Now I voted initially for Hillary Clinton last year during the primary, while she was being called the "AIPAC candidate," falsely called a "neo-con," etc. And I did it because I thought she had more experience and knew more about domestic issues and had the added bonus of being up close in the White House. And most of all, I thought she had a stronger foreign policy hand, would take a tougher stand on Ahmadinejad, and was more of a friend to Israel, the only country in the Middle East ranked free by Freedom House, and a consistent ideology, political, and strategic ally, the only one in the ME during the Cold War and today. When Obama won the nomination, it took me some time to grudgingly accept, and in November I voted for him. I thought what I believed to be pandering to hard-left voters on I/P and positioning himself to be the anti-Hillary and thus anti-"AIPAC candidate" as the netroots called Hillary was just that: pandering. Anyway, enough about the primary.
Obama came to office, like any president would after Bush, he wanted to repair our image, particularly with the Islamic world. One of Obama's first priorities was the Israel/Palestinian conflict. But to the I/P conflict, I found an interesting Op-Ed in the Jerusalem Post. yes I know it leans right on the Op-Ed pages. But that doesn't mean its completely worth dismissing. They are a part of Israeli society and politics Obama cannot completely piss off if he wants to get anything done. The author points out some things does make some very interesting points about perceptions of Obama in Israel:
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 Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the level of principle. 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. Among Netanyahu's advisers there are some who believe that those who set Obama on this course are close advisers like Rahm Emanuel who think they understand Israeli society and politics and who have detested Netanyahu from the time they served in the Clinton administration. Whatever the reason, this confrontation apparently started from day one of Netanyahu 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.
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.
Now while I don't quite agree with the author's assertion on Emanuel and Axelrod, I do think Obama did not make a good enough effort to try to get along with Netanyahu when he got to office. Netanyahu did have a bad reputation with the Clintons and their people, but I do think Obama should have made more an effort to at least look like he was trying with Bibi as a new entity, even tho he is Likud and had not endorsed a two-state solution at that time. I think Obama's quote of:
"I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel
was a very big mistake. First off, I don't think bashing a ally country's mainsteam center-right political party in such a way shows very much respect for the ally, which is Israel. If he had said something like "I tend to think I'd work better with a Labor or Kadima party PM" I think it may not have left such a bad taste in the Israel cabinet's mouths, or the voters, who Obama should have known were like to be a little more hawkish in the coming election when he said this. Linking being "pro-Israel" to any mainstream Israeli party is not a good thing to do. By saying what he said, its almost like saying "I can refuse to work with you at all and still be seen as 'pro-Israel'." It also assumes that all pro-Israel Americans are pro-Likud, which they are not.
The author also has a good point about Carter. While I strongly disagree with everything he has said and written recently about Israel/Palestine, I do think the fact he was friendlier to Begin at the beginning than Obama was to Netanyahu shows that Obama got off on a terrible footing. I will give him credit for Egypt/Israel tho Begin/Sadat get the bulk, and it doesn't mean just cuz Carter did that anything he says or does on the matter afterwards is OK. Even Bill Clinton when Netanyahu came in 1996 tried to at least put on an air in public of trying to get along instead of confrontation. We do know it got bad, and Bibi was even more intransigient than he is today. He tried to back peddle on Oslo, which was indeed promising at the time, and Clinton wasn't abandoning Israel in anyway. But 2009 are different times than 1996. Clinton had a proven track record with Rabin, so bibi had more resistance from the public on not being more open to the peace process. Not to mention Clinton got along great with Rabin when he came to office. Even tho Clinton initially, according to "Putting People First," a copy of which I have, initially opposed a two-state solution in 1992! Bet no one here knew that!
OBAMA AND his people thought that concentrated pressure on the settlements issue would do the trick - split the Israeli political system and society wide open and plunge the country into sociopolitical crisis.
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.
Now the author says Obama did this to line top Israeli officials up against the Israeli government, thus to bring it down, tho I don't think he tried to bring all Israel into a "sociopolitical crisis." I kind of think he tried to do this to, you know, make Israel's parliament think "Netanyahu is not liked by Obama who is so loved, time to dump him." I think that was a poor calculation. If Obama's goal was this, he underestimated the sentiment in Israel, which is rather hard-nosed given what this decade has given them: an Arafat who turned down the peace deal, another stupid intifada, a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and all settlements there only to be rewarded with more terrorism and Hamastan on their borders. Coupled with their perception of him, that clearly did not work out very well. He says two of Obama's goals in doing this were:
They had two goals in mind: to deter Israel 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.
I do think he has a point, in that Obama underestimated how much Israel fears, and rightfully so, Iran's nuclear weapons program, its fear of another Hamastan after Gaza if the PA doesn't step up and lead and a Palestinian state is demilitarized, which Arafat didn't mind. He only minded a lack of right of return. And Obama did seem so eager on I/P peace, while kind of glossing over the root cause of the overall problem with jihadism and glossing over making good relations with Israel before going on the peace process.
I believe Obama chose confrontational approach with Israel, mostly because he thought he could please the Muslim world so much that it could play a massive role in ending jihadism. I think he should listen to his own Dennis Ross, who in his new book:
Ross and Makovsky have used their decades of experience and insider knowledge to write a trenchant and often pugnacious demolition of numerous misconceptions about strategic thinking on the Middle East. "The mother of all myths," they write, is linkage, the bizarrely resilient idea that once the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is solved, the dictatorships and ramshackle monarchies that rule the region will transform themselves into friendly liberal democracies and the terrorists will put away their bombs. This, Ross and Makovsky say, is nonsense (as the recent turmoil in Iran illustrates). To buttress their case, they list 10 regional conflicts, like the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, that had no connection with Israel.
And I also think the bombings in Indonesia and the problems with Islamists in Africa show that the I/P conflict has little to do with the rise of Islamism, except as a complete scapegoat of convenience at times. Seeing as that is our problem, much bigger and more dangerous than I/P. Tho I do think solving the problem could add an extra stability to a part of the world that could use it and garner some more respect, but it will not end the overall disdain Islamists have for the Western World, and for both Great and Little Satan. At most, it would embolden moderates. That would be helpful, but I think Obama needs to go harder after the terrorist ideology, not just one problem something false is a root cause.
I think he thought "gee if they think we don't like Israel as much, they'll like us more!" Problem is that Problem is that many Israelis thought thats what Obama was doing, and it kind of hurts when a peace process needs two to tango, and Obama leaves the Palestinians out of pressure in order to please a part of the world, a large segment of whom is never going to like you, also at Israel's political expense. This insults Israelis, and make them distrust Obama, and see him as a political opportunist pertending to be a friend when they feel more like a pawn. I also think this approach was wrong, because I think it has given Abbas and the PA the green light to say "we want more" on everything because they think he's never gonna ask for anything anyway. The fact that Israel doesn't like Obama more explains why Bibi has political cover to go against what Obama wants. more over, I think the whole Arab world now thinks they can get Obama to bend on long held American policy.
However, I agree 100% in a two state solution. I don't know what netanyahu was also waiting for before last month, when the only words he uttered were "economic peace" and "triple prong track." But he did in the end listen to Obama and endorsed it. I would like to see settlements curbed except for buildings almost finished. And of course, a safe end to the occupation of the West Bank. Of course I think a Kadima or Labor government would have been a much better match for Barack Obama. However, I think the perception Israel had of Obama from the primary, his association with Khalidi, Said, and Wright really hurt him in Israel, as did him saying in the primaries he could have negotiations with Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions, along with the idea he would talk to hamas before they met certain requirements. Personally, I think if Hillary had been the nominee, seeing as the Clintons were much more popular in and perceived as friendly to Israel, I think a more center party and NOT Netanyahu would have won the elections, meaning the US would have had an easier time with Israel. Clinton's popularity would have blown Netanyahu out of the water because they wouldn't want a fight who people they liked. But you work with the Israeli government you have, not the one you wish for, or want at another time. I think Obama should have acted like this from the start, not try to bring down Netanyahu.
But I think there is a chance this may be able to be fixed. The good news is historian and Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren says
There is no crisis in relations between Israel and the United States, despite a lingering dispute - which will be settled "soon" - over settlement construction in the occupied territories, Israel's new ambassador to Washington said Wednesday.
"There is no crisis in Israel-U.S. relations. Here we are talking about disagreements over certain subjects, very, very specific," Michael Oren told Israel Radio.
The interview took place against a backdrop of reports that the U.S. and Israel are on a collision course over Israel's insistence, in the face of U.S. opposition, that it can continue building within existing settlements.
However, I do wonder what the fuck Bibi is waiting for
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday urged Israel to freeze all forms of settlement activity, adding increasing international pressure following a call from the United States earlier this week to cease construction in East Jerusalem.
"I urge the government of Israel to commit fully to its obligations, including to freeze settlement activity and natural growth," said Ban in a message to a United Nations meeting in Geneva on the Middle East.
State Department met with Ambassador Michael Oren over the weekend to advise him that an Israeli construction project in East Jerusalem developed by American millionaire Irving Moskowitz should not go ahead.
Netanyahu said the following day that Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem was "indisputable" and that he would not allow citizens to be forbidden property purchases in any part of the city.
Indeed Obama is unpopular in Israel, which I think is partly at the feet of Obama to blame, tho I don't know what Netanyahu is looking to get out of this no matter how right he is. I understand he is pissed off about Obama barely uttering a peep to Mahmoud Abbas, or his unwillingness to negotiate even after Netanyahu offered a two-state solution that is open to negotiation on reasonably negotiable points. I do think Netanyahu should be more flexible on Jerusalem, meaning he should just quit the settlements there for now. But he has not closed it for negotiation nor has he said it. Yes the settlment building should stop, but given that Netanyahu has told the world he is ready to negotiation, there is no reason Abbas cannot do the same, and there is no reason Obama cannot facilitate it. How can Obama expect concessions from Netanyahu when he, and his country, feel Obama doesn't truly care about what is best for them, but for making himself more "popular" in the Muslim world, which has always been less hospitable to America than Israel, Cold War ally against Soviet proxies and modern day ally against Radical Jihad? Not to mention culturally, politically and ideologically far closer than any Muslim country is the the US. Even harry reid urged obama to come down on the Palestinians instead of letting Netanyahu and the Israeli public harden, and Abbas just sit back and get used to not being asked for anything.
I don't think this relationship is damaged beyond repair. I think Netanyahu needs to show more willingness to stop holding onto "natural growth," but I think Obama really, if he wants to really get peace done, that will not be "peace in our time" but peace as in permanent settlement, he needs to stop pressuring ONLY ISRAEL, and start calling on Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas. He needs to tell Abbas to work harder to curb violence and come to the table. He needs to remind Hamas they will only ever have a spot at the table should they renounce violence and recognize the Jewish State. He may think he's "popular" with the Muslim world right now, but when they see nothing getting done on this, assuming I/P is really such a big issue with Muslim world,(which in reality it is not the key or anything close) his popularity could hurt too there. And he'll have hurt himself with Israel, possibly pro-Israel voters, security voters, and looked weak in the eyes of the world.
Of course, I'm all for being more respected in the world, but the reason we weren't with Bush was not because of his I/P policy: it was because of his Iraq policy. Clinton's I/P policy also favored Israel, yet he was far more popular in both the world as a whole, and the Muslim world than Bush was at least. The Muslim world needs to know that true we're not happy about Iraq, and we are not "at war with Islam", but pandering does not garner respect. And that is what Obama is doing. It doesn't make him look good in the long run, and it is hurting a long held alliance. And it could hurt him electorally too. Getting things done, WILL garner respect. I hope to see him and Netanyahu AND MAHMOUD ABBAS TOO do this.
I also think Obama needs to take a hard line against Ahmadinejad. Israel, and even the Arab states are nervous about a nuclear Iran. Israel doesn't want a possible nuke or umbrella around Hamas and Hezbollah. And I don't think the other Arab states want a rival shiite state with the bomb either. I think he could speak out more forcefully against him and call the election an outright fraud. he's already been accused of interfering as was gonna happen anyway! They cannot be allowed to have nukes. I believe this will also play a big rule in advancing peace.