Morning Reflections On The Bibi-Obama Row

Junior Neo-Con, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin wasted no time in taking out against President Obama's AIPAC speech. In a lengthy rebuttal to the President filed shortly after his speech, she criticized him for not referring to the issue of the right of the return, the necessity of a military presence in the Jordan Valley (a long-held belief by Bibi) and not talking about the military option against Iran. She accused the President of accepting many of the Palestinians' assumptions about the situation in Israel.

Philip Weiss, who writes about Israel from a progressive perspective, said "It was a histroic speech, maybe the most remarkable speech he has ever given."

Josh Marshall, writing for Talking Points Memo,was effusive in his praise of President Obama's speech. Marshall writes," On its present course, Israel is on the way to becoming a pariah state, a status in which it cannot indefinitely or even perhaps long survive." For Marshall, "The occupation itself represents the true existential threat to Israel."

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com views President Obama as the superb imperial manager without strong beliefs but thinks people must defend him for his ever slight deviation from orthodoxy on the peace negotiations. Greenwald argues that this flap opens the door for more intense debate and discussion on Israel and the Middle East. And he sees this as a way to change American attitudes on the issue and peal back the Washington consensus built up over years of successful lobbying by the American Jewish community.

Writing to Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish on May 21, an Israeli citizen thanks Sullivan for his commentary on the recent Bibi-Obama flap saying:
"You should know that many Israelis actually do understand that we should go back to '67 border, but the environment here is so toxic. -Not unlike what the far right has done in America-that you can't say anything out loud or you'll be denounced as almost anti-semitic. What's going on here is awful. Bibi is taking us straight to hell. It's amazing to think that if Olmert were still in charge, he would have to cut a deal with Obama a year ago. What a waste to finally have an American President who is so sincere, serious and decent, at a time wyhen there's no leader, no vision and no hope in Israel."

Writing in the Daily Dish, Peter Beinart muses on "Netanyahu's Bizarre Response to Obama's Palestinian Proposal". Beinart sees Obama as throwing Bibi a lifeline to stave off the September General Assembly vote at the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state along Israel's 1967 borders. Obama's parameters for these new peace talks would help de-rail this eventuality. I don't know whether Beinart's analysis is correct that if the Resolution passes the General Assembly, according to international law Israel would be occupying a sovereign country. What he envisions then is a calvacade of lawsuits, divestment campaigns and cancelled business deals. Israel would be more and more beseiged as a result. That I agree with him on. For this reason, Bibi's outright and public rejection of Obama shows no real grasp of the real world, where America is no longer the single superpower capable of dictating results.

Beinart also notes that Bibi's response was bizarre when he said that the 1967 borders were indefensible. Clinton proposed a more dramatic solution in late 2000 as did Ehud Olmert in 2008 when both endorsed a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem.

Michael Tomasky, also writing in the Daily Beast in a piece entitled "Bibi's White House Tantrum" said that Bibi this time miscalculated President Obama's power, playing the scene as if it were the first time they met and AIPAC and others ganged up on Obama for his initial peace initiatives. Seeing President Obama much stronger and with serious foreign policy credentials,he views Bibi's White Huse performance as verging on petulence.

The Economist noted that the Palestinians were holding off the reapprochment between Fatah and Hamas until after President Obama's speech. While Palestinian spokespeople were generally pleased with the trhust of President Obama's parameters, they said they needed to hear from Bibi whether Israel was in fact serious. They noted that Hamas was currently having an internal debate between their exiled leadership which favors negotiation with Israel and their domestic leaders who do not.The Economist noted that the European community is getting a little tired of two decades of American-led talks leading nowhere. Which to me signals Europe simply allowing the UN General Assembly vote happening.

One point that President Obama alluded to in his remarks about the urgency to restart the peace talks was the changes brought about by the Arab Spring. A few commentators note that now that the Palestinians are resorting to non-violent tactics they have the Israelis flummoxed. President Abbas on May 15th blessed a campaign of civil resistance by Palestinian refugees aimed at encouraging the return of Palestinian refugees by breaching Israel's armistice lines.

In short, the Arab Spring has arrived at Israel's footsteps. When Muburak was overthrown, the Israeli national security elite annouced that the world had been turned upside down and that things would never be the same. I think that's true and it also means that the pressures on Israel will become more complex and sophisticated and can not be solved by its leader trying to browbeat the President of the only country that supports them.

This past week's events took place after more than a year of Israel isolating itself. You will recall the gratuitous insults by the Foreign Minister to the Turkish Ambassador and the over-reaction to the Gaza Flotilla, which basically ended Israel's closest military and intelligence relationship with a Middle Eastern state. The arrest on the high seas of people like world famous author Henning Menkell only alienated that part of the European public still sympathetic to Israel. Basically, people like Benard Henri-Levy had to plead with his fellow Frenchmen and Europeans to tolerate Israel's actions. Things were not helped by the collapse of the settlement moratorum and the gratuitous insults to American envoy George Mitchell.

At the begining of the Obama Administration, the United States by quiet diplomacy and shuttle diplomacy had choreographed a deal among 22 Arab countries to simultaneously recognize Israel if its government went back to negotiating with the Palestinian Authority and suspended any further settlements. It didn't and the grand bargain failed. In the ensuing months,Israeli actions, which appeared more maladroit than malicious, further alienated the region and the world community.

Clearly, the Israelis need to manage their foreign policy better than they are currently doing. By apparently betting on the American Right to save their bacon, this only will alienate the larger American public who would like to support them. With the seige that lies ahead, Israel is going to need every friend it can get. That's why the behavior of Bibi Netanyahu was inexplicable to old friends of Israel and totally self-destructive. The last thing Israel needs to do is isolate itself further and by its own choice.