The New York Times reports about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s response to American demands.
Mr. Netanyahu has brought up several possible gestures, including restrictions on Israeli troop activities in the West Bank, the freeing of Palestinian prisoners, some latitude for reconstruction in Gaza and further efforts to bolster the Palestinian economy.
The Americans have welcomed those gestures. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said Thursday, “We’re making progress on important issues.â€
But building in Jerusalem remains the sticking point. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to meet on Friday with his top seven cabinet ministers to begin to form his response. It may be some days or longer before it is complete.
The Arab League is scheduled to meet this weekend in Libya and is likely to repeat demands for a freeze on Israeli building in occupied areas before giving a final endorsement to the return of the Palestinian Authority to peace talks with Israel. Mr. Abbas, the Palestinian president, has sought pan-Arab cover for his decision to return to the talks.
First of all it’s amazing that after all the concession Netanyahu has put on the table, the administration’s response is: it’s a start.
Second of all, look at the asymmetry. Netanyahu will go ahead meeting with other elected officials of his government to form a response. What will the Palestiians do? They’ll go look for “political cover” from the rest of the Arab world. The Israeli government derives its legitimacy from its election by its constituents. The Palestinians get their legitimacy (such as it is) not from the governed, but from a collection of unelected despots (who rule with varying degrees of cruelty)! Worse the Obama administration had been encouraging them to be even less forthcoming regarding Israel.
The Washington Post paints a rather more pessimistic view of PM Netanyahu’s prospects.
Some observers speculated that Netanyahu might be forced to consider bringing Kadima, the centrist party led by former foreign minister Tzipi Livni, his arch political rival, into his coalition to alleviate the tensions with the United States. But Gideon Ezra, a Kadima member, said that might not be possible because of resistance from within Netanyahu’s Likud bloc: Incorporating Kadima would mean concessions such as halting construction in East Jerusalem and dismantling unauthorized settlement outposts in the West Bank, steps that Likud members oppose, Ezra said.
Others said Netanyahu would simply search for ways to buy time until the midterm U.S. elections in hopes that Obama would lose support and that more pro-Israel Republicans would be elected.
“The prime minister does not understand to what extent the current government’s composition causes damage to its relationship with the U.S. and the international community,” said Yoel Hasson, who advised Ariel Sharon when he was the prime minister. “I am most concerned about the long-term strategic partnership.”
The idea that Netanyahu’s government is, in some way, extreme is ridiculous. Barry Rubin has noted more than once that the current government represents a broad consensus of Israel’s populace. After PM Netanyahu’s speech last year, Rubin wrote:
I think it is accurate to say that this speech expressed the most profound consensus in Israel on these issues and that the country will fully back up its prime minister on this policy. It is also a view of the region and the conflict far more accurate than that usually purveyed by others, both those who claim to have Israel’s “best interests†at heart, and those who would “wipe it off the map.â€
Pretending that Israel’s government is too extreme is a handy excuse to explain why no part of your foreign policy is working out but it is wrong. Likud could bring Kadima in or Likud could fall and be replace by Kadima or Labor and the administration still wouldn’t get its sought after peace agreement. No wonder Israelis still don’t trust the American government. (via memeorandum)
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Meryl …. have you registered as a republican yet?
I sincerely hope that every Jew who voted for Obama now realizes what we Republicans were trying to communicate during the campaign: Obama is Pro-Palestinian and has no use for Israel other than “forcing” our ally to give the Arabs everything they have ever wanted. In reality, Obama is forcing the the head of Hamas to demand more than originally planned in this ridiculous process – Obama/Clinton are a sad pair whose ignorance of the Middle East and their blind ideology will set Peace talks back 30 years. The other clear objective of the Obama Administration is to take out Bibi, neutralize him just as the Clinton Administration succeeded doing – my prayer is that Bibi can negotiate this rough political terrain and somehow manage to hold onto Israel’s rights until a new President can be elected in 2012. American Jews need to smarten up before 2012 and vote for the person who will treat Israel as our ally and not as some third world “enemy”.
I rather doubt it will happen Margaret. Jews in the US are set in their political habits. The political habits of Jews in the US of A, living like Episcopanleans but voting like Puerto Ricans, seem to show that the reputed higher than average intelligence of we Jews is a myth. Besides, most of them are too snobbish to go anywhere near those ghastly social conservative types. The Religious Right might be virtually the only people in the world who unequivocally support Israel and the Jewish people but non-Orthodox American Jews, at least, continue to see them as the spawn of Satan. That’s one reason three quarters of them voted for the man who complacently sat for twenty years listening to an antisemite preach every Sunday, while they threw mud at Sarah Palin, who kept a flag of Israel in her governor’s office.
In the movie “Luther” Frederick the Wise, Duke of Saxony (played superbly by Sir Peter Ustinov) tells his secretary, “Spalatin, there are two ways of saying “No” to someone you believe to be stronger than yourself, and the first is to say nothing, to go merrily on with what you are doing, and to allow time and inertia to be your allies.”
“And the second, my Lord?”
“The second is to say “No” in such a kindly and thoughtful way that it completely befuddles them.”
Bibi should use Frederick’s second method in this case. Diplomatese should be useful for this purpose.
I think Bibi is in a stronger position than Obama thinks he is. He will get enormous support in Israel for standing up to Obama’s attempt to treat Israel as nothing more than an American puppet state, obliged to do whatever the President of the moment orders her to do, as if Israel was one of the Princely states of Britain’s old Indian Raj. Obama will try greater pressure in such a case, such as an arms embargo, but if Israel withholds intelligence information and other military items of value that the US gets from Israel that might blow back on Obama rather painfully.
We might also consider that Obama and his pals are not in such a strong position either. They rammed through the “Health Care Reform” bill but only at the cost of alienating 55 percent of the voters and turning them against Obama and all his works. Obama’s other domestic goals are no more popular either, like carbon taxes to meet the nonexistent Global Warming crisis or amnesty for illegal aliens. Dumping on Israel is not going to make many people in the US happy, especially when the Obami are simultaneously sucking up to Iran, Russia, China, Syria, and just about every other adversary or outright enemy of the USA.
In the movie Frederick admits that if neither of his methods work you must resign yourself to surrender, or to fight. Bibi is not necessarily doomed in a political fight with Obama and Hillary. If he gives in now there will be other, and worse, demands later, possibly including making eastern Jerusalem Judenrein again, as it was under Jordanian rule. Bibi and his government should stand up for Israel’s security and Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
And the interest of the US? Frankly I do not think it will be served by Obama’s course of action. This is a show of weakness, not strength, by Obama. He cannot move our adversaries and enemies, he cannot move even the Palestinian Arabs to real negotiations by his diplomacy, so he picks on a small American ally, like the bully he is. If the US abandons Israel we will not make any friends in the Middle East by that. Rather, we will earn the justified contempt of the people there for our cowardice and shame for deserting our ally and friend. All the Arab countries will reflect that America deserted Israel, a country with which we have much more in common than with any of them, while appeasing Iran, the country they fear. Iran will sneer at our cowardice, and will point out to states in the region how you can’t depend on the US. The implication, and the conclusion the Arab states will draw, is that they ought to make their kowtow to Iran now. Meet the new boss, much different and more demanding than the old boss. I would not be surprised if this idea was already spreading through the foreign ministries of the Middle Eastern states, and perhaps elsewhere too.
Obama is supposed to be so intelligent, though I’ve never seen signs of it. No doubt he is the wisest man in America not gifted with foresight.