Changing Opinions

As Meryl wrote yesterday morning, Abbas is refusing to hold direct talks without preconditions that amount to determining the end game of discussions about borders. This is in no small part due to the perception that both the Obama administration and elements in the broader world are working to pressure Israel to make concessions prior to the resumption of talks. Included among these elements is J Street which seeks American pressure on Israel to do so.

That said, the Obama administration seems to have taken a different track lately, one less conducive to this Palestinian goal and at a distance from J Street’s lobbying position. Others have noted this as well: see here and here for example. Yet, one cannot infer too much from the reports of the recent meeting between Netanyahu and Obama because they could be motivated by a desire by both men to hide problems that are occurring behind closed doors. On the other hand, the change in public is important in and of itself.

What is clear from this meeting is that the administration’s position of publicly pressuring Israel to make concessions, as if primarily their lack is preventing the advancement of peace, is no longer American policy. In fact, the Obama administration seems to have abandoned the entire tactic of pressuring Israel in the hope of eliciting movement from the Palestinians and Arab League toward concessions on either the peace process or on Iran sanctions. If anything, the Obama administration’s aim seems to be to promote direct talks which the Palestinians do not desire and unilateral actions against Iran which Israel has sought.

While I have been critical of the Obama administration at times, just as I was critical of the Bush administration at times, it seems to be the case that while differing over some important issues, for certain, the relationship between America and Israel remains very strong and the administration is actively supporting Israel both in the peace process and in regard to Iran. Additionally, where once J Street seemed to have significant influence on the policies of this administration, it no longer appears to have much. This J Post article is essentially a systematic point by point dismantling of J Street’s positions put forth by the Obama administration. The fact that the administration is now not pressuring Israel and seems to be returning to the previous “stand alongside Israel” position of Clinton and Bush is, if it lasts, evidence of a dramatically weakened influence of J Street on the administration and a very AIPAC-like stance. While this could be waffling before the election, one can’t waffle that far many times without casting off supporters in both directions, so I do not expect the administration to suddenly embrace J Street’s positions again in 2011. This is very bad news for J Street.

My guess as to what brought about this change is that the Obama administration has come to see J Street’s advice as having resulted in increasing the distance from success on the peace front and in diminished support for the administration from essential Democratic voters, American Jews, at home. The combination of both of these things is devastating for J Street’s advocacy, but also bodes ill for progressive Jewish policy influence in general going forward. This will be the lasting legacy of J Street, namely weakening the progressive Jewish left, potentially in a massive way and not just on foreign policy.