July 24, 2009
If i've lost ha'aretz, i've lost israel
Evelyn Gordon writes about three columns in Ha'aretz that show resistance to the charms of President Obama. (h/t Israel Matzav). She concludes:
When even the hard-core leftists of Haaretz's editorial board feel that a) Obama seems hostile to Israel and b) his policies actually undermine the peace process, his American Jewish supporters ought to take note.Because no matter how sincerely Obama wants peace, a president who has lost even Israel's hard left has no chance of delivering it.
Ari Shavit, another columnist for Ha'aretz looks at what President Obama might have done differently. (tweeted by David Hazony):
President Barack Obama made two bad mistakes in his treatment of Israel: He lost the trust of both the Israeli public and the Israeli prime minister. Neither mistake was really necessary. Despite their previous wariness, most Israelis were quite happy to see Obama in the White House. Despite a few suspicions, our prime minister was quite charmed by the young senator from Illinois and his meteoric rise.If Obama had embraced Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu, he would have achieved what Anwar Sadat, Bill Clinton and King Hussein did. He would have melted the right, conquered the center and brought Israel to the left. An Israel-loving Obama truly committed to Israel's security would have easily become the king of Israel.
Obama is different from Clinton. Clinton followed an administration that was largely viewed as anti-Israel. Clinton also got to work with Yitzchak Rabin and Shimon Peres for nearly four years before Netanyahu was elected. In other words Clinton built up his pro-Israel credentials by working with Israeli Prime Minister's who were more in tune with his worldview. Had Yitzchak Shamir been re-elected in 1992, he might not have had that reputation. Similarly, had Tzipi Livni defeated Netanyahu, I don't think we'd be hearing about all the friction between the Obama administration and Israel.
But I think Shavit is portraying a false Obama. As a candidate Obama made his distaste for the Likud clear. But perhaps more telling was his comment to Jewish leaders concerning the question as to whether there should be "daylight" between the American administration and Israel's government:
"He said, 'The United States and Israel were very, very close for eight years, and it produced very little,' " said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, described as one of the more aggressive questioners during the 45-minute session.
Shavit may view President Obama's approach towards the Middle East as a "mistake," but, even now, I don't think the President does. He is very much in agreement with his supporters in J-Street that the only way to bring peace to the Middle East is to pressure Israel. In a more general look at the President, Sean Trende writes:
The first is that Obama isn't governing as a centrist because he isn't a centrist. If you accept this as true, the Obama Administration makes perfect sense. If you don't, then I admit it can be confusing.It was amazing that Obama was able to maintain his stature as a Rohrschach candidate throughout the campaign. Liberals, moderates, and even some conservatives were able to see whatever they wanted to see in him, and were convinced that everyone else was going to be disappointed once he started governing.
The President is an ideologue. Ideologue's don't make mistakes. Everyone else does.
Crossposted on Yourish.
Posted by SoccerDad at July 24, 2009 9:20 AM
Hezbollah in passive voice
A cynical and mistrusted offer
Wapo: peace process succeeding because of the great work of the administration
Council speak 100610
Nyt: peace process failing despite the great work of the administration
Do we have enough regulations yet?
Iranian General: "US, Mossad played roles in 9/11 event"
Absolving arafat, ten years later
Rahm can't run? antisemites!
The politics of peace
The American President is a hard core leftist. Ari Shavit is mistaken when he writes a meeting between Obama and Netanyahu would reconcile them. The differences between the American and Israeli leaders are not about personalities but world views that are not easily bridged. Obama is an ideologue in every sense of the word. And ideologues are not interested in compromise or getting along with their opponents. A meeting between Obama and Netanyahu then would be a waste of and achieve nothing. There is not going to be any progress towards peace in the Middle East any time soon.
Posted by: NormanF at July 24, 2009 9:15 PMto hell with the Israelis. I am so fed up with them. Why can't they not solve their own problem. We gave them a country.... no.. we stole a country for them and they still want more more more. I say US out of Middle East now.
Posted by: Sherry at July 25, 2009 12:22 AMMost of us Israelis would like to see Haaretz go out of business. Nothing they have to say is of any interest to normal, sane people. It's no longer even a question of Left or Right, Haaretz is on the looney-left, people who hate their own country & people, much like the traitors in "J-Street'' .....
The vast majority of Israelis of both Left & Right no longer believe there is any possibility of peace with the Palestinians. No one believes that a Palestinian state will bring peace - only a new phase of the conflict.
Only the most uninformed, the wishful thinkers, or the ideologically deranged believe in the two-state solution. You have to be incredibly naive & gullible to believe that Western leaders like Obama have our interest at heart, quite the contrary. They are quite willing to sacrifice us to Islam just like appeasers did to Czechoslovakia before WWII.
Posted by: Terry, Eilat - Israel at July 25, 2009 5:51 AMI think Obama still has The Forward though. And of course Jewcy.
Posted by: Empress Trudy at July 25, 2009 9:49 AMTo hell with YOU, sherry. No one "gave" Israel a country. The Jews fought for their homeland, losing 1% of its population in the process during the war of independence. No one came to Israel's aid when Arab armies attacked it after the arabs rejected the UN partition plan. In fact their was a worldwide arms embargo against Israel while the arab countries were being led and armed by the British. And furthermore the land wasn't "stolen". The Jews have a 3,500 year history in the land of Israel and long preceded the Arab presence. The arabs in fact were the ones who stole the land from the Jews. What I am sick of are scoundrels like you, sherry, and your ignorance, lies and deceit and your anti-Semtism that would deny the Jewish people their right to one single miniscule state and demanding that Israel give it up or reduce it significantly, in order to create a 22nd Arab state. So fuck you, sherry. If you are sick of Israel, then get the hell out of here and visit the daily kos or the huffington post where you will find likeminded scum who share your hatred.
Posted by: Laura at July 25, 2009 11:51 AMits the pot calling the keatle black when the purblind orthodoxy in USA call 'The President is an ideologue'.
Sherry, you're another anti-semetic idiot trying to rewrite history.
Furthermore, Israel is more than capable of solving it's own problems especially if the US gets its hand out from Israel's ass and lets it do what needs to be done.
Maybe you should FIRST consider returning the lands YOUR ancestors stole from the native-Americans before you judge others.
You're nothing but a stupid hypocrite bitch.