Don’t forget to call and email your senators. They’re going to vote on reconciliation if the House passes the bill today.
I just emailed Webb and Warner for the second time, reminding them that I will remember, every November, who voted for and against the healthcare bill.
The media bashes Israel on every occasion, acts as an echo chamber for the Obama administration’s successful attempt to bully the democratically-elected prime minister of Israel into doing what Obama wants him to do. The secretary-general of the UN arrives in Gaza and tells Israel that the blockade must be lifted due to the “unacceptable” suffering of the Gazans.
As for that Gaza blockade causing untold misery? Not so much. Elder has a post (with picture) of the gold boom in Gaza. A starving society, as he points out, would be selling its gold, not buying it. But the pro-Palestinian media doesn’t report on things like this, because it would destroy the narrative of starving Gazans (who are getting fat), homeless Gazans (who have built lavish homes out of mud bricks, an ancient tried-and-true substitute for modern construction materials), and peaceful Gazans (three kassam rockets on Saturday).
Meantime, Ban Ki-moon chides Israel on the blockade, but no word on whether or not he attempted to meet with Gilad Shalit, the prisoner whose capture caused the shutdown of the Gaza crossings. Also, no word on whether or not he called on Egypt to open its Gaza crossings, or allow goods through that end. Because only Israel, it seems, can cause Gazans to suffer.
The hypocrisy of world leaders on Israel continues apace.
Meryl was the first (whom I saw) to notice history repeating itself.
I responded by blogging about an incident from the Clinton administration, from a 1998 Krauthammer column:
But even more significant than the absurd arbitrariness of this number is its very existence. Under the Oslo Accords, these interim “further redeployments” are left to Israel’s discretion (unlike the “final status” talks, at which Israel and the Palestinians will together negotiate their final borders).
Indeed, just 16 months ago the Clinton administration reaffirmed this principle. At 11 p.m. on the night of Jan. 15, 1997, as Netanyahu’s cabinet was agonizing over the proposed withdrawal from Hebron, it received an urgent memo from then-ambassador Martin Indyk stating the official US position that “further redeployment phases are issues for implementation by Israel rather than issues for negotiation with the Palestinians. The letters of assurance which secretary Christopher intends to provide to both parties also refer to the process of further redeployments as an Israeli responsibility.”
Sixteen months later in London, Albright tells Israel that its 9 percent is no good. The withdrawal must be 13.1 percent – or else she walks away. She gives Netanyahu three days to give his answer. He tells her: “I don’t need three days. The answer is no.”
So now we have a crisis. And though it was manufactured by State to put pressure on Netanyahu, it reveals instead a crisis of credibility for this administration: How can Israel make ever more dangerous concessions to the Palestinians when the American assurances it receives to offset those concessions are so perishable?
LAST week at the National Press Club, Albright gave a hastily arranged speech to explain her position. Its essential, tendentious theme was that all of the problems in the peace process are traceable to Netanyahu. Everything has gone to pieces, she averred, “in just two years.” You don’t need to be a CIA codebreaker to understand what that means: Netanyahu was elected prime minister two years ago this month.
The historic Hebron withdrawal, in which Netanyahu single-handedly brought Likud and the Israeli Right into the land-for-peace Oslo process, received nary a word. That’s because the only praise offered in her speech was reserved for Arafat.
Albright credits him for making “substantial changes in {his} negotiating position.” He had wanted a 30 percent Israeli withdrawal but was willing to accept 13.1.
How generous.
If you’re uncertain how familiar the Obama administration’s tactics are, read Hillel Halkin:
What’s at stake is American credibility and American honor. Four months ago, Israel and the United States concluded an argument regarding Israeli construction in the West Bank and former Jordanian Jerusalem with a compromise that neither government was particularly happy about: Israel reluctantly agreed to suspend all new construction in the West Bank for nearly a year, and the U.S. reluctantly accepted Israel’s refusal to do the same in Jerusalem. And yet however reluctant this acceptance was, America made it clear that it considered the Israeli position enough of a concession to push the “peace process†forward and that it was willing to live with it. On that basis, the Netanyahu government declared a West Bank freeze and began to enforce it, despite the anger this caused on the pro-settlement Israeli Right from which many of Mr. Netanyahu’s voters come.
Now, America has reneged on its word. Using the Ramat Shlomo incident as a pretext, it is demanding once again, as if an agreement had never been reached, that Israel cease all construction in “Arab†Jerusalem. Basically, it is saying: “We agreed to a compromise? So what if we did? Now you’ve insulted us and we’re taking our agreement back.â€
This is a grave mistake. And it is gravest of all for the “peace process†that President Obama claims to be so eager to restart.
From the U.S. point of view, the format for the success of this process is clear: Israel must agree to return to its 1967 frontiers and agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state; the Palestinian state must recognize Israel; and the United States must guarantee the security of both countries and pledge that no Palestinian state will ever be used as a military springboard against Israel
Come again? A U.S. guarantee? What kind of guarantee can be expected from a country that cannot keep its word for longer than four months?
I realize that the MSM won’t acknowledge this, but the United States is once again reneging on its word to Israel and then asking Israel to trust it with its future.
Crossposted on Yourish.
I’m so tired of the media bias. Look at these two AP articles about two protests that occurred in Washington yesterday. One was against the Iraq war. One was against the health care bill. First, the anti-war protest:
Thousands of protesters – many directing their anger squarely at President Barack Obama – marched through the nation’s capital Saturday to urge immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
At least eight people, including activist Cindy Sheehan, were arrested by U.S. Park Police at the end of the march, after laying coffins at a fence outside the White House. Friday marked the seventh anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
“Arrest that war criminal!” Sheehan shouted outside the White House before her arrest, referring to Obama.
At a rally before the march, Sheehan asked whether “the honeymoon was over with that war criminal in the White House” – an apparent reference to Obama – prompting moderate applause.
Now, the anti-health care bill protest:
House Democrats heard it all Saturday – words of inspiration from President Barack Obama and raucous chants of protests from demonstrators. And at times it was flat-out ugly, including some racial epithets aimed at black members of Congress.
[…] But much else about the day was noisy, emotional and right out in the open. After more than a year debating the capstone of Obama’s domestic agenda and just hours to go before the showdown vote, there was little holding back.
The tone was set outside the Capitol. Clogging the sidewalks and streets of Capitol Hill were at least hundreds – no official estimate was yet available – of loud, furious protesters, many of them tea party opponents of the health care overhaul.
Rallies outside the Capitol are typically orderly, with speeches and well-behaved crowds. Saturday’s was different, with anger-fueled demonstrators surrounding members of Congress who walked by, yelling at them.
“Kill the bill,” the largely middle-aged crowd shouted, surging toward lawmakers who crossed the street between their office buildings and the Capitol.
Notice any differences? Those scary, racist, bigoted, angry Tea Party protesters are against the healthcare bill because they’re scary, ill-behaved racists. Let’s be clear: The asshats who yelled the n-word at black Congressmen are bigoted jerks. So are the ones who called Barny Frank a faggot. But let’s also point out that they were in the minority. Over the past year, hundreds of rallies have been held, and the overwhelming majority of the protesters were there to protest the healthcare bill, not to shout racial epithets.
But of course, the mainstream media concentrates on the ugliness, because now they have proof that those “teabaggers” are all hateful bigots.
Then there are the crowd estimates. Apparently, reporters aren’t able to tell the difference between a crowd of hundreds and a crowd of tens of thousands. Look at this picture for the “at least hundreds” who showed)
Lastly, there is the AP apologia for the anti-war protest, which used language harsher than “Kill the bill,” but which got the kid-gloves treatment:
Others were more conciliatory toward Obama. Shirley Allan of Silver Spring, Md., carried a sign that read, “President Obama We love you but we need to tell you! Your hands are getting bloody!! Stop it now.”
Allan thought it was going too far to call Obama a war criminal but said she is deeply disappointed that the conflicts are continuing.
“He has to know it’s unacceptable,” Allan said. “I am absolutely disappointed.”
Quite a difference in editorial tone there, huh? But what can we expect? It’s the Obamedia. They’re still in the tank for Obama.
As for your idiot protestor statements, well, I found this anti-war protester quote to be about the stupidest one I’ve heard in years:
Anna Berlinrut, of South Orange, N.J., was one of a number of protesters who have children who have served in Iraq, and said her son supports her protests.
“If there were a draft, we’d have a million people out here,” Berlinrut said when asked about the turnout.
Um—what? Oh, that turnout? Seems that the AP could find someone to estimate the ANSWER anti-war protest, but not, of course, the healthcare protest.
The exact number of protesters was unclear, as D.C. authorities do not give out crowd estimates. Organizers estimated the march, which stretched for several blocks, at 10,000.
The objective media at work.
One of my former students had her bat mitzvah service this weekend, which is what’s been keeping me busy all day.
The big surprise of the day was seeing my former rabbi and rebbetzin when I walked in. Apparently, they decided yesterday to stop by on their way to relatives. It was a very, very pleasant surprise, one that tickled me even more as I saw the surprised looks on the faces of the various congregants who had managed to force him out before they got their expressions under control.
My reaction? It’s the first time I ever entered a synagogue and said, “Holy crap!”
Oops. I’ll repent for that one on Yom Kippur.
It was wonderful to hear his voice during services again.
Hannah did a great job. I think what I like most about seeing my former students is watching them enter new stages and phases of their lives. She’s becoming quite the teenaged girl, and her friends are cute and funny. Yes, even the one who talked to the flowers. (Why? Because she’s thirteen.)
If Obamacare passes, I think I’m going to make it official. I’m not sure. It’s a huge step. I have never registered with a political party before.
But I think, if Obamacare passes, I am going to register as a Republican.
That’s how far away the Democrats have pushed me.
And remember, I voted for Carter, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, and Gore before voting for Bush and McCain.
I used to vote, as they said in New Jersey, “Line A all the way.” I voted the straight Republican ticket in November.
The Democrats have become the party of the statists. Worse still, the nanny-statists. I’m afraid we are about to become, more than ever, the United Socialist States of America.
That isn’t the America I want for future generations. I will likely never vote for a Democrat again. They’ve turned too far to the left.
Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he’ll live by the rules that the world makes for him,
’Cause there’s a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.
He’s the neighborhood bully.Neighborhood Bully – Bob Dylan
Scott Wilson writing on the web for the Washington Post posits that Israeli leaders are not likely to win diplomatic battles with the United States.
Next, think back to 1992. Picking a fight with the Bush administration cost Shamir his job. Who succeeded him as prime minister?
Rabin, who immediately pledged to cease construction of what he called “political” settlements in the territories. Perhaps he, too, remembered 1975.
Of course one could also point to Ehud Barak who did all he could to cooperate with the Americans to the point of making an unprecedented offer to Yasser Arafat at Camp David in 2000. Arafat rejected the offer and, two months later, launched a war against Israel. None of President Clinton’s goodwill towards Barak helped him as months later he went down to the worst electoral defeat in Israel’s history.
The two previous paragraphs, though, give a hint to Wilson’s premises and the limitations of his analysis.
First, it’s worth keeping in mind that opinion polls often show that a majority of Israelis supports the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. That is the Obama administration’s policy, which Israeli building in the territories severely undermines.
Moreover, secular Israelis view religious settlers as a drain on the national treasury and certainly not worth a fight with a superpower ally that provides the Jewish state with $3 billion a year in military aid.
Of course, building in Jerusalem is different from building in the territories. (And even Wilson’s unsupported assertion that building in the territories “undermines” a Palestinian state is dubious.) It was expected – even by the Palestinian Authority – that Israel would continue building in Jerusalem. It was only when the Obama administration made an issue of Israeli building in Jerusalem, that it became an issue with the PA. And in this way, despite Wilson’s finesse, that the Obama administration differs quite a bit from Israeli public opinion.
Daniel Pipes offers a number of reasons that he expects Netanyahu to survive this crisis, but the fifth one is the best:
A recent poll of American voters shows an astonishing 8-to-1 sympathy for Israel over the Palestinians, so picking a fight with Israel harms Obama politically – precisely what a president sinking in the polls and attempting to transform one-sixth of the economy does not need.
A point that Pipes does not make is that over the past 16 and a half years Israel has made concessions; nearly every single one of them was met with violence or greater intransigence on the part of the Palestinians. Analysts like Wilson have been preserved in amber going back to 1992. They forget this. But Israelis remember. If it wasn’t Camp David that was followed by the “Aqsa Intifada,” it was the withdrawal from Lebanon that led to the 2006 war with Hizballah or the withdrawal from Gaza that led to Operation Cast Lead. Israelis are skeptical of the peace process now and won’t be well disposed to an American President who shows sympathy to their foes and ignores Israeli sensitivities.
Similar to Wilson is Mark Landler of the New York Times who writes in “Opportunity in a fight with Israel.”
For President Obama, getting into a serious fight with Israel carries obvious domestic and foreign political risks. But it may offer the administration a payoff it sees as worthwhile: shoring up Mr. Obama’s credibility as a Middle East peacemaker by showing doubtful Israelis and Palestinians that he has the fortitude to push the two sides toward an agreement.
Pay attention to that opening paragraph. Note how he wrote “two sides.” Here’s what’s included in the rest of the “analysis”
Mrs. Clinton did keep up the pressure on Mr. Netanyahu to demonstrate that he was committed to negotiations with the Palestinians
A senior administration official said the harsh rebuke of Mr. Netanyahu, delivered in a phone call last week by Mrs. Clinton, was important “to demonstrate we mean what we say when we enter these talks.†The announcement of a housing plan, the official said, undermined trust just as the United States was trying to open indirect talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.
…
Taking a tough line with Israel helps the administration counter a perception that it folded last summer when Mr. Netanyahu rebuffed Mr. Obama’s demand that Israel freeze all construction of Jewish settlements. When Mr. Netanyahu countered with an offer of a 10-month partial freeze on the construction on the West Bank, Mrs. Clinton praised the offer as “unprecedented.â€That soured the Palestinians and left much of the Arab world wondering whether Mr. Obama would ever deliver on the promise in his speech in Cairo of a new approach to the Muslim world. American officials worried that this credibility gap could hinder their campaign to rally support from Persian Gulf countries for new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.
…
That message was echoed by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of the military’s Central Command, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the lack of progress in the Middle East was a large challenge to American interests.“The conflict foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of U.S. favoritism toward Israel,†he said.
In all three instances, Landler writes (in different ways) that it’s necessary for the United States to pressure Israel – not “two sides” as he expresses in his opening paragraph. (And Gen. Petraeus, never said that line that’s attributed to him. It was in the briefing that was presented to the Armed Forces Services Committee, but it was not in his statement. For more on this point please see, JINSA, Barry Rubin and Max Boot.)
Landler does quote Rep. Ackerman on getting both sides to talk peace, but mentions no specific instance of putting pressure on the Palestinians.
Landler, like Wilson, is living in the past. Charles Krauthammer neatly shines a bright light on this willful ignorance:
Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton’s own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu’s defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.
In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a “peace process” — now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state — the point of which is to extract preemptive Israeli concessions, such as a ban on Jewish construction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948, before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.
Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its gross domestic product is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called “unprecedented.”
What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.
So not only have the Palestinians refused to make any substantive concessions for peace, they are surrounded by a cocoon of sympathetic journalists, academics, diplomats and politicians who ignore every single step made by Israel and pretend that it’s Israel that’s intransigent. They then insist that Israel must do more for peace, which only convinces Israel’s enemies to sit tight.
Or worse.
Lee Smith writes in Slate (via memeorandum)::
When the Obama administration promised to engage the adversaries that the Bush White House had isolated, U.S. allies followed the strong horse’s lead and also changed course. Most notably, the Saudis patched things up with the Syrians after five years of intra-Arab discord. Riyadh pushed its Lebanese allies to reconcile with Damascus, and with Beirut’s pro-democracy and pro-United States March 14 movement now all but dead, Washington no longer has a Lebanese ally. When President Barack Obama indicated that the most important thing concerning Iraq was to withdraw U.S. forces, the Syrians and Saudis found a shared interest in attacking Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Even as Maliki, his Iraqi security officials, and Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, explained that the Syrians were behind a series of mega-terror attacks in Baghdad, the White House hushed them up for fear that identifying Syria as responsible for the attacks would jeopardize its efforts to engage Damascus. It is lost on no one in the region that Washington left two allies out on their own. But it gets worse.
Some U.S. commentators have praised the Obama administration’s recent condemnation of Israel for announcing, during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit, that it intended to build 1,600 apartment units in East Jerusalem. The White House’s response, they argue, sends a strong message that Washington won’t be bullied. In the Middle East, however, there is nothing that reeks so much of weakness as beating up on an ally in public. Moreover, this tongue-lashing comes shortly after the White House swallowed the open taunts of its adversaries. At a recent Damascus banquet featuring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, and Hamas’ Khaled Meshaal, Syrian President Bashar Assad openly mocked Secretary Hillary Clinton. He joked that he had misunderstood her demands that Syria distance itself from Iran, so instead, said Assad, he was waiving visa requirements for visitors from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Of course, Washington shaming Israel will please the Arabs—even U.S. allies like Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Cairo, Egypt, that cheered on Jerusalem when it took on Iran’s assets Hezbollah and Hamas. Remember, the Arabs have been compelled by the American strong horse to swallow their pride for decades. But given that Arabs do not air their own dirty laundry for fear it will make them look weak, our public humiliation of an ally will earn us only contempt.
Smart diplomacy at work.
Crossposted at Soccer Dad.
Tony Blair was appointed the Quartet’s Middle East envoy in 2007. Since then, he has amassed millions of dollars working for the governments of Kuwait and Iraq, has formed a consultancy firm that works for Arab governments, and is rumored to have deals with the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.
And he is supposed to be the man who is supposed to be helping the Palestinians and Israelis move towards peace. Why, he was just in Israel a couple of weeks ago. I wonder if, while he was there, he built up his consulting business with the Palestinians?
Can you say, “Conflict of interest?” I knew you could. Oh, and the best part of all of this? He’s been trying to keep it secret for years.
Tony Blair waged an extraordinary two-year battle to keep secret a lucrative deal with a multinational oil giant which has extensive interests in Iraq.
The former Prime Minister tried to keep the public in the dark over his dealings with South Korean oil firm UI Energy Corporation.
Mr Blair – who has made at least £20million since leaving Downing Street in June 2007 – also went to great efforts to keep hidden a £1million deal advising the ruling royal family in Iraq’s neighbour Kuwait.
As I emailed to Lair Simon, who sent me the link to this article: And we thought Bill Clinton was a whore.
Looks like Blair is joining the Jimmy Carter school of mediation—the one bought and paid for by the Arabs (cf: Saudi Arabian donations to the Carter Center).
Whether or not the House uses the Slaughter rule to “deem and pass” a bill that they will then have the president sign into law without it having been voted on by both houses of Congress, here’s a slogan for those of us who don’t want a government takeover of America’s healthcare business:
We’ll remember in November
They think the American public is stupid. They think we’re forgetful. They think we won’t notice our taxes going up, our employment going down, and the crushing debt burden that this administration and Congress want to leave our heirs.
They’re wrong.
We’ll remember in November.
I’m terrified they’re going to pass this monstrosity. If they do, I’ll be remembering several Novembers from now. My senators both voted for it. Let’s not forget that there are 60 Democratic and independent senators that will be responsible for this as well as the members of the House.
Perhaps it should be “We’ll remember EVERY November” until we clear them out.
Robert Kagan argues that Israel shouldn’t feel like it’s been singled out.
Israelis shouldn’t feel that they have been singled out. In Britain, people are talking about the end of the “special relationship” with America and worrying that Obama has no great regard for the British, despite their ongoing sacrifices in Afghanistan. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has openly criticized Obama for months (and is finally being rewarded with a private dinner, presumably to mend fences). In Eastern and Central Europe, there has been fear since the administration canceled long-planned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic that the United States may no longer be a reliable guarantor of security. Among top E.U. officials there is consternation that neither the president nor even his Cabinet seems to have time for the European Union’s new president, Herman Van Rompuy, who, while less than scintillating, is nevertheless the chosen representative of the post-Lisbon Treaty continent. Europeans in general, while still fond of Obama, have concluded that he is not so fond of them — despite his six trips to Europe — and is more of an Asian president.
The Asians, however, are not so sure. Relations with Japan are rocky, mostly because of the actions of the new government in Tokyo but partly because of a perception that the United States can’t be counted on for the long term. In India, there are worries that the burgeoning strategic partnership forged in the Bush years has been demoted in the interest of better relations with China. Although the Obama administration promised to demonstrate that the United States “is back” in Asia after the alleged neglect of the Bush years, it has not yet convinced allies that they are the focus of American attention.
(Note to the NJDC, instead of arguing that the current crisis between Israel and the United States isn’t the worst between the allies in 35 years – there is clearly a crisis – just argue that this how President Obama treats all his friends. Thanks to the Hashmonean for the pointer)
That’s because, as David Harsanyi points out the President has new friends he needs to cultivate.
Not long after President Barack Obama gave his conciliatory speeches to the Islamic world, he chose not to meddle in the sham election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In fact, he offered not a word of support for the men and women who took to the streets against that totalitarian regime.
Then, as “manmade disasters” continued to erupt spontaneously around the world — including at a United States military base — the administration held steadfast in using non-offensive euphemisms, lest anyone be slighted by our jingoist need to use words that mean something.
And when the president was given a chance to fulfill a campaign promise and acknowledge the genocide of 1.5 million Christian Armenians by Turks during World War I, he instead did everything he could to block the resolution.
These days, as Christian farmers are being slaughtered by Muslim machetes in Nigeria, outrage from the White House is difficult to find — though it made sure to instruct our Libyan ambassador to apologize to “Colonel” Moammar Gadhafi after he offered some mildly critical comments about the dictator’s call for jihad against Switzerland (true story).
I guess that alienating friends and forgiving enemies is the “smart diplomacy” we’ve heard so much about.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Just to let you know that I am not now, nor will I ever be, Irish. No matter what day today is.
And I don’t really care for green.
Carry on with your regularly scheduled programming (and pub-hopping).
Here’s why I think the Obama administration is ratcheting up the pressure over 1,600 new housing units in a Jewish neighborhood of northeastern Jerusalem that will almost certainly remain Israeli in any future agreement with the Palestinians: The Obama administration is trying to topple the Netanyahu government. The Clinton administration did its level best to prevent Bibi from being elected in 1996, and worked very hard to get him thrown out as soon as possible thereafter. The Obama administration has found a stick, and they’re using it to beat the Netanyahu administration in the eyes of the world. The Chicago Machine lies and smears have gone out to the appropriate media outlets. The hyperbole is rising as the Machine cogs hit the media trail. It’s an all-out assault on Bibi and his administration.
Noah Pollak, in a similar vein:
It should be obvious, at this point, that Obama is trying to manufacture an immense political dilemma for Netanyahu by forcing him to choose between two crises — one with the United States should he accept the demands, the other with his coalition partners and the Israeli public should he reject them. For Netanyahu, this is a no-win situation. The only choice is between less damaging options.
Netanyahu should reject the new demands, because they are not made in good faith, they are a reversal of previous Obama commitments, and, most important, the proximity talks themselves are a trap.
And finally, Jeffrey Goldberg (via memeorandum):
I’ve been on the phone with many of the usual suspects (White House and otherwise), and I think it’s fair to say that Obama is not trying to destroy America’s relations with Israel; he’s trying to organize Tzipi Livni’s campaign for prime minister, or at least for her inclusion in a broad-based centrist government. I’m not actually suggesting that the White House is directly meddling in internal Israeli politics, but it’s clear to everyone — at the White House, at the State Department, at Goldblog — that no progress will be made on any front if Avigdor Lieberman’s far-right party, Yisrael Beiteinu, and Eli Yishai’s fundamentalist Shas Party, remain in Netanyahu’s surpassingly fragile coalition.
So what is the goal? The goal is force a rupture in the governing coalition that will make it necessary for Netanyahu to take into his government Livni’s centrist Kadima Party (he has already tried to do this, but too much on his terms) and form a broad, 68-seat majority in Knesset that does not have to rely on gangsters, messianists and medievalists for votes. It’s up to Livni, of course, to recognize that it is in Israel’s best interests to join a government with Netanyahu and Barak, and I, for one, hope she puts the interests of Israel ahead of her own ambitions.
Obama knows that this sort of stable, centrist coalition is the key to success. He would rather, I understand, not have to deal with Netanyahu at all — people near the President say that, for one thing, Obama doesn’t think that Netanyahu is very bright, and there is no chemistry at all between the two men — but he’d rather have a Netanyahu who is being pressured from his left than a Netanyahu who is being pressured from the right.
Goldberg, I think, is right about what’s going on, but his view of Israeli politics is skewed. Shas, for example, has been known to support the peace process, much to the chagrin of other religious parties. Eli Yishai wasn’t announcing a plan for a new community on a remote hilltop, but rather expanding the housing stock in an established neighborhood in Jerusalem.
And to call Avigdor Lieberman’s party “far right” when the party at least believes in territorial compromise is a woeful misnomer. Lieberman holds some views that are characterized as such, but his party, overall, is part of Israel’s mainstream.
Goldberg’s promiscuous use of “right” to describe Netanyahu and the current Israeli government, ignores what’s really happened. Robert Satloff writes:
At the same time, it is also true that a quiet revolution has been going on inside Israel on the peace issue. What has been lost amid the histrionics about construction permits in Jerusalem and Israel’s habit of delivering concessions to Washington weeks after the Obama administration wanted them is that Binyamin Netanyahu has led the Likud-led government into totally uncharted waters. With his Bar-Ilan speech, he became the third “revisionist” prime minister in a row to adopt the “two states for two peoples” paradigm, effectively consigning Greater Israel advocates to the margins of Israeli politics, where they have no national champion. Moreover, with his decision on a West Bank settlement moratorium, Netanyahu made a commitment that no Israeli prime minister since Oslo — Rabin, Sharon, Peres, or Barak — ever made, and in the process tacitly rolled back forty years of Israeli policy that rejected the idea of settlements as an obstacle to peacemaking. The result is that mainstream Israeli debate on the peace process now centers on the fitness of the PA as a negotiating partner and the extent of Israeli territorial demands — 2 percent of the West Bank? 4 percent? 6 percent? — and not on the more basic question of a repartition of Palestine that would leave the other side with the vast majority of West Bank territory in an independent and more-or-less sovereign state. Over time, these developments will be recognized as seismic.
Goldberg’s also wrong when he writes, “this sort of stable, centrist coalition is the key to success” (i.e. a coaltion with Kadima instead of Yisrael Beiteinu). Israel had such a coaltion in 2000 and Arafat rejected Ehud Barak’s offer at Camp David. It had such a coaltion in 2008 and Abbas rejected Ehud Olmert’s offer as the coalition was unraveling.
The problem hasn’t been Israel. The problem has been the Palestinians.
And Meryl’s correct to recall the machinations of the Clinton administration. Netanyahu got his cabinet to approve the Hebron Accords given the assurances of Dennis Ross that Israel would be allowed to determine the future extents of its withdrawals. But though Arafat never kept any of the terms he agreed to back then, the administration spent the next year and a half (until Wye) battering Netanyahu politically and working to undermine his political support. Here’s Charles Krauthammer:
But even more significant than the absurd arbitrariness of this number is its very existence. Under the Oslo Accords, these interim “further redeployments” are left to Israel’s discretion (unlike the “final status” talks, at which Israel and the Palestinians will together negotiate their final borders).
Indeed, just 16 months ago the Clinton administration reaffirmed this principle. At 11 p.m. on the night of Jan. 15, 1997, as Netanyahu’s cabinet was agonizing over the proposed withdrawal from Hebron, it received an urgent memo from then-ambassador Martin Indyk stating the official US position that “further redeployment phases are issues for implementation by Israel rather than issues for negotiation with the Palestinians. The letters of assurance which secretary Christopher intends to provide to both parties also refer to the process of further redeployments as an Israeli responsibility.”
Sixteen months later in London, Albright tells Israel that its 9 percent is no good. The withdrawal must be 13.1 percent – or else she walks away. She gives Netanyahu three days to give his answer. He tells her: “I don’t need three days. The answer is no.”
So now we have a crisis. And though it was manufactured by State to put pressure on Netanyahu, it reveals instead a crisis of credibility for this administration: How can Israel make ever more dangerous concessions to the Palestinians when the American assurances it receives to offset those concessions are so perishable?
LAST week at the National Press Club, Albright gave a hastily arranged speech to explain her position. Its essential, tendentious theme was that all of the problems in the peace process are traceable to Netanyahu. Everything has gone to pieces, she averred, “in just two years.” You don’t need to be a CIA codebreaker to understand what that means: Netanyahu was elected prime minister two years ago this month.
The historic Hebron withdrawal, in which Netanyahu single-handedly brought Likud and the Israeli Right into the land-for-peace Oslo process, received nary a word. That’s because the only praise offered in her speech was reserved for Arafat.
Albright credits him for making “substantial changes in {his} negotiating position.” He had wanted a 30 percent Israeli withdrawal but was willing to accept 13.1.
How generous.
One of the great illusions of the peace process is that every few years, Israelis elect a right wing prime minister whose intransigence halts or reverses the success of the “peace process.” But as Satloff and Krauthammer observed, Israel’s “right wing” prime ministers since Oslo have all moved the “peace process” forward, though their concessions are pocketed by the Palestinians and ignored by the rest of the world. It is, I guess, easier to blame an Israeli Prime Minister who is subject to political pressure, but that hardly moves the “peace process” when the Palestinian leader refuses to make the smallest concession to Israel or even to peace.
Meryl, Noah Pollak and Jeffrey Goldberg are all correct in their reading of President Obama’s motives. It’s happened before. Goldberg, however, is wrong in his reading of the Israeli government and offers support to ongoing Palestinian intransigence.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad
There are three recent Washington Post editorials abour the Middle East worth mentioning.
Last July the Washington Post ran an editorial Tough on Israel which observed:
But the administration also is guilty of missteps. Rather than pocketing Mr. Netanyahu’s initial concessions — he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous U.S. administrations — Mr. Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement “freeze.” Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the “confidence-building” concessions to Israel that the administration seeks. Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu. And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration’s final year, have yet to resume.
U.S. and Israeli officials are working on a compromise that would allow Israel to complete some housing now under construction while freezing new starts for a defined period. Arab states would be expected to take steps in return. Such a deal will expose Mr. Obama to criticism in the Arab world — a public relations hit that he could have avoided had he not escalated the settlements dispute in the first place. At worst, the president may find himself diminished among both Israelis and Arabs before discussions even begin on the issues on which U.S. clout is most needed. If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama will need to show both sides that they can trust him — and he must be tough on more than one country.
A month ago the Post’s editors warned, Don’t expect progress from talking to Syria:
Not a few have come away hopeful, at first. Ms. Pelosi memorably declared that “the road to Damascus is a road to peace.” Yet none so far has produced the slightest change in Mr. Assad’s behavior or in his unacceptable ambitions. Having carried out a campaign of political murder in Lebanon, including the killing of a prime minister for which he has yet to be held accountable, Mr. Assad continues to insist on a veto over the Lebanese government. He continues to facilitate massive illegal shipments of Iranian arms to Hezbollah, dangerously setting the stage for another war with Israel, and to host the most hard-line elements of the Hamas leadership. He continues to harbor exiled leaders of Saddam Hussein’s regime and to allow suicide bombers to flow into Iraq for use by al-Qaeda.
Now the Post’s editors are once again focused on Israel, The U.S. Quarrel with Israel:
But Mr. Obama risks repeating his previous error. American chastising of Israel invariably prompts still harsher rhetoric, and elevated demands, from Palestinian and other Arab leaders. Rather than join peace talks, Palestinians will now wait to see what unilateral Israeli steps Washington forces. Mr. Netanyahu already has made a couple of concessions in the past year, including declaring a partial moratorium on settlements. But on the question of Jerusalem, he is likely to dig in his heels — as would any other Israeli government. If the White House insists on a reversal of the settlement decision, or allows Palestinians to do so, it might land in the same corner from which it just extricated itself.
A larger question concerns Mr. Obama’s quickness to bludgeon the Israeli government. He is not the first president to do so; in fact, he is not even the first to be hard on Mr. Netanyahu. But tough tactics don’t always work: Last year Israelis rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu, while Mr. Obama’s poll ratings in Israel plunged to the single digits. The president is perceived by many Israelis as making unprecedented demands on their government while overlooking the intransigence of Palestinian and Arab leaders. If this episode reinforces that image, Mr. Obama will accomplish the opposite of what he intends.
A few observations:
1) The administration’s outreach to Syria was answered with a mocking response from Syria, causing not the slightest reaction from the administration.
2) This is in sharp contrast to the administration’s response to Israel, over plans for Israel to build in an established neighborhood in Jerusalem.
3) The disparate responses of the admininstration to these two incidents are so severe that even a paper like the Washington Post – which is not what anyone would call “pro-Israel” notices.
RELATED: Richard Cohen writes:
To my knowledge, there is no square in Israel named for the mass murderers of civilians. Palestinian society, in contrast, honors all sorts of terrorists.
This is not a minor point. The veneration of terrorists says something unsettling about Palestinian society. An Israeli can recognize the legitimacy of Palestinian aspiration and appreciate the depth of the calamity that befell the Palestinians in 1948. The Palestinian intellectual Constantine Zurayk coined the term “al-Nakba” (the disaster) for their 1948 debacle — and there is no doubt it was. But for Palestinians, that disaster has only been compounded by an Arab intransigence and belligerence that has played into Israel’s territorial ambitions, particularly the annexation of East Jerusalem. The reliance on terrorism has had cinematic charms and given the Palestinians a certain cachet among the West’s kaffiyeh set, but it has caused Israelis to dig in their heels. The adulation of Dalal Mughrabi and other terrorists is bound to give your average Israeli parent a certain pause: Is this the state we want next to us? Didn’t pulling out of Gaza produce a steady drizzle of rockets and, in due course, another war?
His perspective is skewed. Palestinian belligerence doesn’t play into anyone’s hands, it shows a mindset that is hostile to Israel and the idea of peace with Israel. But the central point is correct.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
