Israel’s Future: Barack Obama Is On The Right Side Of History. Benjamin Netanyahu Is Not
Benjamin Netanyahu may eventually figure out that Barack Obama is not George Bush, who never seemed to grasp that Israel’s survival depended on the U.S. and not the other way around.
Nor did Bush have Netanyahu’s measure. Obama does, understanding that he is a coward masquerading as a bully who is caught between Israeli factions even more bellicose than himself (think far-right Republicans) and a president with whom he will have to deal, in all likelihood, for the rest of his tenure as prime minister.
This is the dynamic playing out behind Netanyahu’s visit to Washington. The visit includes a face-to-face meeting with Obama at the White House, a Netanyahu address to Congress that Republicans had unsuccessfully tried to arrange prior to Obama’s speech so that he could pre-empt him, and separate appearances before the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the Chicken Little of lobbying groups and one so powerful that it has been able to make U.S. politicians, from president on down, quake on command. Until now.
Netanyahu’s White House visit in March 2010 was punctuated by a not-so-subtle snub by Obama, who walked out in the middle of tense talks to have supper with his family, leaving the prime minister to cool his heels. The reason was Netanyahu’s refusal to back down over Israel’s latest poke in the Palestinian eye: New Jewish construction in East Jerusalem.
It was not a coincidence that an Israeli government committee approved more new construction in East Jerusalem as Netanyahu’s Washington-bound jet was in the air and just hours before an address on the Middle East in which Obama again stated that Israel’s pre-1967 borders should be the starting point for negotiations over a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu’s view is that the 1967 borders are indefensible, which is a curious assertion because Israel had no problem defending those borders in . . . uh, 1967.
The U.S.’s position, one that Obama has delineated before, is shared by the international community. No matter. It was, of course, greeted with feigned horror by the Likudniks at Fox News and prompted the requisite harrumphing from Netanyahu, who make sure the world knew that he had called Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and chewed her out. Right on cue, AIPAC demanded that the U.S. reaffirm its commitment to the Jewish state.
No reaffirmation is necessary. Obama was unequivocal in his speech that the U.S. will continue to stand by Israel and that the Palestinians must make their own concessions, but it is 2012 and not 2004 and the Middle East, where change has always been glacial, is moving forward at dizzying speed while Israel digs itself an ever deeper hole.
The upshot of the White House meeting was no surprise. Netanyahu, who is transparently contemptuous of Obama, said he shared his vision for peace between Israelis and Palestinians but then rattled off the nonnegotiable conditions that have kept the two sides at an impasse for years, in effect rejecting all of the compromises that the president has offered.
In fairness to Netanyahu, even if he wanted help speed Palestinian statehood as a sop to the U.S. and Israel’s neighbors, which he does not, it would bring down his government. So he will not do what is in Israel’s bests interests because they are not in his.
But the Netanyahu may be a little too shrewd for his own good. Obama will not back down, as did Bush when faced with Israeli wrath, and I expect that the president will end up playing the prime minister as he has played other foes.
In this case, the denouement could come in September when the Palestinians are expected to launch a unilateral push for statehood in the U.N. General Assembly. That will be a symbolic gesture, but Netanyahu nevertheless will insist on a U.S. veto in the Security Council. He would be foolish to assume that Obama will accede to being his straw man by being the obstacle to statehood.
Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated at a peace rally in 1995 in Tel Aviv’s Kings Square for being on the right side of history, while 16 years later Netanyahu is so completely on the wrong side that it boils my Jewish blood. But I can and do take comfort that there is an American president who will not be Israel’s stooge.
Photograph by The Associated Press
11 Responses to “Israel’s Future: Barack Obama Is On The Right Side Of History. Benjamin Netanyahu Is Not”
Yes he, President Obama, is right. And Shaun… You are, too!
Your faith in Obambi is truly phenomenal…
He will sell you out so fast your head will spin…
Shaun – I am a Jewish Zionist with all the good and bad that such a position implies. I believe strongly in the idea of a Jewish homeland in Israel and Jerusalem. It is the core of our faith and culture.
Being a Zionist produces an internal conflict between my intellectual and emotional selves. Intellectually I believe in democracy and the equality of position and opportunity that such a form of government should produce. Emotionally, as a result of being the caretaker of my family’s 450 year history of persecution and wandering from our roots in Romania to Croatia to France to the US and Israel, I unwilling to yield the concept of a safety zone for Jews – Israel run by and for Jews.
Being a Zionist is, by definition, anti-democratic. However, such a culture need not be evil in regards to any minorities living under its governance. Israel, in it’s present day configuration is equivalent to Jim Crow south in it’s treatment of it’s arab population. Discrimination in housing, education, employment, land ownership and business opportunity is very onerous. We simply must do much better. Given the undemocratic nature of our state, we have a responsibility to go above and beyond in our treatment of minorities. Being allowed to have an ethnic state is an opportunity that the world gave Israel and the Jews. Now the question is are we responsible enough to be allowed to keep it. The Jury is still out but the rumblings are ominous.
I am one of those dual citizens as a result of living in Israel in the 1980’s. My grandfather fought to establish Israel and all 37 living relatives on my side of the family live in Israel. I have skin in the game. This is why I am so upset and angry at Israel’s political elite. They are driving Israel off a cliff. Their present trajectory will result in one of three outcomes. First, a full blown apartheid state that is politically and economically isolated in the world. Second, a bi-national democracy with Jews in a minority. Third, a nation battered by perpetual war with the vast majority of the best and brightest of Jews having left Israel.
In 1956 my grandfather brought me to Israel for my bar mitzvah. He took me to meet with just about every dignitary in Israel with the highlight being usher into Ben Gurion’s office. You can imagine the awe of a young boy/man. Even then the guts of their discussion was where does Israel go from here. Ben Gurion made it very clear that his primary obligation was to produce and keep a JEWISH state rather than its size. That is why Ben Gurion accepted the ridiculously small state provided by the UN that even excluded the most important part of Jewish culture, Jerusalem. The War of Independence had one primary land goal in mind, capturing Old Jerusalem and the Western Wall. In those days that is all Israel had in mind was a Jewish state of whatever size plus the Old City. The ease with which Israel captured everything in 1967 led to a triumph of arrogance that allowed the thinking that we could have the land of Judea and Samaria without the people.
It is this thinking which led Israel to annex East Jerusalem without giving the Palestinians citizenship. They got away with that because they “offered” citizenship to residents on an Individual basis. However, not a single application has been approved since 1988. (My niece works at the Ministry of Interior) Netanyahu’s thinking is he could do the same thing for the rest of the West Bank thus preserving the Jewish majority AND the land.
Attitudes towards Israel and its methods is changing around the world and in the US. The longer this goes on the more isolated Israel will be. Already emigration from Israel exceeds those making aliyah. This trend will continue without a peace agreement and eventually it will become a flood of emigration of biblical proportions. It is then that Israel as a Jewish homeland will fall. Copious tears will be shed but Jews will once again return to their wanderings as happened numerous times in the past. All of this because we are worshipping the IDOL of land rather than the G-d of our faith.
Israel is a military powerhouse and the idea of having any borders that are indefensible is ridiculous. They defended the borders of the original UN partition easily. They defended expanded borders easily in 1967. However, in 1973 when they were protected by massive borders (the Sinai, Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights) they almost lost. I remember those days because I was in Jaffa for the Holidays and my Grandfather, Uncle and I were stationed in a house with rifles awaiting the Egyptian troops that did not quite make it that far north.
In short, unless Israel abdicates it’s land grab and signs a peace treaty their future is VERY Cloudy. If they would accept the Arab Initiative their future is close to being guaranteed. The only red herring in that plan is the “right of return” which will have to be negotiated mutually as the plan lays out. Everyone, including Israel and Palestinians realize that this right will be limited to 50,000 – 100,000 people, not enough to upset the Jewish demographics.
It is then, at peace with all its neighbors that Jews will finally be able to attain the fulfillment of their existence. They will be a Jewish homeland with Old Jerusalem at their core and the economic hub for the entire Mideast.
jdledell:
First of all, thank you for your deeply personal and thoughtful comment. You certainly are able to describe Israel’s predicament and where it will inevitably lead better than I.
I am not technically a Jew since my mother’s father was. He was an extraordinary man who arrived in this country at the turn of the 20th century with 12 cents in his pocket, became a wealthy department store owner and lost everything in the Depression.
He too was a Zionist with all the complexity that you take such care of explain. He led a multi-denominational effort beginning in the mid-1930s to raise money to bring children from Germany to place in foster homes, some of whom later became orphans when their parents were exterminated. He devoted the last years of his life not to recouping his wealth. He had a small business that enabled he and his family to get by just fine, and put most of his energy into speaking to high school civics classes, where he would hand out copies of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution that he had printed at his own expense.
But Granddaddy did not support the creation of Israel, believing that Jews are citizens of the world. Nevertheless, he would defend Israel with his blood, as would I, and the U.S.’s support will never cease.
Isn’t the Golan Heights part of a high mountain range that would allow Syria to place military hardware that could eaily propel explosives into Israel?
I think Obama looked weak and Netanyahu as a stronger leader during this press conference. Israel is strong enough militarily to tell B.O. to kiss off.
RP – Yes the Golan sits high above the plain of Galilee. It has been part of Syria that Israel captured in 1967. The Syrians in the past have lobbed artillery shells from there but Syria does not have an air force anymore capable of defending those artillery pieces. The IAF would make mince meat of such a military position in 3 minutes flat. Given the disparity in military power between the arabs and Israel, the Golan is no longer a strategic asset. Israel is keeping it primarily because of it’s water resources and for its recreation value.
Yes, Bibi can tell Obama and the rest of the world to kiss off because of its military power. However, Israel would be strangled economically if the world slowly cut back on Israeli exports.
It is with some apprehension that I agree with the jist of the article. A lot of criticism of Israel ends up being a pretext to try and delegitimize it, give short shrift to it security needs, or try and rehabilitate nasty groups like Hamas.
However, in the end, while I may disagree with Mr. Mullen on so many things. I think that Israel needs to stop the settlements and offer something close the 1967 borders. I think Obama is right to push for this while also assuring Israel that we support their security.
davidpsummers
Well said.
[...] Israel’s Future: Barack Obama Is On The Right Side Of History. Benjamin Netanyahu Is Not (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
Maybe Obama is on the right side of history. But I hope not. Maybe it’s my youth and idealism showing, but I don’t think that a two-state solution is the best solution. A lot of people don’t seem to realize how impractical a two-state solution is. This little cold war has not thawed in the slightest, and I don’t think that it would end even with a separete and viable Palestine. Look at India and Pakistan.
Obama has emboldened the Palestinians by siding more with their grievences than with Israel’s. They’re less inclined to concede anything now that they see Israel getting scolded by us. But look at the fuel for this fire. Hate. On both sides. My line of thinking is, that if Israel treats its Arab citizens less like minorites and more like equals, (especially in the Knesset, where Palestinian officials are penalized and allowed very little power with which to assist their constituencies), animosity will subside a little.
Jdledell, you’ve made some great points. Thanks for the new perspective. Israel needs to be the shining light of that region. A light of toleration and equality. Not like medieval Spain. The trick is, though, that toleration has to be met with a firm rejection of hateful ideologies. Terroists will double their efforts if peace between Jews and Arabs even begins to sprout. There will be blood, there will be tears. But those filled with hate can be marginalized. This country is proof of that.
I think that the most meaningful concessions Israel can make are domestic. End the evictions, the “Loyalty Oath”, and other forms of discrimination, and slowly but surely more Arabs will reject anti-Jew rhetoric. Marginalize the popular support for the destruction of Israel. Do that, and eventually a two-state solution will become unnessary. I’m not a Jew and am just speaking from my heart, but this, I think, is a better idea to focus our energies on. It may be a little too WWJD to be practical, but to deny that it could happen would be an insult to a war-wary populace. All it takes is a lot of courage and the belief that no faith is worth such suffering.
NoMooon,
The problem with your solution is that in a Greater Israel that contained the West Bank and Gaza, Jews would be a minority, a large minority but a minority none the less…
And in any Democracy, the majority rules…