Thank you for your insights and ideas. Recommended.

I think W.H. is concerned now about potentially losing healthcare as the economy continues to wobble. I had expected they'd turn to Israel after getting health care passed. Your ideas for interim steps seem useful, though.

Thanks, Jo-Ann, for some well-informed and rational commentary and suggestions. I too agree that Obama eventually, and perhaps Rahm Emanuel before that, can be extremely useful in appealing to Israelis eager for support in their desire to alter the policies of a right wing government, and if necessary, replace those policy-makers with others more receptive to the need for a just peace.

It's particularly helpful to read your insight into the spectrum of Israeli views. Often, we read in blogs and elsewhere simply about "Israel", as though it were a single individual, usually portrayed as a villain, with a single perspective. These commentaries often appear to advocate primarily an angry punitive approach to the problem. While a combination of "sticks and carrots" is sometimes worthwhile, I believe the most effective approach will be one like yours, where pressures are applied to the Israeli government from outside, but an equal or greater emphasis is on an appeal to those within Israel who can change the direction of the nation from its current path.

...They understand why President Obama had to go to Cairo but they want him to engage the Israeli street too.

Actually, the U.S. engages Israel, street-level and otherwise, too much. That's the problem. Here's what Israelis need to understand: There's a limit to how much the U.S. can support you. Right now, your lobbies are powerful enough to "pocket" Capitol Hill - as Ariel Sharon noted a few years ago - but things are changing. More and more Americans see the constant conflagration in the Middle East as an expensive burden; remember, as long as this country is a democracy, the thrust of our foreign policy is dependent, even in a limited sense, to public approval. Shrugging off the Middle Eastern millstone, its roiling reality, means limiting, or even ending, "engagement" of Israel. It's absolutely crucial that Israel sit down at negotiating tables and talk through its differences with its neighbors, and especially with Palestinians. There'll be give and take, wins and losses. That's the way mature states behave. I can understand the obvious affinity American Jews have for Israel, but for the rest of us, this relationship purely is one between two sovereign states, and as Americans we see no benefits in our joined-at-the-hip alliance with Israel... only liabilities. Everything changes. It would be wise for Israel to make ready.

As much as I have empathy for Israel, and want her to have secure borders, it was very painful to watch the Gazans be shelled, their homes destroyed, their children killed. And I know Gazans were lobbing bombs into Israel, but the disproportionate killing on the Israeli side is very hard to stomach. It looked like "the siege of Gaza" for a good long while. It makes me like Israel and it's tactics a whole lot less.

Amidst the proliferation of voices here at the Cafe who are either unremittingly and pathologically anti-Israel at their core (Weiss, Horowitz), profess to be pro-Israel/pro-peace, but carry on with the same relentless criticism (Rosenberg), or so ultra-dovish as to be on the fringe of Israeli opinion (Avishai), it is welcome to hear a more pragmatic and credible commenter on these issues. Thank you.

Curiously, for such a gifted communicator, Obama has not reached out to the Israeli public - including those who have been his natural allies on the left - resulting in a great deal of unease across the political spectrum there. As someone who believes in the President's policies, I find this omission inexplicable - except as an effort to bring down the Netanyahu government by freezing it out. However, as this poll seems to indicate, it seems to be having the opposite effect, as support for Netanyahu appears to be increasing.

The survey by Dialog, conducted Thursday under the auspices of Prof. Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University, found Netanyahu's approval ratings were 18 percent higher than Tzipi Livni's - a much larger margin than when they were competing for prime minister. Asked who was better suited to be prime minister, 52 percent said Netanyahu, while only 34 said Livni.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1097511.html

An interesting addendum to Jo Ann's take on the article from Adelson's publication "Israel Hoyam" from Israeli-born Maariv journalist Noam Sheizaf:

It should be noted that Israel Hoyom’s editorial line is known to be very supportive of Netanyahu, and the paper enjoys almost unlimited access to the PM’s people. Netanyahu’s own chief of staff, Nathan Eshel, has worked until the elections in Israel Hayom – so I believe the paper reflects the common view around the PM in saying that “the (American) administration is trying to form a regional plan – but has no idea how it is going to be done.”

What’s important here is not whether Israeli officials are right or not in thinking the administration lacks a coherent policy for the region (it’s too hard to tell at this point) – but rather the fact that the Israelis think so, and will probably behave accordingly.
http://www.promisedlandblog.com/?p=1188

bibi's not particularily well-connected to Obama insiders but Barak, supposedly, is. This certainly does raise "Israel Hayom's" profile in the "what-the-hell-is-going-on-in-bibi's circle?" readings of the tea leaves.

BTW, Uzi Arad, mentioned by Jo Ann, was only allowed to get a visa to enter the US at the last minute because of his high profile in bibi's administration. His involvement with the AIPAC case had precluded his being granted one previous to his appointment as bibi's #1 security advisor.

Arad is such a hardass....makes me wonder if he was the "Zionist" who tried to recruit father-of-four and husband-of-a-disabled-wife Larry Franklin to fake a bridge suicide in order not to testify at the trial....Somehow, I can't believe that Steve Rosen or any other of the Americans involved in that case would be so cluelessly stupid as to suggest such an option to a devout Catholic family man, fer chrissakes.