The New Republic

But Ambinder continues:

-- To be sure -- Obama remains strongly pro-Israel. It's just that this perception imbalance was doing harm to American interests and was serving as an excuse for Arab and Middle Eastern governments to dawdle or gain leverage on important questions involving Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq.

If Obama is "strongly pro-Israel," as Ambinder suggests, the problem is not an imbalance of PERCEPTION but an imbalance of REALITY. And it is this reality which has allowed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to persist for more than four decades inflicting much harm to Israelis and even more harm to Palestinians. It is a reality founded on a racism and bigotry which this magazine has helped foster and foment. (Witness the piece of crap by Yossi Klein Halevi instructing Obama on how to appease Israelis yet again)

- ndmackenzie

July 28, 2009 at 5:09pm

If Obama truly wants to persuade the Israelis via interviews & the like, he should seek to be interviewed not by the fawning electronic media types (unless he wants cream puff questions), and not by Aluf Benn who is overrated, but by some of the tougher, more intellectually honest center-left journalists like Ari Shavit of Ha'aeretz.

He should also sit with centrist journalists David Horovitz of the Jerusalem Post (that will do double duty with US Jewry); on the center-right he should be interviewed by Makor Rishon's Amnon Lord and/or Channel 1's Ya'acov Ahimeir.

And if he wants to show that he isn't afraid to enter the lion's den, he should be interviewed by Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post.

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

July 28, 2009 at 5:38pm

The most interesting point in Klein's article was not in the update but in the original text:

-- It's taken me decades to realize this. Most Israelis--especially those who live in Tel Aviv and environs--not only don't see settler types, they also don't see many Arabs. They live their lives, do their work, have fun at the beach. By contrast, when journos like me parachute in, we usually go to Jerusalem, where the government and a significant Arab population lives, and usually (in my case, at least,) combine it with a visit to the West Bank or Gaza. Most journalists based in Israel live in Jerusalem and spend lots of time in both communities. They are aware of the proliferation of settlements and they have experienced the outrageous conditions in the Palestinian territories.

Are we not all reminded how small Israel is each and every time a US President visits. Yet Israel is somehow too large for Israelis to be aware of the "proliferation of settlements" and "outrageous conditions in the Palestinian territories."

- ndmackenzie

July 28, 2009 at 5:40pm

Make that "Obama to patronize Israel some more." That would please "ndmckenzie" above.

- amidut

July 28, 2009 at 5:54pm

Klein exaggerates, to put it mildly.  Tel Aviv is a bubble unto itself.  Many Tel Avivians don't know (or care) where Sderot is as well.  Many Tel Avivians would be quite happy if Israel consisted of a crusader-like enclave of metro Tel Aviv.

But these are the minority and recent polls have consistently shown that a majority of Israelis are against a "settlement" freeze, especially without getting something significant in return from the Arab states.  A majority of Israelis are also against preventing Jews from living in certain parts of Jerusalem when Arabs can, and do, live in any neighborhood of J'lem (there is a steady exodus of Arabs from east J'lem into various neighborhoods of western J'lem who want to avoid being included in a Palestinian state).

Joe Klein is falling into the trap common to foreign journalists (including many of those who are based here) who speak to their usual suspects and think that Ha'arez, like the NY Times in the USA, is representative of Israeli thinking.  It isn't.

hg

- ginzy

July 28, 2009 at 6:04pm

What Obama should propose to all conflicting factions in the Middle East is this

"I want you to think about your roots, the foundations upon which we come to understand the world around us.

"How, for example, do we actually come to acquire a sense of reality, an identity? And why are we ceaselessly in conflict with others who insist not only that their own perception of reality is different from ours, but that it is superior as well. More rational, more ethical, more politically correct....more wise.

"Think about that along these lines:

"But for this historical period or for this culture I was born into....but for this family or for this community in which I was raised...but for this experience or for that friendship I had....but for this book or for that film I read or viewed...but for this good fortune or for that calamity....."I" might view the world very, very differently. Human identity is like a cascade of 'what ifs'? It is deeply entangled in the complex and ofttimes inscrutable contingencies we encounter on our existential sojourn from dust to dust.

"Consider, for example, the day you were born. As a child it is always others who will tell you who you are: what you should believe or not believe, what you should be for and against, how you should behave or not behave. They will shape and mold you profoundly into viewing the world one way rather than another.

"We grow up in these communities and through repeated reinforcements [rewards and punishments] we internalize "a sense of reality", "a sense of identiy" that will in many ways be a part of us until the day we die.

"So much of how we behave....how we choose the things we do as adults...is rooted in the existential relationships and experiences we had as children, relationships and experiences that have an enormous impact on our lives later on."

george walton

- iambiguous

July 28, 2009 at 6:15pm

I wonder, did Benn put his finger on somethng in the op-ed when he wrote this para:

"First, in the 16 rosy years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Israelis became spoiled by unfettered presidential attention. Memories of State Department “Arabists” leading American policy in the Middle East were erased. The White House coordinated its policy with Jerusalem, and stayed out of the way when Israel embarked on controversial military offensives in Lebanon and Gaza. This approach infuriated America’s Arab and European allies, which blamed Washington for one-sidedness — something they were willing to forgive of Bill Clinton but not of George W. Bush."

I don't want to take this remark out of context, as Benn frames it within a mesh of other comments that should be taken together.  Nevertheless there's something like an explanatory leitmotif here, and it does suggest that Israel is going through a (healthy? ominous?) process of rethinking its relationship to the United States.

- ironyroad

July 28, 2009 at 7:01pm

ironyroad said

... there's something like an explanatory leitmotif here, and it does suggest that Israel is going through a (healthy? ominous?) process of rethinking its relationship to the United States"

The Israelis aren't the only ones rethinking their relationship with the US.  Perhaps the overall explanatory leitmotif is Obama's series of noisy foreign policy blunders.

- bl462

July 28, 2009 at 7:48pm

Interesting.  Who are the others?

- ironyroad

July 28, 2009 at 9:17pm

"Perhaps the overall explanatory leitmotif is Obama's series of noisy foreign policy blunders."

I don't see any blunders, methinks you are being blindly partisan.

No?  List those blunders, tell us what makes them blunders, and what should have been done differently on each case.

- scrubby

July 28, 2009 at 9:53pm

Obama should oblige and give the Israelis the direct speech and interviews Aluff Benn seem to crave so much, but I doubt that alone will pacify them. Obama's *public* and resolute demand of settlement freeze is the issue.  After 16 years of being favored by American presidents, Obama's obvious even handedness comes across to them as mean spirited and biased. Maybe the White House, given their new tougher policy, should have anticipated this very apparent Israeli insecurity. Better assurances and communication was required.

He should go to the "lion's den" as ginzy recommended and work to soothe the bruised feelings. However, let's not forget that Obama always gives tough speeches to  his friends -- his Ghana speech, his speech to the NAACP, and as a Senator he went to the Kenyan assembly and told them they were too corrupt. They whined and hated him until he began running for president.  

- scrubby

July 28, 2009 at 10:00pm

irony and scrubby,

Fair enough, How about Canada (protectionism and borders), Saudi Arabia, Egypt (tacitly accepting a nuclear Iran), Japan, South Korea (North Korea),..  

- bl462

July 28, 2009 at 10:07pm

Oh, and scrubby, just because I'm critical of Obama's foreign policy doesn't make me a partisan for someone else's.  That's kind of a cheap shot.

- bl462

July 28, 2009 at 10:14pm

-- Obama's ratings are far higher than the 2008 ratings of President Bush: France (+77 percentage points), Britain (+ 75 points), South Korea (+ 58 points), Mexico (+45 points), Turkey (+38 points), India (+35 points), Egypt (+31 points), and the Palestinian territories (+30 points). The publics in every nation polled in both 2008 and 2009 showed an increase in confidence in Obama compared to Bush--on average 37 points.

http://tinyurl.com/nh9kre

Looks to me as if, contrary to bl462's opinion, Israel is the only country where Obama is less popular than Bush. It is Netanyahu who is committing foreign policy blunders, not Obama.

- ndmackenzie

July 28, 2009 at 10:37pm

I understand none of your examples.  What's up with policy toward Canada, and what was the blunder?  Saudi Arabia, likewise?  As there has been no tacit acceptance of a nuclear Iran, what is the blunder connected with Egypt?  Etc etc.

It would help if you would -- as scrubby noted -- explain what the blunders (as opposed to alternative policy choices) are, in your view.

Also, my original question was, in what way are these countries "rethinking their relationship" to the U.S., as you claim?  Is Canada closing the border -- I hadn't noticed?

- ironyroad

July 28, 2009 at 10:48pm

It wasn't intended as a cheap shot. My apologies.

Your answers, though, could hardly be classified as blunders. You may disagree with how each of those situations were handled, but blunders they are not. Not yet, at least.

Iran is  still ongoing. (not done yet)

North Korea was already messed up, but it's being worked on.

Canada... I have no idea what you are talking about.

A little patience, please. It's only been 6 months, they are not magicians.

- scrubby

July 28, 2009 at 10:48pm

"The White House coordinated its policy with Jerusalem, and stayed out of the way when Israel embarked on controversial military offensives in Lebanon and Gaza."

The WH is not likely to criticize Israel for defending itself, especially since these  two "controversial military offensives " seem to have yielded the intended results:

" Just a few months later, Hizballah launched thousands of Katyusha rockets into Northern Israel and forced hundreds of thousands of civilians to flee south toward Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. South Lebanon was punished much more thoroughly than Northern Israel, but the Palestinians in Gaza nevertheless took Hizballah’s Baghdad Bob–style boasts of “divine victory” seriously. Hamas ramped up its own rocket war until fed-up Israelis gave Gaza the South Lebanon treatment this past December and January.

Hamas is a bit slower to learn than was Hizballah, but seven long months after the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead, the rockets out of Gaza have finally stopped. Israelis will no longer put up with indiscriminate attacks on their houses and schools. Many Palestinians in Gaza have likewise had their fill of Hamas’s self-destructive campaign of “resistance."

www.michaeltotten.com/.../culture-war-rep.php

- noga1

July 28, 2009 at 11:06pm

"With respect to Israel's concerns, he is putting together a package that looks something like this: Israel will behave as he wishes with respect to settlements, the Palestinians will work against violence and incitement, other Arab countries will make gestures toward Israel in the form of partial normalization of relations, Syria will demonstrate good behavior with respect to its ties with Iran, Hizbollah, and Hamas, and stop aiding those fighting against the United States in Iraq, and Iran will limits its nuclear aspirations.

Again, none of these countries are completely sovereign, but neither are they likely to be as compliant with Obama's wishes as are Representatives and Senators with respect to his aspirations for health policy. With the American politicians, the president can employ the tools of political favors and his influence on public opinion. Again, that will not be easy and it may not produce a significant health bill. But compared to his overseas tasks, it is within his expertise and that of his advisors.

The president is not likely to threaten armed intervention with any of his overseas problems, given the overextension of American forces elsewhere.

With Israel, he can try persuasion. He got off on the wrong foot by demanding a cessation of building for Jews in East Jerusalem.

If anyone wants a lesson on the problems Israeli officials face with even the smallest and least justified of the settlements, current news is that settlers are completing initial construction at 11 new locations in the West Bank.

Israel can move against its crazies, but will not do so with dispatch unless Obama can deliver something from the Arabs. As far as we can tell, that ain't happening.

Sanctions on Israel would depend on the cooperation of Congress and some degree of quiet from public opinion, Jewish and others. I doubt that the president wants that fight. Tougher sanctions on Iran and others will depend on the cooperation of Russia, China, France, Germany, Italy, and Britain, none of which have been outstanding in recent opportunities to cooperate.

Remember Hobbes. "

www.usefulwork.com/.../013135.html

- noga1

July 28, 2009 at 11:19pm

I believe the issues with Canada, a US NAFTA and NORAD partner, are to do with concerns about the US/Canada border being "hardened", "buy USA" provisions of the stimulus bill that hurt existing Canadian based factories, worries about the US signaling dissatisfaction with the NAFTA agreement, grumblings over reducing tar-sands Canadian heavy oil exports, a major industry in Alberta and source of government revenue, and Janet Napolitano's comments that the Canada/US border should be treated no differently for security purposes than the US/Mexico border, which has significant negative implications for the Canadian manufacturing sector, for example Ontario auto parts producers, who produce for US auto factories.

- bl462

July 29, 2009 at 12:17am

...also sincere thank you to scrubby for the kind apology.    The less important other thing I should have mentioned is that rethinking your relationship does not necessarily mean changing it.

- bl462

July 29, 2009 at 12:24am

-- The less important other thing I should have mentioned is that rethinking your relationship does not necessarily mean changing it.

It should when the relationship has not benefited either party,

- ndmackenzie

July 29, 2009 at 1:59am

"The publics in every nation polled in both 2008 and 2009 showed an increase in confidence in Obama compared to Bush--on average 37 points."

george:

Polls. Snapshots of reality. Snapshots twisted into every imaginable point of view in order to defend every imaginable outcome.

It's got to reflect reality, right?  After all it reduces reality down to numbers. Like baseball scores and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The numbers tell us who won and who lost.

So what if the numbers on Obama above come from lots of folks who elected George Bush POTUS....twice. And let's not forget the poll conducted in the Supreme Court 9 years ago: Bush won 4 to 3.

Check it out. Like all the other polls, it's in the book.

george

- iambiguous

July 29, 2009 at 7:28am

b1462:  "The less important other thing I should have mentioned is that rethinking your relationship does not necessarily mean changing it."

That's pretty much as I'd see it too.  But the Canada thing -- honestly, even with all your details, I don't get this "noisy f-p blunder" business you're on about.

- ironyroad

July 29, 2009 at 10:28am