Across Israel, Meir Panim responds to the growing needs of the country’s 1.75 million impoverished residents through various food and social service programs.
After running into a dead-end in its efforts to jump-start Middle East peace talks, the Obama administration has signaled that it has evaluated the situation and understands that all is not well. But instead of a course correction, senior administration officials have decided what they need to do is deploy their most effective weapon – the rhetorical brilliance of the president himself – on a recalcitrant state of Israel.
They say that in the next few weeks the White House will begin a public relations program in Israel and Arab countries to better explain the president’s intention to broker a comprehensive peace agreement. The highlight would be interviews with Obama on Israeli television as well as appearances broadcast in Arab countries.
In particular, the officials say they hope to convince the majority of Israelis who have been shown in polls to view Obama and his policies with distrust to support his stand on freezing building in Jewish settlements in the West Bank as well as in Jerusalem, rather than the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu, their own prime minister.
The idea here seems to be that if the Israeli people are sufficiently exposed to the charms of the American president, they will force Netanyahu to do as he has been told by Washington.
The administration clearly misunderstands the nature of its problem. The Israeli people already understand Obama very well. His problem is that they don’t buy what he’s selling. Indeed, this decision to launch a PR campaign reminds one of stereotypically “ugly American” tourists who believe the proper response to foreigners who don’t understand English is to merely speak English louder. What the administration needs in order to win the trust of Israelis isn’t a bigger megaphone but more realistic policies.
The reason many Israelis think they have been singled out for rough treatment by Obama is not because they don’t understand that his intentions are good and that his motives are pure; it’s because he has unfairly singled them out.
The dispute about settlements between the two governments was a calculated decision on the part of Washington to pick a fight with its smaller ally and raise the stakes until Netanyahu gave in. That would have handed Obama an easy triumph and a way to show the Arab world that friends of Israel no longer have a decisive say in American foreign policy.
But that’s not what happened and the administration appears to be baffled by the reaction inside Israel to the ginned-up settlements squabble. Instead of behaving as most liberal American Jews have done and blindly backing Obama’s pressure because of partisan loyalties and support for the administration’s domestic agenda, ordinary Israelis are supporting their prime minister and viewing Obama with suspicion.
Why? It’s true that part of the problem lies has to do with perceptions. Obama’s Cairo speech in June was offensive because of the way he equated the Holocaust with the predicament of Palestinian refugees and the fact that he pointedly snubbed the Jewish state by avoiding it during his Middle East tour. But the problem is bigger than either the president’s penchant for false moral equivalences or his travel schedule.
Obama’s policy seems to be based on the notion that Israel’s refusal to make new concessions on security and land is the primary obstacle to a breakthrough on peace. Though most Israelis would actually be willing to give up most settlements, they know that neither the Fatah-ruled Palestinian Authority in the West Bank or the Hamas mini-state in Gaza are interested in a peace that would recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where the borders were drawn.
The failure of the Oslo Accords, the July 2000 Camp David summit, the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and last year’s desperate effort by former prime minister Ehud Olmert to hand the PA a state on a silver platter all illustrate the Palestinians’ lack of interest in signing such a deal.
In the clear absence of a credible peace partner, what point is there, Israelis are entitled to ask, in bullying their government to make concessions? Nor has anyone been impressed by the administration’s half-hearted attempt to get the Saudis and other Arab states to act as if they mean it when they claim to want peace.
Obama has not turned out to be a conventional liberal Democrat who is also willing to be a faithful friend of Israel as many, if not most, Jewish Democrats expected when they pulled the lever for him.
Though the vast majority of Jewish voters dismissed Republican claims that Obama’s associations with anti-Israel extremists such as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Palestinian scholar Rashid Khalidi would color his judgment in office, it turns out there was more to this line of argument than mere partisanship.
As demonstrated by his decision to bestow the presidential Medal of Freedom on former Irish President Mary Robinson – best remembered for presiding over the festival of anti-Semitism that characterized the 2001 UN Durban conference – Obama is not a man who understands or respects mainstream Jewish sensibilities.
Obama’s eloquence is a formidable diplomatic tool, but the idea that it can be used, as the president has said, to convince Israelis to “reflect” on their policies and change their tune is not only astoundingly arrogant, it’s wrong.
Israelis already want peace and have shown time and again they are ready to make sacrifices to achieve it. What is lacking is a similar commitment from the Palestinians. No amount of presidential eloquence or American PR ought to convince Israelis that further concessions on their part will bring peace until Palestinian leaders match Obama’s words with deeds.
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.
The answer is an emphatic no.
The meaning of “God’s watch” here is not entirely clear.
Don’t Israelis and Arab Palestinians deserve more than this? Is it not time to stop the insanity?
At age 104, my mother was still concerned about her relationship with Hashem.
Obama’s incompetence, the way his naive worldview and credulity have made a fool of him, are equally frightening
“The only difference between this world and the time of Meshiach is our bondage to the gentile kingdoms.”
You’ve discovered our little secret!
Klein’s challenger has demonstrated a propensity to unleash poisonous vitriol, even to other Zionists
President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy.
Welcome the book of Leviticus!
If the nationalist Knesset members don’t provide the answer, the Arab MKs will do so in their place.
International Agunah Day falls annually on Ta’anis Esther, this year on March 13.
Yeshiva University Museum recently hosted an exhibit titled “Threshold to the Sacred.”
Even a foxhole Yid has to admit that antisemitism is on the upswing.
When it became known in May 2008 that Malley had met with Hamas terrorists, the Obama campaign severed ties with him.
Issuing a statement dredging up Wildstein’s life, Christie’s office raised as many questions as it answered.
No matter how wrong Israel’s leaders may think their American counterparts are, little good comes from public spats.
Lieberman has repeatedly dismissed the Palestinian Authority as not being a peace partner.
This is a political version of replacement theology.
Like Chamberlain, Obama sued the ayatollahs for peace, insisting the only alternative to appeasement is war.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/mere-pr-will-not-make-a-successful-mideast-policy/2009/08/12/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online:
No related posts.