The anti-Obama
You might ask then, "Why is it that when it comes to Iran and the peace process he doesn't give in"? Well, that's because those are precisely the areas where he has no pressure to do otherwise - not from abroad, and not at home.
U.S. administrations have rarely put any pressure on Israeli governments. The last time Israel faced any real pressure was when Bush Sr. threatened Yitzhak Shamir that the U.S. would cancel loan guarantees - a threat which many analysts say made Shamir eventually attend the Madrid peace conference.
Obama has done nothing of the sort. Even when his envoy, George Mitchell, hinted about using the loan guarantee threat again, America failed to follow through.
And it's a shame. Because the experts in D.C. obviously don't know what a huge opportunity has fallen into their laps. They have no idea what a weakling of a leader Netanyahu is. He never leads. He never initiates. It's all about survival for him.
If only they knew that with a bit of pressure, in just the right spot, they could have Bibi eating out of their hands.
Unlike Obama, Netanyahu is dependent on his coalition. If his coalition falls apart, Netanyahu is gone whether or not four years have passed. I can't remember the last government in this country to last out its term. Therefore, Netanyahu is quite careful about keeping his coalition in line. When he sees than an initiative is unpopular, he drops it, unlike Obama who with nearly three years to go until he has to stand for re-election is about to lead the Democratic party off a cliff on Obamacare if they let him get away with it. That's why each of the initiatives that Kaufman lists was dropped or watered down.
Second, Kaufman complains that Netanyahu has not come around on the 'peace process.' But the only two areas where Netanyahu has done something that has offended a significant part of his coalition is on the 'peace process' and he has done so because of pressure from the Obama administration: He accepted the 'two-state solution' and he implemented the partial 'settlement freeze.' Each of those moves was unpopular with every party in his government other than the Labor party, and Labor is far from the biggest party in the coalition. So why didn't the coalition throw him out? Because it's too soon after elections and no one wants to take the chance of going to elections again right now.
Third, no matter how much pressure Obama puts on Netanyahu regarding the 'peace process,' it is doubtful he can go any further than he has already. He certainly could not get his cabinet to approve - for example - a de jure building freeze in 'east' Jerusalem. I'm not sure he could even get that one through his own Likud party's Knesset delegation. If anything, Obama putting additional pressure on Netanyahu is likely to backfire.
Fourth and finally, unlike the Israel-hating Jews in Washington, Obama may have finally figured out that the Israeli-'Palestinian' dispute is not worthy of being his top foreign policy priority, and that continuing to insist on it being so is politically suicidal. If anything, I would look for less involvement by Obama in the Israeli-'Palestinian' dispute in the months ahead.
Israel Matzav: The anti-Obama
1 comment:
You're right: strong leaders *ALWAYS* give in to what is most popular. That's what strong leaders do. BTW, where are the Israel hating Jews in Washington? Perhaps I'll run into one at the next AIPAC convention.
Post a Comment