by Alexander H. Joffe, The Times of Israel
Bloomberg columnist Jeffrey Goldberg’s interview with President Obama on the eve of his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is highly significant, verging on a turning point in US-Israeli relations.
Several points emerge from the interview. First is the implied threat that if current peace negotiations with the Palestinians fail, the US will be unable – read unwilling – to defend Israel. Moreover, it is up to the Palestinians to judge: “If Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.”
Declaring “our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited” is not accidental; indeed, Obama repeats it twice. Obama’s statement that “What we also know is that Israel has become more isolated internationally” is not simply a prediction but a prescription. Similar statements by Secretary of State John Kerry in recent months have given European governments and industry the license to begin quietly exploring ways to boycott Israeli industries and corporations, arguably as part of an American strategy to pressure Israel during negotiations. A statement by the US president will be paradigmatic. This alone is a momentous policy shift.
Part of the rationale for pressuring Israel is spelled out, pursuit of a “potential realignment of interests in the region,” the nature of which is unclear, perhaps given that half the Arab states are engaged in civil war. But the key obstacle is: “The only reason that that potential realignment is not, and potential cooperation is not, more explicit is because of the Palestinian issue.” That is to say, Israel.
But the goals behind the interview, published during the annual AIPAC convention in Washington, are also significant and provide additional clarity regarding the administration’s, and the president’s, attitudes towards Israel and much more. Superficially the president’s carefully chosen words appear intended to influence Netanyahu himself. But the mix of praise and condescension (Netanyahu is “smart,” “tough”, and a “great communicator” but “If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?”) seems more likely to simply humiliate Netanyahu, to degrade him publicly. Either Obama is tone deaf or simply does not care. Both may be the case.
The interview may also appear aimed at the Israeli public, a last ditch call to leave the West Bank and make peace before it is impossible. There is of course a strong case to be made here. But Obama shows no awareness or even interest in Israeli politics, the need or the methods to build the consensus necessary for such a dramatic move. For Netanyahu it would mean alienating the entire Israel right and constructing a new coalition out of weak components, as well as convincing the Israeli public that this is necessary and wise and not caving to an American diktat. Obama’s statement that if Netanyahu were “strong enough that if he decided this was the right thing to do for Israel, that he could do it” defies reality. It is not up to Netanyahu to “decide” then “do” but rather to lead and persuade.
This is characteristic of Obama’s larger mindset – he sees himself and his policies as wise, necessary and above politics. He has, after all, a pen and a phone. In the domestic arena Republican opposition and the normal give and take of democratic politics are depicted as betrayal and heresy. His opponents are troglodytes and wreckers who find themselves, like Netanyahu, the victim of personal vilification as well as the occasional IRS audit.
Netanyahu is obviously not a Republican, but he has been characterized in the same terms and the same breath as the president’s other political opponents. Of course, this petty mindset has now collided with that of a fully professional dictator, Vladimir Putin, a far more obstinate foe than Netanyahu, one whom Obama cannot afford to call names.
But if Obama’s remarks are not aimed at Netanyahu himself or Israel, then who? The answer is specifically non-religious American Jews and the American Left. One clue is Obama’s use of the phrase “how Israel survives as a democracy and a Jewish state” juxtaposed with “permanent occupation of the West Bank.” This is the paramount concern to non-religious American Jews. For the American Left the concern is “U.S. involvement” which, regarding Syria, “would have had the third, or, if you count Libya, the fourth war in a Muslim country in the span of a decade.”
Stoking resentments and calling out enemies are this administration’s stock and trade. Netanyahu’s humiliations at the hands of this administration are unique – left alone while the president goes to dinner with his family, denied photo opportunities, and subjected to a stream of hostile comments and leaks, including the compromise of a key cyberwarfare program aimed at Iran, Stuxnet. So too is his vilification by the captive American press and the network of party organizations (such as the New American Foundation, J Street and others), which have characterized him as a “settler,” an opponent of a Palestinian state, and a warmonger on Iran. One need not be an ally of Netanyahu to recognize these as misrepresentations.
On the one hand these are designed to separate American Jews from their traditional organizations, above all AIPAC. By continually characterizing AIPAC as a right wing, Republican organization rather than a centrist, non-partisan one, and by loudly calling opposition to the administration’s opening to Iran as right-wing war-mongering (above all Netanyahu’s), the goal has been to isolate Jewish support from anything except the new party line and its approved organs. As Lee Smith points out in Tablet, AIPAC was played and then humiliated by the administration for the purpose of demonstrating the organization’s weakness. Confused by this strategy of politicizing support for Israel and subjugating it to a domestic agenda, AIPAC fell into the trap.
More sinisterly, this holds out the threat of labeling Israel and any of its supporters as right-wing war-mongerers. This was the view of the Democratic Party’s left wing before and during the Iraq War. Demonizing anything besides the Obama line on Israel may be an effective way of keeping Jewish opposition in line.
The corollary goal is to break American Jewish power, real and perceived, and to harness what remains to the Democratic Party and the administration. The operative theory appears to be the inverse of James Baker’s legendary remark, “fuck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.” American Jews will vote Democrat regardless, but Israel’s position has always been exceptional in American politics. This is to be ended.
Syria, Libya, and now Ukraine have shown that the international scene erupts quickly to disrupt domestic agendas. But it is a reasonable prediction that these and other fiascos will prompt Obama to redouble pressure on Israel, particularly by unleashing Europeans, not for the sake of a rare policy success – which Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas has repeatedly assured will not be forthcoming. It will be to punish a vassal state and a domestic minority that refuse to comply fully and cheerfully.
Alex Joffe is a historian and archaeologist. He is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow of the Middle East Forum.
@ AbbaGuutuu:
One would think so; that’s the logical assumption to make.
However, that assumption makes no allowance for one very significant factor:
USA foreign policy often originates not in the Oval Office but in another part of the Executive Branch, “Foggy Bottom” — locus of the Department of State — whose entrenched bureaucracy is composed of unelected, civil service personnel (who cannot be fired unless they are convicted of a federal felony)
— bureaucrats who preceed any incoming presidential administration and remain in place long after that administration is gone and replaced by another.
Over time, the bureaucrats are able to build up a dense network of government, media, and corporate connections (a “govt within the govt”) that can make a President’s work & existence quite impossible if he will not find excuses to “cooperate” with them.
It is said that to complete one of his labors of cleaning out the Augean Stables (which housed 100 horses, where 30 years of work had “piled up”), Hercules diverted the courses of two mighty rivers to pass thru the stables. Cleaning out the State Department is a task of similarly Herculean proportions.
Until a President comes along who has the courage, political capital, and emotional steadiness to take a backhoe (or maybe a bulldozer) to Foggy Bottom, I’m afraid that the best that any small country can hope for from ANY presidential administration (from either party) is that the Executive Branch (which includes both the White House AND State Dept & other cabinet depts) will be distracted by other affairs while Israel & other little countries steer their own ships of state as they see fit.
@ watsa46:
By the end of his second term the cost of American social programs and Obama care along with the interest on the American debt will take up the lions share of the national budget. A super expensive military is out of the question or it will come down to either the elimination of social program obligations or the military.
What is apparent that America is no longer a superpower at least anywhere near what we have known in the past. There is no one to replace that superpower and the world is entering into a new era. America looks like she is going back to the isolationist world view of pre WW2.
When interest rates start to go up the economy will implode. That should happen after the end year elections no matter who wins a majority.
Israel is on her own even if we had a friendly administration in DC. Not so bad we can whether the coming storm for a lot of reasons.
Could China supplant U.S. as top source of Israeli tech capital?
Hundreds of millions pledged to Israeli high-tech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O34jpYOGzD4
Please read the following on the fallout from Obama’s interview:
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/03/05/report-state-department-sources-say-obama-sabotaged-peace-talks-with-goldberg-interview-conducted-behind-kerrys-back/#comment-3939574
@ yamit82:
Muchas gracias para los besos. Beryl Ives sung a sea shanty whose lines went ” when I was a little boy my mother always told me, that if I ever kissed a girl my lips would grow all moldy”. Not ,I assume, your problem.
yamit82 Said:
Wait till tomorrow I am really tried now. My secret ingredient is Mexican vanilla. I use it in cheese cake and all my cooking. It comes in I quart bottles.
honeybee Said:
Thanks for that! 🙂
Give me your recipe and I will clone them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1ubG2f1-to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlT2wvkP2Ms
yamit82 Said:
All I need from you is a little of your time and perhaps a beso! Darlin
IL will need to get quickly more self-reliant and create new connections outside the “democratic world”.
@ yamit82:
Home is here waiting. Baking my famous Hamentashen with tradition filling just for you. No eucalyptus.
Pr. O will use the “useful idiot American Jews” to undermine Israel. There should be no doubts about that in any one mind. He decided to empower Iran. This has to do with his Muslim background and upbringing and affiliation with E. Said, friends and the far left.
honeybee Said:
Appears I am being monitored for certain individuals.
If you can remove I will forever be in your debt, anything you desire… A new fridge or stove? Name it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DweroSgX7fM
@ yamit82:
>
Now that’s the real Uncle Nahum.
Let’s not sit on this idea. Could save the world.
@ honeybee:
Should I start to worry about my indoor/outdoor cat?
🙁
@ honeybee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q33YUxnGvwE
AbbaGuutuu Said:
Been there done that with Nixon, Reagan and Both Bush’s. A case can be made that Democrats were more Israel friendly than Republicans and in any case no administration influenced the rest of the world to be more rather than less Israel friendly. Countries that hate America automatically hate Israel, as they view correctly that e are an American vassalage. If Israel were not aligned with America and forged her own independent policy agenda it’s conceivable that some countries would be more disposed to more normalized relations with Israel.
In the end Israels survival largely depends on Israel divesting itself from America.
We don’t need American weapons or aid: Israel needs no one’s military help if she resorts to first-use of nuclear weapons. Just make it a law that any invasion will be answered by a nuclear strike. That’s it. No need for American guarantees. Israel should Nuke Iran first, Their oil fields and Long range missiles. Any retaliation will automatically trigger total retaliation wiping Iran off the map.
@ bernard ross:
This guy wants to replace Jimmy Carter as Israel’s famous friend
John’s got it right
@ the phoenix:
Thank you Sweetheart. I have not seen my hawk for a while, it has probablu gone north.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Israel has No policy except to keep the fiction of American friendship to Israel alive in the minds of stupid Israelis and even more stupid Jews in America.
Don’t trust such friends
Do the best thing: do nothing
Policies are predominantly wrong because any given position in the complex adaptive system has myriad options, and any one option is likely not to be the best option. Complex adaptive systems resist policies, but develop through painfully long series of micro-moves. At every stage, the situation changes and requires adaptive response. Policies, on the other hand, tend to be fixed and self-perpetuating; otherwise, they are derogatorily called ad hoc solutions and don’t amount to policies.
It follows that whatever a government does, it likely does wrong. Bismarck weaved the most excellent policies, but they laid the foundation for two world wars. The League of Nations was a great idea, but it legalized the inaction which allowed Germany to re-arm. Partitioning states to satisfy both political camps seemed a viable strategy, but partitioned Vietnam fought a bloody war, and other cases proved equally unsustainable. Bleeding the communists in Afghanistan was a nice thing to do, but the aid to the mujahedeen created the Islamic terrorist threat. It is not an overgeneralization to say that all policies are wrong. There are no examples of fruitful policies under heaven. Read More
@ honeybee:
Try putting eucalyptus oil into the hamentashen you’re baking (a natural remedy for bronchitis) maybe he’ll take a bite… 😉
And speaking of eucalyptus…..
Enjoy!
http://youtu.be/awOALvb2scA
CuriousAmerican Said:
………….
bernard ross Said:
the phoenix Said:
I am hoping jealousy will prove to be a “green eyed Monster”!!!!!!!
@ honeybee:
Hell has no fury like a woman scorned
William Congreve, in The Mourning Bride, 1697:
😉
@ yamit82:
I put a hex on you!!!!! Beg me and I may remove it!!!
CuriousAmerican Said:
Even if Israel gives Judea and Samaria (which they shouldn’t do), do you think the Arab-Israeli conflict would end? The Arabs intention is to get rid off Israel based on their “holy books”. It is hard for the western mind to understand the Arabs mentality. It was Mark Twain who said that the Holy land was a desert and deserted place (I am trying to paraphrase). The return of the Jews and the blossoming of Israel attracted more Arabs as a magnet from neighboring countries. Should a country be forced to give up its ancestral land to squatters? I donot think so!
I agree with you that Israel should have a better policy than what it is currently pursuing in order to articulate its positions better and convince the skeptics of this world about its historical rights based on International law and the various agreements which she has been adhering to while the other party to the agreement is in continuous violations with impunity.
Taking the views of both conservatives and liberals into account, what do you think would be appropriate for Israel to follow?
If the current US Administration is lead by a conservative who strongly supports Israel instead of Palestinian Arabs, don’t you think Israel would be pressured less and its enemies won’t be emboldened as it is now and the world’s opinion to some extent could be different?
Ted: comment blocked by spam filter pls retrieve.
“May God make us dependent not on the alms or loans of others, but rather on God’s full, open and generous hand, so that we may never be humiliated or put to shame” Birkat ha-mazon (Grace After Meals).
IDF intercepts major Iranian missile shipment to Gaza
Navy commandos board ship in early morning operation; vessel carried advanced missiles with 200km range; PM: ‘This is the real Iran’
5
bernard ross Said:
“May God make us dependent not on the alms or loans of others, but rather on God’s full, open and generous hand, so that we may never be humiliated or put to shame” Birkat ha-mazon (Grace After Meals).
IDF intercepts major Iranian missile shipment to Gaza
Navy commandos board ship in early morning operation; vessel carried advanced missiles with 200km range; PM: ‘This is the real Iran’
5
The status quo cannot continue.
I am NOT one who believes in dividing the land.
But Israel has to state its intentions – even to absorb the whole land; and then tell the world how it will deal with the Arabs on it.
For far too long, Israel has deal with the issue as though if the Jews ignored the Arabs, the Arabs would leave.
In this Obama is stating a fact – one of the few things he has stated honestly.
State plainly what Israel wants with the Arabs in Judea in Samaria.
1) Will Israel absorb its patrimony or not?
2) If Israel will possess the land, will Israel naturalize the Arabs in Judea and Samaria or not?
3) If Israel will not naturalize the Arabs on the land, it had better have an explanation ready to reduce blowback in world public opinion.
4)You see, even if Sarah Palin were in office, she could not help you regarding world opinion.
I appreciate Israel’s predicament.
But Israel cannot continue the present policy.
The liberals say Israel should quit Judea and Samaria.
The conservatives say Israel should annex it.
But whatever you do, you cannot continue the present policy.
Just a thought: How about if some citizens of Israel get together and come up with an alternative working plan that could be supported by the majority of Israeli’s and then present it to their leadership for consideration?
From President Obama’s interview and other sources: 1) It is expected of Israel to leave Judea and Samaria for Palestinian Arabs; 2) The Jordan valley may be placed under international forces. The ineffectiveness of UN forces were seen while Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt was in power. 3) Jerusalem may be divided to west and East with Temple mount placed under international bodies like the Vatican and others; 4) Coming up with some sort of framework to bring about a “peace” could give a bragging right to BHO who has lost a lot of ground in domestic and international affairs in order for democrats to win in 2014 mid-term elections.
I donot like the way BB was treated before and currently by BHO. It is undiplomatic to treat a PM of a friendly country while he is in route to the White House by giving an interview that amounts to threats. He and Israel deserve more respects than what have been received.
WHY? Is it because the dems need something to win the midterms?
DUH????? Therefore, don’t come up with it.
It’s astounding that Obama can still open his mouth in public without embarrassment. He has the longest record of consistent failure and poor judgement of anyone. This is the guy that when he makes a suggestion everyone should run away. If he says something is so then it is more likely that the opposite is true. This is the idiot who told Putin to wait until after the election when he could be more flexible. Putin b*tch slaps him and then eats him for dinner. Now I know why Putin smirks, he is like a cat playing with his pet mouse.
Perhaps the US had wanted Israel to have done more to help the GCC in Syria because Obama needed to disassociate from his arming and training the Jihadis with the GCC and Jordan when he was discovered in Benghazi. The US were also disappointed that Israel had not brought ground troops into Lebanon and deposed hezbullah in that war. The GCC seek pipelines to the med for oil and gas in both directions. Iran had a plan to beat them to the punch.
“permanent occupation of the West Bank.”
time to end the “occupation”.
the primary blowback will be from liberal progressive Jews who would prefer to see the west bank Arabs live under a benevolent Hamas.
as long as the military occupation continues, Israel cannot win any debate in any forum.
after annexation, there will be long lines of Arabs waiting patiently to get their blue Israel ID cards. that will have a dramatic impact on “world” opinion.
it will also show the Fatah players the road home back to wherever they came from.
as we know, the arabs of Jerusalem will never relinquish their blue Israel ID cards and all the concomitant benefits for the opportunity to live under abu mazen (who will be thrown out)and Hamas the ultimate victors.