POLITICS AUGUST 5, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Two Israeli writers caused a stir last week by calling on President Obama to speak directly to Israelis, similar to the way he has addressed populations from Cairo to Moscow. “Simply stated, take your campaign directly to the Israeli people, and soon,” Bradley Burston wrote in a Haaretz blog post. “Fail to do this, or wait too long, and you'd be well advised to leave the table while you still have chips.” Aluf Benn echoed this sentiment in The New York Times: “This policy of ignoring Israel carries a price.” Similar points were made just two weeks ago in a study by the Center for American Progress.
Both Benn and Burston seem to believe that Israelis disapprove of Obama because they don’t understand what he wants--simply because he has failed to explain it to them. It’s unsurprising that columnists friendly to the ideas of the Israeli center-left would suggest that Israelis are actually in line with Obama’s agenda. But there’s an easier way of interpreting Israelis’ uneasiness with Obama: They do understand him, and do not agree with him. If that’s the case, more Obama-talk will not make a big difference. It is very common to blame “communication” when things go badly between two parties. However, there are many things that no improvement of communication will remedy.
Both writers assume that Israelis don’t care much for settlements, and I tend to agree. However, as Benn starts explaining while not quite completing his argument (“Mr. Obama has made a mistake in focusing on a settlement freeze”), Israelis also don’t care much for doing something for no particular reason, or just because there’s a new sheriff in town. The settlements should certainly go, most Israelis believe--but they should go at this specific time only if the president can logically explain the benefit Israelis will gain from letting them go now. If all he has is the general “settlements are bad for Israel” argument, then nothing much has changed; Israelis already know that.
Yes, Israelis might appreciate the honor of having the U.S. president talking directly to them. (As Benn writes, “In the 16 rosy years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Israelis became spoiled by unfettered presidential attention.”) But what exactly is he going to tell them? That peace is good for all and that he wants to advance peace? They know. That Palestinians suffer? They know. That he cares deeply for Israel’s security? They know he says that, and would like to believe it, but the real game-changer will require proof, not words. Clinton and Bush didn’t just say “We care for Israel” and instantly become darlings of the Israeli public. They showed they care--mostly by getting along well with the Israeli governments of Rabin and Sharon respectively. The Obama administration has done little to curry Israeli trust with their churlish attitude toward Netanyahu. In this sense, I agree with Benn and Burston: Regardless of the inevitable vapidity of an Obama speech directed at Israelis, the act of making the trip to Israel would be at least be a “deed”--a demonstration of good will on his part.
But words alone will not make Israelis trust Obama. Israelis do not suffer from lack of understanding of the issues; they suffer from peace-fatigue. They look at “peace processes” with suspicion, based on experience and events. They are scarred enough to know what has working and what has not, and they are tired of the good intentions of enthusiastic novices, believing that with their youth and their smarts they’ll be able to come up with some magic trick that can somehow round a square. What Obama needs is a convincing plan that makes sense. It does not look like he has one.
The president has reportedly sent letters to seven Arab leaders reminding them of “the need for CBMs [confidence-building measures] in exchange for [a settlement] freeze and to [get] peace talks restarted.” It hasn’t worked very well, and Israelis will be aware of this failure if they hear Obama talking about the need to stop settlement construction. So perhaps instead of the president making the effort of “talking directly” to Israelis with nothing new to say, maybe he ought to put his efforts into convincing someone else to address Israelis--somebody whose very act of speaking to Israelis would be significant in its own right. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia or President Bashar Al-Assad of Syria come to mind.
Regardless of its futility, my sources tell me that an Obama address to Israelis is coming soon. (Joe Klein was first to report this.) If he must do so, I can offer three pieces of advice: First, don’t lecture Israelis like you know what’s good for them better than they know themselves. You don’t. Second, don’t try to do an end-run on the Israeli government like you’ve done in other world capitols by speaking directly to “the people.” Don’t patronize them by saying that the Israel public knows better than its government what needs to be done. The public elected this government; the public you’re talking about is the public of some liberal American Jews, which has little relevance to the current reality in Israel. And third, don’t promise peace within a year or two. History is a better teacher of that lesson than I am.
I, for one, will not be disappointed if Obama chooses not to make the effort. I don’t think that Obama needs the approval of Israelis--nor, for that matter, that it is crucial for Israelis to have the personal sympathies of the American president. In fact, I think those “spoiled” Israelis can benefit from being reminded that not all presidents will be a Clinton or a Bush. Presidents come with different priorities and changing agendas--and Israel should make sure that it is always strategically benefiting the United States rather than relying on intangible romantic notions of shared values and religious sympathies to bolster the relationship. And perhaps more importantly, Israelis need to be reminded that we can live, for a long or short period of time, with a less demonstrably friendly America with no need for hysteria.
Shmuel Rosner is an editor and columnist based in Tel Aviv. He blogs daily at Rosner's Domain.
By Shmuel Rosner
28 comments
There will be peace in the Middle East when the Jews are gone or when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Jews. It's up to the Palestinians. Always has been.
- JohnB
August 5, 2009 at 7:58am
Amen. American Jews can spend all the time they want arguing what's best for Israel but time spent not living at the end of the arc of the rockets and riding Egged buses might well be used to reflect upon their country's failure to prevent , or even track the progress of, Pakistan's and North Korea's acquisition and distribution of nuclear weapons, and nuclear weapon technology and delivery systems. As ineffective as Israel's execution of its last two wars night have been, they have been followed by some peace of mind there. Israelis cannot be blamed for not wanting to make any more gestures that allow their enemies' twisted minds to see them as weak, even if the actions required for those gestures are good ideas in and of themselves. Finally, people can be disappointed if Israel's leaders do not show any more courage in making gestures towards a final settlement that would alienate vocal minorities of Israelis, than say, Arab leaders are willing to make at this time that might alienate their vocal opponents.
- Stuart Wilder
August 5, 2009 at 8:44am
I could not agree more with the writer's point. The points now are clear and should be summarised. The Israeli people already understand that there is a close bond between themselves and the US no matter what. That the world and its dynamics change, not diminishing the above relation but adding new dimensions to it. The need for a new beginning with the Muslim and the Arab Muslim world is critical and that blindly siding with one "side" does not and will not work. Those elements within the Israeli (and US) community that consider the "special status" as critical and a must need to rethink and face reality, it will ensure a better chance for peace if they actually joined in as well. (Solkhar is a retired western diplomat and a specialist in the tracking of terrorism-financing. He is a Muslim by choice since the age of 17 and is now a permanent resident of the historic Moroccan city of Marrakech).
- Solkhar
August 5, 2009 at 8:56am
The US President should not feel obliged to do a
- Solkhar
August 5, 2009 at 9:08am
Perhaps if Obama in an address to Israel would speak of the real reasons for the creation of the State, a historical and religious tie that goes back thousands of years, and not as some kind of compensation for the Holocaust, it would go some way in bolstering our spirits. It was very good that Obama in his Cairo speech spoke directly to the Holocaust deniers in the Arab world but if he does not recognize Israel's basic claim to the land then I for one, as an Israeli citizen and a Jew, will view his efforts with some suspicion. Beyond that, what is most unclear is who Israel will make peace with. The PA is too weak or too uninterested to get its act together to make a country for itself which could keep to any agreement, much less make a reasonable life for its citizens. Hamas makes no secret of its aim to destroy Israel and kill Jews. Even those of us on the left realize that at this juncture there is no one to talk to.
- shelscribe
August 5, 2009 at 10:38am
Sometimes I wonder if the Israeli love of Bill Clinton is simply a product of fortuitous timing. Clinton came to office after an administration that was perceived as being the most anti-Israeli in 15 or more years, and at a time when the Rabin government was already pursuing peace plans with the Palestinians in a manner congenial to America's interests. On the other hand, when Netenyahu became Prime Minister in 1996 relations between his government and the Clinton Administration were famously hostile and disfunctional, and the White House was happy to assist in Netenyahu's election defeat in 1999. One would think that most Israelis would have held this against Clinton, and would not put him in the same category as their great friend George W. Bush. But the fact that Clinton and Rabin/Peres got along so well, and the fact that Netenyahu's government in 1996-99 was so inept, divisive and ultimately unpopular, seemed to build up a reservoir of goodwill among a broad cross-section of Israeli society toward Clinton that continues today. I wonder if Obama would have been in a similar position if, instead of Netenyahu, Livni was Prime Minister and did not make noises about reneging on the Road Map, making Avigdor Lieberman Foreign Minister and making a public issue of settlement expansion.
- wildboy
August 5, 2009 at 11:19am
There is a good point being made in the article. The Israeli public and President Obama are not in the same place right now. Not even close. They may never be. Obama wants peace so he can focus on other issues that are far more pressing to U.S. interests. The Israelis have had it with talks of peace and elected a right-wing government with a foreign minister who believes Arabs are insects to be crushed at will. Clearly, there is a gigantic disconnect between President Obama and the average Israeli. An Obama speech would not solve these problems. The U.S. and Israelis need a healthier relationship in which acknowledgement of policy differences can be made and both parties are free to pursue their national interests in the region. This would be better for the U.S., better for Israel, better for the Middle East.
- DC Spence
August 5, 2009 at 12:13pm
So Israelis know that the settlements are unsafe and unjust but they'd like to hold onto them for a little while any way to see what they can get for them? Is that the argument? (And in the meantime please don't bring up the settlements anymore because Israelis already know all about them and things are a lot worse in other countries anyway...?)
- benberger
August 5, 2009 at 12:54pm
Rosner is right about Israelis not needing a lecture on the Middle East from President Obama. But he is also wrong about the quite extreme Obama Administration in favor of Israel's 'rivals'. He is also wrong in seeing an Obama Administration going along with its own agenda as something Israelis should be indifferent about. Does Rosner think Israel should show equanimity as the Administration affirms its acceptance of Iran's Ahmadinejad's legitimacy? Does he think Israelis should be calm at the Administration's feckless efforts to stop Iran from going nuclear? What about the constant pressure on Israel to cede resources to the Palestinians? Should we be indifferent about that? No. We should oppose this most popular and remarkably gifted President who nonetheless has shown a quite spectacular ignorance of Jewish history, and the true story of Israel.
-
August 5, 2009 at 12:57pm
Rosner is on target. The last thing Israelis need is a U.S. president with 6 months executive experience on his resume, a Blackberry full of peace plans and a Chicago pol chief of staff, who as a Jew, gives his boss cover - like a Trojan horse gives cover. What all must see is that all of the rational solutions have all ready been put on the table these past 62 years. What is kept off the table is acknowledgement by U.S. leaders (with one exception) of the irrational exuberance incited on the Arab Street by Arab leaders who profit by diverting their subjects' attention from their own misery by inciting Jew-hatred. The one exception? George W. Bush's refusal to deal with Arafat. Meanwhile Bush was still able to gain Sharon's commitment to completely abandon Gaza. And the P.A. and their subjects took yet another opportunity to quickly run past yet another opportunity for peace. All must get past the rational and find the animal spirit that moves the parties. Unfortunately the Arab street has been manipulated to fix their animal spirit on Jew-hatred. Israel's animal spirit is a desire to live in peace with their neighbors at almost any cost that does not undermine their citizens' safety and security. These days, Arab leaders' words of good intensions are no longer enough to make Israel give any more inches. The Arab leaders must deliver tangable proof to back their words. One good place to start is with editing their elementary school textbooks incitments of Jew-hatred and increasing the visability of those Imams who preach peace, liberty and the good life in this world.
- Steve B
August 5, 2009 at 1:29pm
Obama has an unfotunate penchant to conflate his rhetoric with reality. Even worse, he has the mistaken notion that his rhetoric can somehow transform reality. But the troubled history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict teaches us that facts are particularly stubborn things. Before Obama can fruitfully attempt to settle this matter, he must stop asking the Israelis to negotiate against themselves. Put otherwise, he must be able to offer a solution that will exchange the Israeli "quid" of freezing settlements with a meaningful Palestinian "quo" -- one that will support that Israeli concession. Indeed, until true reciprocity occurs in these peace negotiations, the Israelis have much to lose and only little to gain by listening to Obama. As a result, the best policy for Obama and his self-hating Jewish advisors, is to keep quiet until they have something meaningful to say to Israel. Only then can they expect the Israelis to listen to what they have to say.
- E Burke
August 5, 2009 at 2:11pm
The Israeli Left, including Rosner, are in a panic, flailing around, looking for some way to put the ugly genie that Obama released back in the bottle, and get their beloved "peace process" back on track. In the past, they have always managed to come up with something, but this time is different. The Iranian Atomic Clock is ticking, and before we know it Israelis and their true friends will be changing the subject and forgetting about Obama, settlements, CBMs, and the like to concentrate on the only thing that matters: to destroy the Mad Mullah's Bomb, or live, and perhaps die, under its shadow. Reality, the Left's worst nightmare.
- Dan Friedman
August 5, 2009 at 5:12pm
Oh, really. As we learned all too well with Bush the American President has incredible powers when it comes to foreign policy. Maybe Obama might simply keep America's vote in the security council quiet during the next time there is a vote directing Israel to fulfill its obligations under international treaties. The reality is that Israel is a modern complicated economy hugely dependent on trade. Further it is facing massive demographic problems by its senseless alienation of its Arab citizens and its refusal to seriously move towards leaving the territories. The reality is that Israel as it now is could be utterly and irrevocably destroyed by three words exiting Obama's mouth . . . "One state solution." Those he speak of years more of occupation are beyond delusional. America is beginning to have Israel fatigue. We are used to being addressed with respect from our client states. We were bitterly insulted by the Israeli assault on Gaza when we had thousands of troops in the theater and were in a government transition. Thousands of our troops lives depend on a stable Iran deterred by the threat of force and our security would be in no way threatened by Iran having the nuclear bomb. If keep saying how you don't need us, you will probably get a chance to show us. Good luck and good riddance.
- Robert Lee Hotchkiss, Jr.
August 5, 2009 at 5:33pm
After reading some of the comments, I'm not sure about Israeli leaders or the general public but Israel's staunch online defenders sure are a bunch of saps. Apparently, all that you need to make them happy and get Israel to make a bunch of substantive concessions would be for (i) Obama to state that Jews have a historic bond to the current territory of the State of Israel, and that it obviously goes deeper than mere reparations for the Holocaust and (ii) the Arabs to remove anti-Israel materials from schoolbooks. That's it! Someone call Mahmoud Abbas -the whole West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are yours for the asking as long as you revise some middle-school textbooks!
- wildboy
August 5, 2009 at 5:37pm
Obama leave us alone you have enough problems in your own neck of the woods. Rosner, you want a two state solution so don't you dare tell us Israelis that the settlements are bad for us. They have saved us time and again from conceding into suicide! They are our CPR every time our leaders go out on a limb and sacrifice what we have for repeated broken promises by Jew killers. A two state solution as we normal, pragmatic, self-preserving Israelis want is a Canada to our East in which Jews like all free people will have the ability to live on their settlements (villages and towns) without having to be judenrein. I want a demilitarized democracy next door and if the Arabs don't we will be forced to annex it. What of the Arabs living there? They can pay taxes (they won't), do a national service (they won't), swear allegiance to the Israeli flag (definitely won't) or be deported to their original country of origin Jordan. Everyone will jump down my throat for suggesting transfer but in many other political situations including our own this has been done for better or worse. It is about time we stopped this stupid merry go round we are on. BTW I can go Scharansky's way too. Just turn our backs on and not deal with the Arabs at all. This will allow us to turn our attention on our domestic issues for a change and maybe down the road (5 10 years)they will be chasing us to make peace with them while we have unified by focusing on our own problems and solving them.
- Jacob Wolf
August 5, 2009 at 5:42pm
If you believe that we will allow Israel to commit ethnic cleansing on that level you are sadly mistaken. Far more likely is that we would demand fair elections for the entire region. Have you actually read the any of the stories of the Jewish people? If you believed any of them, a theme would emerge. God doesn't want Israel to mess with the empire. Guess what . . . This time we are the empire. The Jewish narrative is one of where the Jewish people repeatedly lost Israel due to their arrogant presumption that their human efforts were sufficient to sustain it. Israel can not stand before the might of the United States. Don't renew the cycle another time.
- Jacob Wolf
August 5, 2009 at 6:50pm
I am sorry the above comment was obviously not written by Jacob Wolf, but by myself in response to Jacob Wolf.
- Robert Lee Hotchkss
August 5, 2009 at 6:53pm
Obama need not speak to the Israelis. Indeed, the fact that Nentenyahu sits in office should tell him that speaking to the Israeli public would be a waste of time. Perhaps it would help were the same Nentenyahu not trying to damage Obama by appealing to the same Christian Right that he did during Clinton's term. Already the word is that Obama's team is looking to help torpedo Nentenayahu's coalition government and bring him down. Odd how familiar that is.
- Puller58
August 5, 2009 at 9:00pm
We American tax payers subsidise and sustain tha racist state called Israel so behave yourselves lest you go bankrupt.
- joe
August 6, 2009 at 12:51am
Are you joking?
- DBD
August 6, 2009 at 1:49am
Never mind unjust settlements because things are worse in other countries anyway? Wow, there's some magical logic.
- DBD
August 6, 2009 at 1:51am
Ignorance of some of the comments here is truly amazing! Ocertainly Israelis prefer to hold on to the settlements, as long as the alternative is to allow Palestinins to convert those into launch pads for rockets. And certainly, if Arab leaders had courage to acknowledge the historic bond between Jews and Eretz Israel, and the right of Israel to exist in their speeches and textbook, this would bring the resolution of conflict much closer than a hundred speeches by Obama. But in order to understand these simple truths one needs to know at least a little about this conflict beyond the hearsay.
- Chris
August 6, 2009 at 10:04am
We see YOUR comments as truly amazing Chris. It is all perception. Israel has no more right to exist than the US, Canada or Australia before the discovery/occupation. Let's hope that Obama has the courage of his convictions.
- Selena
August 6, 2009 at 12:50pm
Oy Vavoy Rosner! (1) You write as "settlers" are settling Norway and not resettling their very homeland. Maybe this is a general belief of ashkenazis. (2) Saudi Arabia king to address the Jews? Are you serious?
- Salomon Mizrahi
August 6, 2009 at 4:49pm
I am truly stunned by the ignorance of American cultural evidenced on this board. I mean how could you not know that the vast majority of Americans range between moderately to rabidly anti-immigrant. That news of the Holocaust was suppressed in large part to prevent Jewish immigration. That a significant portion of the American public want to strip citizenship of people who were born here and have lived decades here. That every year we deny entry to probably hundreds of United States citizens. That during the depression we deported thousands upon thousands of US citizens. Right across the border there a dozens of Kumeyaay native Americans who with unquestionable certainty are descendants of this region who unlike the Jews did not lose and have to recreate their language whose ties to north America are thousands times more easily verified than those of European Jews to Israel. Do you think that those people have a chance at all of returning to their native homes. My ancestry is very easily traced to Europe. All of my ancestors for generations can be traced back to Europe. I would dearly love to live England -- no dice. If you say that the Holocaust is not what grants Israelis the "right of return" than I challenge you to find any other concept in Western European law that would grant such a right. The claims Jews make about their rights to Israel are so fundamentally opposed to the concepts of rights and citizenship in the United States that if they were widely known would probably decisively any general support of Zionism at all. We you put forward these arguments you have to understand that they are fundamentally repugnant to the current American concept of nationhood and citizenship. While I personally believe that immigration should be a human right for all, I at least know that this not the mood in the nation where I live. If you have no idea about the culture dominant in the country where a publication is largely read and you are posting with a desire in influence that country, I'd advise you familiarize your self with some of the basic cultural and political realities that exist there.
- Robert Lee Hotchkis, Jr.
August 6, 2009 at 8:59pm
Selena, you read the article but understood nothing! Jews have a many thousand years of history connected to the Land of Israel. Unfortunately, the idea of history is virtually non-existent in the young countries that you mentioned - US, Canada, Australia. And President Obama is merely a product of society where he was raised. His attempts to resolve the Middle East conflict are as clumsy as Clinton's effort to solve Kosovo problem (which predates America by several hundred years) by bombing Belgrade.
- Chris
August 7, 2009 at 1:34am
What I'd like to know is why no one talks about the difference between different settlements. On one end, there are the settlements like Modiin and Illit. On the other end are the settlements between Eli and Yizhar. In between are settlements like Ariel. The first type of settlement simply redraws the border between Israel and Palestine. The second is more consequential. As a result of those settlements, and the transportation corridors connecting them to the Green Line and the Jordan Valley, the Palestinian section of Samaria is divided into four major parts. The final category is a less drastic version of the second in that it pushes into Palestinian parts of Samaria but still allows for unrestricted movement around it. A better approach would be to look at what actually creates real barriers to a Palestinian state. The main things that Israel could contribute are contiguous territory and the ability to conduct trade with outside states (everything else the Palestinians have to do for themselves). A reasonable step on the first would be to create a single section of Area A/Area B in Samaria, removing only the settlements that prevent that from happening.
- Scott
August 7, 2009 at 9:36am
Israel has been ruling over the West Bank and Gaza for more than 50 years. If you include the West Bank and Gaza, Israel rules over a population of aproximately 12 million people that are about 50% Jewish and 50% Muslim. During the last 50 years, the Muslim population governed by Israel has become, if anything, more radicalized. The current situation cannot last. We all know this. For pretty shallow political reasons, the last U.S. administration allowed the current situation to get worse. Israel needs help controlling the radical settler element, which could, if unchecked, drive Israel into a very dangerous situation. Obama is the best friend Israel has had because he is a real friend.
- Tom Highway
August 9, 2009 at 10:46am