Tuesday, March 16, 2010
An awful lot of electrons have been sacrificed in the name of the Jerusalem/DC spat. I thought I'd do another roundup of links.
First a few impressions: Something of a consensus is emerging that, whatever the mistakes made in Jerusalem, the Obama Administration has badly overstepped by continuing to push the matter with what is increasingly being called a disproportionate response. They are responding in a way to mimic a strong man, but in fact is more the behavior of a wounded tiger. Weak friends are often more dangerous than strong enemies, and Obama has behaved in the manner of a weak man overcompensating for something. Almost everyone in the mainstream is calling for everyone to stand down.
Obama is weak. My Israeli friends should know that this matter is a tempest in a tea pot on the American scene. The ongoing self-immolation of the Democratic Party over Health Care is the issue of the moment and is sucking all the air out of this controversy...literally. I listened to talk radio all day yesterday, and even hosts like Prager and Medved, who usually have no hesitation discussing Middle East issues mentioned not one word of this. The Boston Globe, which usually never misses an opportunity to cast Israel in a bad light had one article on something like page five with a headline along the lines of Netanyahu Tries To Calm Situation (sorry, too busy to look for it now, but that's the idea). [Update: Exception: Fox has been horrible on this in their few news mentions.]
Why? Because even his friends know that this is a no win for Obama. So worry not my Israeli friends, and understand very well that any of your own pundits who are still at this late date blaming Netanyahu for the continuing trouble are not doing real analysis and are simply pushing their own agenda.
On to the links:
The Washington Post comes out questioning Obama's actions:
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S Middle East diplomacy failed in his first year in part because he chose to engage in an unnecessary and unwinnable public confrontation with Israel over Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Over the past six months Mr. Obama's envoys gingerly retreated from that fight and worked to build better relations with the government of Binyamin Netanyahu. Last week the administration finally managed to strike a deal for the launching of indirect Israeli-Palestinian talks. So it has been startling -- and a little puzzling -- to see Mr. Obama deliberately plunge into another public brawl with the Jewish state...
Also in the WaPo, Richard Cohen writes a column you could quibble with, but overall he makes a point that Washington has been all too quick to ignore: Palestinians' destructive veneration of terrorists
What can you say about a 19-year-old woman, pretty in the pictures, who participates in a terrorist attack in which 38 people, 13 of them children, are killed in cold blood? The answer, if the woman is Palestinian and the dead are Israelis, is heroine or martyr -- and if she is Dalal Mughrabi, you name a school and a camp after her, and last week, a square in the West Bank town of El Bireh. It will be the fitting venue for those who furiously single out Israel for allegedly killing civilians in violation of all the rules of warfare. Hypocrisy Square would be its appropriate name...
Bibi himself had some important things to say in his Knesset comments during the visit of Brazilian President Lula da Silva that show he is not backing down, nor does he believe he has a lot to fear at home politically for his stance:
We desire peace.
I hope that the Palestinians will not once again place preconditions on talks - preconditions that have never been placed on any Israeli government and which would be unacceptable to any Israeli government.
No government of Israel for the last 40 years has agreed to place restrictions on building in Jerusalem - not Levi Eshkol, not Golda Meir, not Menachem Begin, not Shimon Peres, not Yitzhak Shamir, not Yitzhak Rabin, not Ariel Sharon, not Ehud Barak, not Ehud Olmert.
During that time, all these governments have built in the suburbs of Jerusalem - in Gilo, in Ramot, in Neve Yaakov, in Ramat Eshkol, in French Hill, in Pisgat Zeev, in Ramat Shlomo and elsewhere.
The establishment of these Jewish neighborhoods did not harm the Arabs of East Jerusalem in any way, shape or form and it was not at their expense.
Today, nearly half of Jerusalem's Jewish population lives in these neighborhoods. None of these areas is far away; they are all a few minutes travel from here. They are within six kilometers of the Israeli Knesset.
Regardless of whatever political differences there may be in this house regarding the final status agreement and the ultimate borders of Israel, everyone agrees that all these neighborhoods will remain part of Israel in any final peace settlement.
We will continue to ensure that Jerusalem is an open city accessible to all religions; a city where Jews and Arabs, Christians and Muslims co-exist and enjoy freedom of religion and access to religious sites...
Barry Rubin has his usual excellent run-down of the things, here: Explaining the U.S.-Israel Crisis
Jeffrey Goldberg, while spending time reminding us of his lefty-cred, has I think a correct view of the one factor going on here: What Obama is Actually Trying to Do in Israel
...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.
I wouldn't. And I'd rather see Obama spend more time screwing up politics here than politics there (not really, but the whole thing is sort of ironic, isn't it?).
Speaking of double standards (were we?): Compare And Contrast: Israeli And Syrian "Insults" To Clinton
Compare and contrast this: Two dedications
Now personally, I think Walter Russell Mead was reading my quip about the Jacksonian strand in America by no means being a slam-dunk for Obama's benefit, and that actually, he's risking having them turn against him: Obama and the Jacksonian Zionists
Commenting on Mead, Lee Smith says, "in the Middle East, nothing reeks of weakness more than lashing out publicly at an ally".
Here are two petitions floating around looking for signatures:
Christians United for Israel: Urge President Obama to end Crisis with Israel
Republican Jewish Coalition: Tell President Obama that his one-sided pressure on Israel hurts the U.S and Israel
Meanwhile, J Street (otherwise known as "the other side") is busy telling Obama to keep it up: Stand with the Obama Administration on Israel
Michael Fenenbock says that Obama is trying to have a Sister Souljah moment: Hammer the Jews. What a time and subject to choose. Says a lot.
Finally, a somewhat related video:
[h/t: Sophia]
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Jerusalem/Obama Battle Continues...Yet Another Obama Overreach.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/17646
[This entry, by Barry Rubin, is crossposted from the GLORIA Center. I was going to include it in the link round-up below, but decided it was so good in a general sense it needed to be pulled out on its... Read More
What's with FOX?
I don't generally watch it:)
BTW I have been reading all over the 'net today also. I can't help but be upset by this obviously especially in view of the fact that violence has again broken out in Jerusalem.
I hope it dies down quickly and people climb down from their various trees and get back to "proximity talks" which is better than no talks.
Here's TNR on this unfortunate situation:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/israelis-are-undivided-jerusalem
There are two other related pieces by Peretz, just go to the site and you will see them.
I do think it's ironic that we would try to meddle in a democratic ally's government, considering our own is so full of rancor and divided but also, it's sort of bizarre considering the lack of support for Iran's opposition. The two just don't compare do they?
Nor is Bibi on his worst day ever in the same universe with the dictators of the Middle East so this is way confusing to me.
I thought the Cohen piece was strong.
"Obama overreach" has virtually, or essentially, become a tautology.