27 thoughts on “Obama’s Tough Love to Bibi – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Let me understand this-The US Administration links its policy to Iran, a potential nuclear power that takes positions hostile to American interests and the interests of its Arab allies to whether Israeli knocks down Yitzhar or not. Does that make sense? This discredits the whole article in Yediot in my mind.

    President Bush also explicitly promised the Saudi Royal familty the same thing at the beginning of his first term…he would be the President who would oversee the creation of a Palestinian state. Before you start coming up with reasons to dismiss this, recall that the Saudi Royal family donated millions of dollars to the Bush family for Poppy’s Presidential library, and that the Arab-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Bush Jr recalling how Poppy was willing to twist Israel’s arm openly. Recall also how it was Bush Jr who oversaw the first destruction of Israeli settlements in Gush Katif, something Clinton never managed to do. Yet did he succeed in getting a Palestinian state? No.
    The whole thrust of this seems to be based on the idea that all that is needed is enough pressure on Israel will enable the US to impose an agreement. However, as you know, it takes two to tango. There is the other side as well. Are the Palestinians going to agree to the terms that Obama thinks are reasonable? In any event, who is going to sing on this for the Palestinian side? FATAH? HAMAS? Some joint delegation? What about the Iranians? They have influence with HAMAS. Are they going to go along with Obama’s fast track plans?
    Do you really believe that Obama is going to make a public committment to something so risky given the danger that it won’t work out and then his credibility would suffer?

    1. President Bush also explicitly promised the Saudi Royal familty the same thing at the beginning of his first term…he would be the President who would oversee the creation of a Palestinian state.

      The diff. bet. George Bush & Barack Obama is that the former was a liar and had absolutely no idea how to create a Palestinian state. Obama, on the other hand, is not a liar (at least not so far) & I think has the will to actually do this.

      Recall also how it was Bush Jr who oversaw the first destruction of Israeli settlements in Gush Katif

      Bush had nothing to do with the Gaza withdrawal. Saying he “oversaw” it is ridiculous.

      Are the Palestinians going to agree to the terms that Obama thinks are reasonable?

      Yes, if Obama convinces them that he’s offering the best deal possible, which I believe he can.

      What about the Iranians? They have influence with HAMAS.

      Hamas is NOT Hezbollah. The former is not a satellite or proxy for Iran (though there are close relations bet. them), nor could that country persuade Hamas to refuse an agreement which that movement found to be in its best interests.

      Are they going to go along with Obama’s fast track plans?

      If the Iranians perceive that normalizing relations with the U.S. is in their interests & Obama offers enough carrots, then yes Iran will go along.

      Do you really believe that Obama is going to make a public committment to something so risky given the danger that it won’t work out and then his credibility would suffer?

      You sound like you’re trying to persuade yrself that this can’t happen. But alas, it will & yes Obama not only WILL make such a commitment, he already has according to Emanuel’s statement. Obama realizes that if he doesn’t make such a commitment his credibility will suffer equally. Better to commit to fix a problem despite the danger that failure poses to one’s reputation, than to sit by and watch a problem become an epidemic also causing one’s reputation to fall.

  2. Very exciting indeed. Even if this doesn’t go the distance, the symbolic importance of these breaks with recent tradition and ideological orthodoxy is incalculable. So long as Obama doesn’t shoot himself in the foot somehow, I think a perfect storm of dissatisfaction across the political spectrum with the intolerable status quo (not to mention widespread disillusionment with Tel Avivs narrative after the Gaza attacks) is likely to insulate him from repercussions for taking on these sacred cows. With the exception of a few certifiably insane people on the Christian Far Right no one outside of the AIPAC crowd is really comfortable with the present apocalyptic course. Bibi must be sweating bullets.

  3. Dear Richard,

    Your clarity of vision is so enlightening.

    I certainly sense a shift in the public opinion about this sad conflict. I regularly speak at colleges and churches and I am hearing more people expressing frustration with Israel’s continuing occupation and illegal building of settlements, making it ever more difficult to have a Palestinian state.

    I just hope that President Obama not get distracted by a war in Afghanistan or a worsening economy that he will abadon his current efforts to bring a just peace in the Middle East.

    I can’t take another disappointment. I really can’t witness another wave of deaths and destruction such as Israel’s recent ones on Lebanon and Gaza. I fear that we are losing our humanity when all we can do is watch and weep over such massacres of so many innocent people.

    Keep writing; many are reading; hopefully enough of us will be motivated to act for peace.

  4. Hi Richard, I don’t know if you caught these two Ha’aretz articles on Americans who wanted Obama to attend Durban II. They were particularly concerned about Obama’s attempts to remove references to slavery.
    Open Letter to President Obama, and U.S. rights groups urge Obama to send Durban II delegation both from March 30th. The comments won’t let me post the links, so I hope they can be found from the titles.
    It is good news that he is reconsidering sending people. There is more information at the United Nations site here: http://www.ngomonitor.org/article/durban_conference_0#other_governments

  5. As my dear mother used to say, “I should live to see the day.”

    Frankly, I think if the Obama administration can pull something like this off, it will be on the same terms that were turned down at Camp David: A pseudo state made up of bantustans.

  6. Another thing that puzzles me is that if indeed Roger Cohen of the NYTimes is correct, and Iran is a benevolent power with no evil designs on Israel and is dying to improve relations with the US, then what does the report that says “Busheir for Yitzhar” mean? (Busheir is Iran’s nuclear facility and Yitzar is a Jewish settlement in Samaria). If Obama agrees with Cohen, then what exactly is he offering Israel if “Busheir” is NOT a threat? Or, alternatively Richard, if it IS a threat, that means Obama (and you) WOULD support an armed attack on Iran as long as Israel went along with knocking down the settlements in Judea/Samaria?

    1. if indeed Roger Cohen of the NYTimes is correct, and Iran is a benevolent power

      Would you pls. provide yr source for this claim. I nowhere read Cohen to be saying that nor did he. Sloppy on yr part.

      what exactly is he offering Israel if “Busheir” is NOT a threat?

      Neither Cohen, nor prob. Obama if you asked him privately believe Iran is a direct nuclear threat to Israel (though Obama has said publicly that he believes it is). The only actor in this drama who believes Iran wants to drop nuclear weapons on Israel is Israel. So since Israel believes this Obama is offering to remove the problem by trading Busheir for Yitzhar. The latter isn’t necessarily saying he accepts Israel’s view of the matter.

      I don’t believe either that Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel, so yr hypothetical is lost on me.

      1. “The only actor in this drama who believes Iran wants to drop nuclear weapons on Israel is Israel.”

        Please also provide a cite for that claim. The key word is “want”. I’ve never heard an Israeli official state in the name of Israel that they expect Iran to unilaterally drop a bomb, but more that they expect Iran to escalate its dominance in the region, with an overly ideological bent.

  7. It sounds almost too good to be true.

    What I would like to know is the type of meeting Emanuel had with that ‘Jewish leader in Washington’ – was it during a ‘liquid lunch’. I am asking because why would a sober Emanuel say things like ‘it doesn’t matter to us at all who is Prime Minister’. Perhaps it doesn’t but why would a White House Chief of Staff openly say that? No need to antagonize N. more than is necessary to get things done. A man in Emanuel’s position would, I think, be keenly aware of that.

    1. A man in Emanuel’s position would, I think, be keenly aware of that.

      Unless he was feeling “jacked around” by Bibi. Remember, Rahm is known for having a trigger temper & doesn’t suffer fools gladly.

  8. Richard – SOS Eurosaba has referred me to a Hebrew version of Netanyahu’s Likud platform. http://www.netanyahu.org.il Can you help, please? Eurosabra’s comment: http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/04/american-jewry-has-reached-its-rendezvous-with-destiny.html

    There’s always the Likud Party platform, http://www.netanyahu.org.il. Of course the complete version is in Hebrew, but you’ll have to read it because the English version emphasizes the Jewish tie to Israel, settlement of the Land, and sovereignty, without a detailed explanation of the Likud concept of a “Jewish state.” The Hebrew version is not much better, but includes much happy talk of using state structures to preserve “Jewish cultural-traditional values”, which might lead people to the right of Likud to conclude that N. is less concerned with Jewish control of state structures for (ahem) differential development. Certainly the Likud is committed to non-discrimination between citizens in a very big way, for a rightist party, but it is not going to undermine state structures that function to the benefit of the Jewish community. (i.e. the aid function of the Jewish Agency for Israel will include rebuilding of Arab towns affected by the Lebanon War at parity with comparable Jewish towns, but the JNF will not be disestablished.)

    I considered an email, and should follow-through in that manner, but it is a debate to which I would welcome others from here.

    I will be back for today’s post.

    1. I couldn’t make head or tails of much of what he wrote. But the issue of non discrimination regarding Likud is preposterous. If he’d written “non discriminationa against Israel’s Jewish citizens” then it might have been meaningful since Likud has been much more successful at attracting Mizrahim to its cause than has Labor. But to include Israelis Arabs within that description is laughable.

      And as I’ve written here about Hamas’ Charter–I don’t give a rat’s ass about what a political movement or party writes in a platform. They’re hardly worth the paper they’re written on. What a party DOES is the only thing that counts.

  9. Richard,

    Sorry but I think I’ll play the skeptic here.

    The format in which this appears – a second-hand anonymous quotation of Emmanuel in the Israeli press – is quite familiar.

    More often than not, this type of “leaks” or red herrings is used by Israel’s leadership to pre-empt real diplomatic pressure and rally the troops (read: AIPAC).

    Unless I am much mistaken, we will soon hear Rahm or his spokesperson deny the quotes, or ignore them.

    If there was an intention to change course on Israel in the near future, the fabulous swearing-in speech of Lieberman was a golden opportunity. There was no taker.

    Wake me up when there’s something more tangible to celebrate 😉

    1. I think the significance of the leek even, is hope that the US will act in earnest to make some just solution materialize, rather than neglect (with all the mutual harms and distortions that occur from neglect).

  10. Steve Walt:

    “But linking this so emphatically to the Iranian issue strikes me as a mistake, because it could give Tehran a de facto veto over the peace process. If Israeli compliance becomes directly tied to a resolution of Iran’s nuclear program on terms acceptable to Israel, and if Iran decides to stonewall, then the Netanyahu government will have an excuse to dig in its own heels. Ironically, that outcome might not trouble the Iranian government, which exploits the Israeli-Palestine conflict to enhance its own influence, to put more pressure on the United States, and to keep Arab regimes like Saudi Arabia off-balance by emphasizing their failure to do anything tangible to help the Palestinians. “

  11. RE: “What if whatever agreement the U.S. does reach with Iran doesn’t satisfy Israel?”

    MY COMMENT: Can’t we just stipulate that Israel WILL NOT be satisfied by any agreement that the U.S. might reach with Iran?

  12. RE: “…US administration officials informed Netanyahu that President Obama will not be able to meet with him in early May, while the AIPAC conference is held in Washington…”

    FROM THE “JERUSALEM POST” (04/16/09):

    “…Mitchell invited Netanyahu to visit Washington on May 11, but that proved problematic for scheduling reasons, the sources said…”

    SOURCE – http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710701752&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

    MY COMMENT: Draw your own conclusions.

  13. DICKERSON3870 – Obama, in his state craft, also seems to be sending this message: I won’t be joining you in your talk with AIPAC.

    Stipulation agreed upon.

    The attention to Durban II is important. Impossible to believe that some one grounded in Chicago’s school of civil rights would ignore Durban II.

  14. Who caused this story to be published and why?
    I could easily be wrong but I think the story was driven from the Israeli side. I don’t doubt that Obama is pushing (eg ‘out of town’ for AIPAC meeting). My reading is that this is Netanyahu gauging how much he can push back; this is an attempt to measure how much domestic trouble he can cause Obama.

    With respect to epoch-changing events the 1982 invasion of Lebanon seems to me to be an obvious landmark. That was the moment when Israel exposed itself as a bullying Goliath rather than a vulnerable David. Before that it was rarely examined with any real objectivity in the mass media (at least here in the UK). Ever since it has faced growing popular opposition within its Western supporters, initially in Europe and now increasingly in the US. The most remarkable feature of the recent Gaza atrocities was the extent to which the Israel/Lobby narrative was challenged inside the US. Operation Drop Dead and the siege have gained Israel little but will cost it a lot and for a long time.

    What Israelis and Palestinians definitely do not need is another Oslo. Like almost everyone I was convinced Oslo would result in a lasting peace. In hindsight it is easy to see that its failure was all but inevitable. I hope and pray that Obama does not seek to impose another fudged agreement.
    First, do no harm.

  15. Miles, IMO definitely it is important to support Obama, perhaps useful to define Obama’s intent in these terms, and see what push back we get. Netanyahu needs a unified and loud response: Talk to the president, not to AIPAC.

    The president sets policy; isn’t that what Emanuel has just said, basically?

    Lebanon grabbed my attention, stoked my opposition.

    First, do no harm. Can’t we make it: first, stop the harm?

  16. RE: “What if whatever agreement the U.S. does reach with Iran doesn’t satisfy Israel?”


    “…And what message did DEBKAfile and the Likudniks receive?

    That if Hillary’s “diplomacy” fails – as it will – to “halt” Iran’s IAEA Safeguarded “nuclear activities” Israel will be left “with no option” but to attack and destroy them before the year is out!”

    ENTIRE PRATHER ARTICLE – http://original.antiwar.com/prather/scenario-for-2009-israeli-strike-on-iran/

  17. I fully agree, there are historic changes afoot, and I have sensed since the day I invested so heavily of my time, energy and writing in getting Obama elected. He has the capability to challenge both these peoples to develop the requisite leadership to make the historic transition to the original proposal of 1948. It has taken a landslide routing in American politics and discrediting of militarism to give a very talented president the capacity to stand up to any and every lobby here. It is breathtaking. Whether it succeeds depends on many other factors involving a number of nations.

  18. Obama’s Foreign Policy Challenge: Middle East

    The following is an approach to a realistic foreign policy for the administration of President Obama.

    Palestinian Independent State
    The problems of Palestinian subjugation to Israel occupation are the seeds for an unstable world including the Middle East. Many expect, as previously stated by Iran and many Arab counties, that they would not reject a reasonable break through between Washington and Israel over the Palestinians home state. However; many political analysts have suggested that any resolution about Palestinian state would be a non-starter with Israel. The success or failure of the administration of President Obama with Israel would determine the nature of future stability for the Middle East.

    There is no dispute that Iran is already a nuclear state. The states with this capacity are many; among them are Japan and Germany. But, there is a great difference between being a nuclear state, i.e., nuclear fuel cycle capacity, and a state with nuclear bomb, such as India, USA, Russia, England, France, China, Israel and Pakistan.

    The steps required to allay our fear that Iran in the future may develop Nuclear Bomb are:

    1. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Iranian Consortium:
    USA should join the consortium among others Japan, Germany, France and England to actively monitor the Iranian fuel cycle activity too. IAEA has consistently asserted that the agency could not find any indications that Iran is diverting the fuel cycle for nuclear bomb development. Iran has asserted that their activities are limited to development of fuel for nuclear reactor.

    2. Nuclear Shield
    An international nuclear shield for all nations in the Middle East, including Iran;

    3. A nuclear- bomb-free Middle East.
    This action will remove any pressure from Iran to develop nuclear bomb in the future for deterrence against nuclear bomb Israeli state.

    Unfortunately the attentions of the past two US Presidents (Clinton and Bush) were on nuclear fuel cycle of Iran. They both ignored that Israel had nuclear bombs. The Middle East should be the starting point toward President Obama’s dream of a world free of all nuclear bombs.

  19. Ideas such as you express, St Michael Traveler, should find fertile ground. Many aspects of former policies for nuclear disarmament based on mutually assured destruction can be adapted for the current environment, and it is past time to do so.

    Nuclear weaponry are dangerous and deserve to be treated with the respect danger commands. I dislike in the extreme the anxiety I experience when Israel refers to nuclear arms; the demeanor with which such weaponry is discussed by those who prefer an active military approach to ‘peace keeping’ by Israel is of particular concern because of the high degree of collateral damage Israel has proven itself willing to accept in order to make points not seen as helpful for world stability by other nations.

    Nuclear capacity needs to be treated with understanding of the harm carelessness or abuse can create, and policies on use must be international to have value. Israel’s nuclear capacity must be included in any international consideration for steps forward to made in dealing with the danger that lack of unity can present when multiple nations are armed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link