Why Matt Yglesias Bums Me Out--Regarding Israel

Matt Yglesias in Think Progress wrote this morning a piece, "Bibi Netanyahu's Victory" where he explains to novices that Bibi didn't blunder by showing President Obama the back of his hand because, no matter what, Israel has basically a free hand to behave as it wishes, taking the pieces of the West Bank as it wants.

While Yglesias doesn't like this, he makes a cogent case based on quoting congressional types of both parties, who criticize President Obama's proposals. He notes that these attacks on the President not only involve misrepresentations of what President Obama said but they are in many cases coming from members of the President's own party. I would also add that many of them are actually wrong from a strategic point of view.

The bottom line: The President made it clear that he disagrees with the regional policy of the Israeli government, but despite that disagreement intends to keep Israel as the number one recipient of American foreign aid and that he also intends to put America's diplomatic clout at Israel's disposal in the coming controversy over a Palestinian declaration of statehood. And the whole time he will be subjected to opportunistic political attacks from the opposition party that will be reinforced not rebutted by members of his own political coalition.

Yglesias also makes the devastating case that the Palesitinian cause is deeply and increasingly unpopular in the United States. He uses a chart tracking the Gallup poll from 1988 through 2011, which showed that the Palestinians never topped 20% in approval and that Israel remains at about 63%, its top year was 1991 at 64%. So there is no public opinion pushing for a more balanced view of the negotiations.

What he argues is that Bibi has debunked the Barak/Sharon/Olmert/Livini centrist conventional wisdom that had dominated Israeli politics. The idea was that Israel needs to be willing to make tactical concessions to the Palestinians or even be polite to the White House to retain American support. That's why Bibi can act like he does because he knows he could do almost anything and still Israel would receive unconditional support from the United States.

He also points out but I think he over-estimates their importance that the populist nationalist parties gaining influence in Europe today on their anti-immigrant/ anti-Muslim positions are much more strongly pro-Israel. Frankly, I doubt that will influence the current situation, especially where the United Nations vote is concerned.

He thinks this strategy of Israel is morally wrong and that it is a strategic mistake for the United States to go along with it.

Running counter to Yglesias thesis is another piece in Think Progress that demonstrates that large majorities of Palestinians and Israelis, based on public opinion polling, support a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders with land swaps. That's why I believe Bibi's strategy, while Yglesias may be right about its net effect, is catastrophic in the long run for Israel, and maybe the United States also.

Comments to his piece include a remark that sums up the awful logic of where we are:"The United States (and, by extension, Israel) is absolutely supreme in the military realm and can continue with virtually any strategy, no matter how wrongheaded, basically indefinitely."