Join Meir Panim’s campaign to “light up” Chanukah for families in need.
Barack Obama spent his first week after being elected president planning the next four years. And even though the Oval Office is occupied by someone else until January, the pundits were already predicting the next administration’s trouble spots.
At the top of the list is the outcome of the Israeli elections scheduled for this winter. If Likud leader Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu goes back to the prime minister’s office, we are told, a major conflict with the Obama White House is inevitable.
The Israeli left has promoted the myth that Netanyahu destroyed the peace process after the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. But the true story is that the Oslo Accords were doomed from the start because of Yasir Arafat’s insincerity and the continuation of Palestinian terror after the peace was signed.
Though Bill Clinton did just about everything to prevent Netanyahu from winning the 1996 Israeli election, the two managed to coexist warily for three years. Despite his hard-line reputation, Netanyahu wound up signing supplements to the Oslo treaties: the 1996 Hebron agreement and the 1998 Wye Plantation accord. He also sent an emissary to Damascus to discuss Syria’s willingness to make peace in exchange for the Golan Heights.
It is his bellicose rhetoric, however, that is remembered more than his diplomacy. Contrary to Theodore Roosevelt’s advice, Netanyahu always spoke loudly while carrying a very small stick.
But there was no mistaking the fact that the Clinton administration despised Netanyahu. Bibi’s warm relations with Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich and evangelical supporters of Israel deepened the distrust between the two governments. When Netanyahu was bounced out of office by Labor’s Ehud Barak in 1999, the White House did little to disguise its jubilation.
Now, almost a decade later, Netanyahu is on the verge of a remarkable comeback. With the Obama foreign-policy team likely to be comprised of retreads from the last Democratic administration or others equally committed to pushing hard for Israeli-Palestinian peace, trouble with the Likudniks is on the horizon.
But while the idea that the new president will prioritize the comatose peace process and seek to bludgeon Netanyahu into submission may be a fantasy of some of Obama’s fans on the Jewish left, it disregards the president-elect’s innate pragmatism.
Clinton committed himself, without reservation, to the concept that Arafat was a peacemaker rather than a two-faced terrorist. Obama arrives in the Oval Office with no such loyalty to powerless Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas. To suggest that Obama would risk any of his hard-won political capital on such a slender reed as Abbas is absurd.
Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama and his people are inherently hostile to Netanyahu, why would it make sense for the next president to try to force Israel into a corner when the prospects for peace are so bleak? With the Palestinians hopelessly split between the weak Abbas and his Hamas rivals who control Gaza, there is no way that any Israeli government, even the current Kadima-led coalition, could do so.
After all, Bibi may be headed back to the premiership because of the failure not only of the Oslo process but also of Kadima’s unilateral withdrawal concept.
Ariel Sharon left the Likud and formed the centrist Kadima in 2005 because Netanyahu and his followers wouldn’t support the withdrawal from Gaza. His attempt to end the old left-right split in Israeli politics was initially successful, but the pullout was a disaster, leading directly to the creation of a Hamasistan that has bombarded Israeli towns. A similar retreat in the West Bank under current circumstances is unthinkable. This failure of unilateralism has left many Israelis looking back to Likud for leadership.
There may be disagreements between Obama and Netanyahu, but the top foreign-policy item in the Middle East, outside of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not the dead-in-the-water talks with the Palestinians but something on which Obama and Netanyahu may well agree: the threat from Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
While the Republicans made much of candidate Obama’s ill-considered offer of talks with Iran, he did pledge never to allow the Iranians to achieve nuclear capability. If Obama doesn’t keep that promise, he will have far bigger problems in the region than not liking Netanyahu.
About the Author: Jonathan S. Tobin is senior online editor of Commentary magazine and chief political blogger at www.commentarymagazine.com, where this first appeared. He can be reached via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
Many journalists are covertly blaming the Charlie Hebdo writers themselves through self-censorship.
Why does the Times relay different motivations and narratives for jihadists in Europe and Israel?
To defeat parasites-the hosts of terrorists-we need to deny them new people, potential terrorists
Desperate people take what they can, seizing opportunity to advance their main goal; the Arabs don’t
There was a glaring void in the President’s State of the Union speech: Israel.
Let’s focus not on becoming an ATM for that little bundle of joy, but on what you can save in taxes.
Since the passing of the Governance bill legislation on March 11, 2014, new alignments have become to appear in Israeli politics.
Israel has some wild places left; places to reflect and think, to get lost, to try to find ourselves
The British government assured Anglo-Jewry that it is attacking the rising levels of anti-Semitism.
Obama’s Syrian policy failures created the current situation in the Golan Heights.
Our journey begins by attempting to see things differently, only then can we be open to change.
Despite Western ‘Conventional Wisdom&PC,’ the Arab/Israeli conflict was never about the Palestinians
Confrontation & accountability, proven techniques, might also help dealing with religious terrorists
In fact, wherever you see soldiers in Paris today, you pretty much know you’re near Jewish site
The abuse following publication proved a cautionary tale: no one followed in Peters’s footsteps
One of the key talking points by apologists for Hamas in the current conflict is that it isn’t fair that Israelis under fire have bomb shelters while Palestinians in Gaza don’t have any. Among other factors, the lack of shelters accounts in part for the differences in casualty figures between the two peoples. But somehow […]
How will all this end? Hamas seems to think it will be Netanyahu who will blink first.
Nothing short of a stroke that will decapitate the leadership of this group will convince the Arabs that Hamas has made a mistake.
Z STREET will have the ability to compel IRS officials to testify as to their practices and produce all records.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/barack-bibi-disaster/2008/11/19/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: