Time For Israel To Mend Fences With President-Elect Obama
I hope sane Israelis understand how damaging it is to Israel to be identified in today's New York Times as being one of three nations on the planet that clearly preferred McCain to Obama.
During the campaign I would have denied that was the case because some American Jews might have been moved by this information to support McCain. (In the end 78% voted for Obama). But I knew it was true as did everyone who knows anything about Israel. And it was not only the right in Israel that was pro-McCain. It was pretty much across the board, EXCEPT for the pro-peace left. (see this rundown)
The Israeli hostility toward Obama was shared by most of the American Jewish organizations i.e. the American Jewish "this and thats" and most egregiously by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. AIPAC, the most influential of them all by a factor of about a hundred, played it straight and that helped Obama. It told anyone who asked -- and plenty did -- that he is kosher, so to speak.
Of course, AIPAC did not get to be the 800 pound gorilla it is by being stupid. It understood that Obama was likely to win and that going all-out for Hillary or McCain would harm the organization.
The Israelis did not understand that and they should do whatever they can to make it up to him. Israel needs America and it needs our President. If Jerusalem thinks that it can count on Congress to back its desires over that of the new President, it should think again. The President and the Congress are both overwhelmingly Democratic and that means that the US government will, after January, speak with one voice. With the exception of one or two House members from Brooklyn and Queens, no Democrat is going to oppose Obama should he decide to push hard for peace.
Does that mean Israel should worry? Not at all. Obama is and has always been strongly sympathetic to Israel. That is why he favors the two-state solution i.e. a Palestinian state in the occupied areas. There is, however, one thing Israelis should bear in mind. Barack Hussein Obama does not hate or fear Palestinians, Arabs, and/or Muslims. He is going to be an honest broker. The neocons are gone, dead, finito. That means there will be no Eliot Abrams sitting in the White House working against policies of his own administration because they conflict with Netanyahu's.
Israel should be smart and help Obama out by working with the outgoing administration on an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. It should stop settlement expansion and dismantle the illegal outposts. It should ease freedom of movement for Palestinians. In short, it should live up to the commitments made to President Bush and Secretary Rice at the Annapolis Conference last year. That would be a nice way to end Israel's relationship with George W. Bush and begin one with his successor.
One more thing. Israel's friends in Washington should not tell Obama it is ill-advised to push for peace in the first year of his term. It is in that year that he has the best chance of achieving success. He is too smart not to understand that those who don't want America to push for negotiations in year one, won't want us to do it in year two, three, or four either. He should go for it the first year just like Bill Clinton did.
Yesterday was the 13th anniversary of the murder of Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli fanatic dedicated to racial and ethnic purity. The death of Rabin was a terrible setback to the whole idea of Israeli-Palestinian peace and hence a terrible blow to Israel's chances at ever achieving security and even to its chances of long-term survival. Barack Obama can help Israelis and Palestinians get back to where they were when President Bill Clinton stood on the White House lawn with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders and, for a moment, peace seemed inevitable. Yes, he can and, yes, he must.
MJ,
Oh boy, you're gonna get in trouble for this.
November 5, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a new day!
November 5, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I hope you're right, MJ. But I have to say that the news (not confirmed) that Obama intends to appoint Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff put a little cloud of concern into an otherwise blue-sky day today. I think he could be a big distraction - his aggressive style is antithetical to Obama's - and I'm not confident he's a proponent of the approach you propose here. What are Emanuel's ties to J-Street? Please reassure me.
November 5, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't reassure you, sad to say.
November 5, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who do you think will be Chief of Staff? Dennis Kucinich? Don't make me laugh. My friends and I will not allow anybody with that kind of influence who has a track record of hostility to Israel. Live with it, schmuck.
November 5, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
apac,
you and your friends "won't allow"? Are you claiming veto power over Obama's appointments?
November 6, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we will know if the two state solution is still possible if Obama does do as you suggest. We should also accept the possibility that Sharon's 'facts on the ground' have triumphed. I have believed for some time that they have, though I would be happy to be wrong on this one.
The problem is that internal Israeli politics and the power of Aipac in Washington, will not permit the kinds of compromises that will be needed to get the Palestinians to agree to a two state solution. Picking an Israeli expatriot, IDF volunteer and total Israeli apologist to head the NSC is not a good sign.
November 5, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some say those who inadvertently benefit from conflict and hate may have to go out now that Obama is President-To-Be and find a REAL JOB, like the rest of us....
My condolences go out to Sen McCain. Sen McCain did not need to blame himself but rather the likes of Sen Liebermann. An Obama’s administration may need to created a new commission to investigate and ultimately oust Sen “Turncoat” Liebermann from his state of Connecticut. Check out some of the following sentiments posted at the MSNBC political site (in response to Sen Liebermann releasing a statement, congratulating Sen Obama - pretty galling IMHO):
Comments
A little too late, KICK LIEBERMAN OUT!!! … I know President-Elect Obama wants unity but he helped Lieberman win re-election in 2006 and Lieberman was vicious against Obama in the general election
NO SURPISE (Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:33 PM)
No grudges, but let him sit and think about the campaign of negativity that he was more than just a part of.
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:34 PM)
Democrats should kick Lieberman out of caucus and should remove him from chairmanship of the Senate committe. This guy is a betrayer and does not deserve to sit with democrats anymore.
Baltimore (Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:36 PM)
buh-bye, Joe. Time for you to formally join the republican party and stop pretending you’re something else.
I am _so_ excited about the prospect of Joe losing his chairmanships!
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:36 PM)
no way, Joe. We won’t forget what you said about Barrack.
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:37 PM)
that snake has no place in the democratic party.
emma - california (Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:38 PM)
Joe’s “all-in” with McCain and Democratic seat gains in the senate have greatly lessened his importance. Politics is unfortunately understandable, but Lieberman seems to have a hidden agenda that is troubling. Is he working for his constituents, or going with the person who he perceived as being more staunchly for Israel? The Democrats would be well served to let “Joe the Senator” slide into irrelevance along with “Joe the Plumber”.
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:38 PM)
This is a non-story, as far as I see it. Who cares what Lieberman thinks?
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:39 PM)
“Traitor” Joe Lie-berman comes slinking back with his tail between his legs to beg for forgiveness and his good committee postings. Just Say No to Traitor Joe and let him suffer for his petty self serving false attempts at bipartisanship.
You cannot play both sides against the middle on this Joe. Make a choic and live with it.
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:39 PM)
crow taste better when I fully cooked….traitor
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:40 PM)
We want him out of the party, Reed should strip him of his Chairmanship.
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:41 PM)
Please kick the back-stabber out. The Dems don’t need him there slowing down progress. Congratulations Mr. President-elect Obama.
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:41 PM)
That snake, Lieberman, can now crawl back into his hole. He’s lost all credibility from the Dems and I hope to God that they kick him out of the Dem caucus. As for the Repubs, they can’t trust him so he’ll be treading water for the next two years. He deserves his entry into anonymous hell.
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:42 PM)
Liberman is scrambling for relevance!!! With a solid majority in the Senate Liberman is all but irrelevant to the Democrats. His only hope of having a meaningful role and/or leadership position was a McCain victory. It didn’t happen. Now he wants to ‘come together’—after all of the crap he shoveled over the past couple of months—go fly a kite!!!
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:43 PM)
Hopefully they’ll just kick Joe to the curb. I wouldn’t be surprised if he tried to run for the Republican nominee in 2012.
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:44 PM)
Im sure that Obama will reach across the aisle to Lieberman, yet t may prove to be much harder for him in the Senate, perhaps he should maitain his independent status as how can one go from being a VP candidate in 2000 to supporting the Republicans. I sense he is an opportunist at anyones expense and am not certain he will be respected as he once was.
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:44 PM)
First order of business in the senate is to dump Lieberman from the Democratic caucus. He made his bed; let him lie in it. He is no longer needed to maintain the Democratic majority.
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:44 PM)
The silver lining in not reaching the magic 60 Democratic Senators (including Sanders and Lieberman) is the Democrats no longer have to cozy up to Lieberman. His vote doesn’t matter. Take any Chairmanships away that he was given to keep him in your ranks. Treat him with civility (more than he deserves!), as you should GOP Senators, but he isn’t a Democrat, and has shown no loyalty. He had every right to support his friend McCain, and I don’t care about his boring convention speech, but his attacks against Obama, and his willingness to repeat the GOP talking points were beyond the pale!
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:49 PM)
Lieberman is a piece of crap. He’ll say and do anything to advance his own personal ambition. Forget about Senate head counts - he should be booted out of the Democratic caucus altogether. With “friends” like him you really don’t need enemies
(Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 1:01 PM)
Three words KICK HIM OUT!
Anonymous (Sent Wednesday, November 05, 2008 1:02 PM)
November 5, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"AIPAC, the most influential of them all by a factor of about a hundred, played it straight and that helped Obama. It told anyone who asked -- and plenty did -- that he is kosher, so to speak.
Of course, AIPAC did not get to be the 800 pound gorilla it is by being stupid. It understood that Obama was likely to win and that going all-out for Hillary or McCain would harm the organization."--M.J. Rosenberg
Thank you, Mr. Rosenberg. On that, you are absolutely right.
"With the exception of one or two House members from Brooklyn and Queens, no Democrat is going to oppose Obama should he decide to push hard for peace."
It crucially depends on what you mean by "push hard for peace". Sending Bill Clinton and Obama's key I-P advisor, Dennis Ross, to the region on January 21 with a mandate to renew the Taba offer will receive virtually unanimous support. Leaking anti-Israel jibes, or, even worse, emulating James Baker's or Andrew Young's public scolding of the Israeli government, however, will surely cause erstwhile allies of Obama like Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer to publicly complain.
I supported Barack Obama, in part, because I was impressed with his intelligence. He is far, far too smart--not to mention the important advice he'll get from Joe Biden--to do what you and Levy and Aaron Miller want: i.e. try to impose a settlement or threaten Israel when its Government refuses to make concessions it deems dangerous.
November 5, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You supported the wrong guy, AIPACman. McCain was the Likud guy in the race. But I'm glad you did, especially you being the most generous donor to Obama in all TPMland, and all. Thanks. You done good for my country.
November 5, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You not only have my screen name wrong, you have my politics wrong too. A distant relative founded the Labor party, and I've been for Peres and Barak, and now, though she's not from Labor, Livni.
I don't support peace-at-any price Meretz or their American enableers like you, Levy, Miller and J Street.
November 6, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
a(i)pacmember.
I'm for Livni, too! How about that?
She has the right pedigree, resume and the fact that Sharon tapped her is a sign that he took her measure and she passed. She is going up against a swelling and energized Likud that includes neoLikudniks from America. They do mean business. Tziporah needs all the grit Sharon saw in her to prevail. Her flexibility is also an asset. Israel absolutely demands a leader who is all that and more.
BTW. I learn much from your posts although, you aren't very good at answering questions.
This poll showing that Israelis in the 3 major parties and Arab-Israelis (?) AREN'T SCARED OF OBAMA should be passed around to some of your sillier "friends":
"Are you concerned about the election of Barak Obama as president of the USA?
Total: Yes 27.6% No 63.3% Don't Know 9.1%
Kadima voters: Yes 33.5% No 61.6% DK 4.9%
Likud voter: Yes 25.0% No 65.3% DK 9.6%
Labor voters: Yes 18.5% No 75.2% DK 6.3%"
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=41240
Are your wackier "friends" scared of Obama FOR Israelis or something?
That's helpful.
November 7, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"During the campaign I would have denied that [Israelis preferring McCain] was the case because some American Jews might have been moved by this information to support McCain."
really?
and they say the media was in the tank for Obama...now wherever would they have gotten that idea?
November 6, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, thank you Aluff Ben, for laying out the roadmap/wishlist:
"Obama is committed to a dialogue with Iran and Israel will try to make sure that its interests are taken into account in such talks. Senior Israeli officials say if the U.S.-Iranian dialogue fails, Obama may attack Iran. One official said: "Iran's statements during the campaign were positive, but wewill have to see."
The Iranian question is likely to cause disputes between Jerusalem and Washington if Israel feels Obama is being too soft on Iran while Iran continues to arm itself with nuclear weapons under the cover of a diplomatic dialogue.
Further, tensions between Jerusalem and Washington will increase if the U.S. is enticed to accept a deal to close Dimona in return for shutting Iran's Netanz weapons site or halting Iranian nuclear development as part of an overall regional agreement for disarmament, which will naturally focus on Israel."
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=41234
November 7, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink