tax on fruits and vegetables.
Over the weekend, Government Services Minister Michael Eitan spoke out against the Mofaz bill. He joined other Likud officials, including Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin and Intelligence Affairs Minister Dan Meridor, in explaining that they believed the bill was designed to target one party – Kadima – and was thus anti-democratic.
But unlike Rivlin – who sources said told Netanyahu weeks ago that he would neither run the plenum hearings on the law nor be present during the vote – Eitan and Meridor said they would uphold coalition discipline and vote in favor.
The bill’s namesake, Kadima MK Shaul Mofaz, reiterated that he would vote against the legislation.
In all likelihood, the measure will pass its first reading – albeit by a slim margin – on Monday, provided that Labor lawmakers meet their coalition obligation to support the legislation. In that case, Elkin will work to make sure the bill is routed through the House Committee and any other relevant committee on Tuesday morning, request an exemption from the usual waiting period, and then bring it up for a second and third reading on the floor on Tuesday evening.
The opposition was still deliberating on Sunday evening what strategy to apply once the bill is brought for its first vote.
Earlier in the Knesset session, the opposition managed to block progress on the bill by staging a walkout and boycott of Knesset proceedings, returning only after Rivlin intervened. But they promised that should the Mofaz bill be brought for a vote, they would renew the protest.
Suggestion: Why don’t you find one of those better blogs and get lost permanently! Just trying to see the positive side of things! How’s that for gentle tone?
Is that your real name; israel? Can’t refer to the country.
Chucky is peskins favorite movie series. He identifies with the title character: You, it seems. Is that why he invented you?
Is this really you chucky?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gfjk_LOHJo&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZWrAGs1Tuc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6pTjhvjKKk&feature=related
I would remind Yamit82 that he is completely out of line in questioning me as to where I live and what I
do.I resent very deeply this breach of my privacy.It is also a violation of Blogging protocol to probe for personal information, which is totally irrelevant to my comments. What is the point of having a user name and then having to undergo the kind of drilling.I am not crossing the American frontier and mr Yamit is not a member of homeland security. Is yamit acting in some sort of official capacity? If not he should be shut up.
Show me the protocol! I don’t care what you resent! You may refuse to respond to to my questions. That is your only right. As to my question being relevant? I believe considering your public slander of a whole swath of mostly good Jews, therefor my response is not out of line. Your slanderous statement is though. That opens it up to comments such as that which I posted.
If you are unhappy here, you can I am sure you can find another camp elsewhere.
You referred to me as Mr. Yamit. What gives you the impression that I am a Mr. and Not a Miss, Ms. Mrs.? Yamit after all is a Feminine gender in Hebrew? Do you know something, or were you probing? I resent your assuming personal gender without proof that is an attempt at invasion of privacy.
You may continue to call me Mr or what ever suits your fancy. I will continue to refer to you as peskin, Fair?
Re Yamit:
Outrageous, gestapo tactics. Without commentors you have no viable blog site.
Whoever is running this site should take action. Heaping abuse on those contributing is just not acceptable.
Cut the crap, you have something intelligent to say say it and expect to get stridently challenged if we disagree. That’s better than being ignored, isn’t it? There are always those commentors we can live without.
Israel lives
I run israpundit. Only I can deal with the comments.
Please continue with your comments. I’ll let you know if they are out of line.