My friend Yakov sent me this, from the great Gideon Levy in the great Haaretz:
Netanyahu's election would give Obama more room to maneuver. Because Netanyahu is supported in this country principally by neocons/the Republican Jewish Coalition/Liebermanites, and those are the Jews who Obama did not get, and whom Obama does not need. Netanyahu's election would allow Obama to be lordly with Netanyahu, and treat Israel like a normal country for once, and actually pressure Israel. Compare to Ehud Barak having constant access to Bill Clinton in the weeks leading up to Camp David, and wrapping Clinton around his finger. Why? Because Barak Jews were behind Clinton, and he couldn't alienate them. If Livni gets in, Obama can't be lordly and distant. Because Mel Levine and Barbara Boxer are going to be for Livni.
I agree with Hobbyhorse. Let the strongest of the strong Israeli Zionist NeoCons be placed in power in Israel. Let them be alienated from the majority of American Jews, but respected as leaders by the settlers. Let them face their options with a gifted mediator – Obama – and let them either choose peace, or "descend into their bunkers," as one Israeli has already threatened. !
How likely is it though that Netanyahu would be forced to form such a narrow government? Does anyone really believe Kadima and Labor would refuse on principle to sit in a govt with Likud? They're suddenly going to discover principles, even if it means they are left out of govt? I can't see it happening.
I hope this analysis is correct, however I am not convinced that it is not wishful thinking. The central premise is that an extremist Netanyahu government in Israel would give P-E Obama diplomatic 'maneuvering room' to pressure Israel without being hamstrung by the Lobby, and that he would be hamstrung in pressuring a 'moderate' Livni government. I will hereafter refer to this as 'the Levy argument', for simplicity.
Examining this problem at the highest level of abstraction, I see P-E Obama as having some finite set of tools with which he can pressure any Israeli government, and I use this term to refer to a ruling coalition, not to the structure of the state itself, to accept a final-status agreement. The efficacy of said pressure will depend on two main variables: the degree of support or opposition he will receive from Congress, the media, and the civil service, and the degree to which an Israel government can be influenced by American pressure.
The Levy argument assumes that there is a strong correlation between the degree of extremism of an Israeli government and the degree of support or opposition P-E Obama can expect from those Americans whose cooperation he will depend upon to govern effectively. I question whether such a correlation exists at all, much less a strong one. Extremism is a matter of perception. I don't know how Zionists in Congress and the media differentiate between the political values of, for lack of a better way to say it, the Netanyahu and Livni 'camps'. I was raised with traditional American values: MK Livni is not even remotely a moderate. I see precious little difference between them. She just advocated expulsion (yes yes, in code and by gentle degrees) of 1.2 million Israeli (citizen) Arabs BEFORE AN AUDIENCE OF CHILDREN! Granted this may have been purely for domestic consumption, but that it was said at all speaks volumes. I think I have a 'first-order' understanding of why there is a 'circling-the-wagons' response by many Jews to perceived threats to any of their community, but I definitely don't understand its internal dynamics. This makes me wary of any arguments that are fundamentally predicated on the assumption that a politically significant portion of the American Jewish establishment will 'break ranks' and criticize an Israeli government, any Israeli government, even if it is patently obvious that it would be highly beneficial to the long-term health or even survival of Israel. I would be delighted to be proved wrong (I like my crow well-done please, with a side of mashed potatoes and gravy), and fully expect the issue to come to a test.
The second major assumption of the Levy argument is that an Israeli government will be susceptible enough to American pressure to make the kind of concessions that will be essential to any final-status agreement that Palestinian and Arab League leaders can successfully sell to their peoples. Optimization of the calculus of negotiated trade-offs (we'll give up this if you'll give up that) is not the only obstacle that American mediators will face. My impression from six years observing Israeli political behavior is that they are loathe to allow Arabs 'the last word' in anything. I believe that Israelis have a mentality that Arabs must be subdued, and that genuine compromise will be seen as fatal weakness. I think they are greatly mistaken, but convincing Israeli negotiators of that, much less the Israel public, will be a difficult challenge. I think it more likely that American pressure on any Israeli government will lead to 'a call of the bluff'. They will go through the motions of negotiation as usual, but will not accept any agreement that the Arab side could accept. The bar will always be 'just a little too high'. They will bet on the Lobby to emasculate any Americans who try to compel them to go the final meter. That is why I think it is vital that the traditional American Jewish establishment, by which I mean AIPAC and CPMAJO, either be on board for an American-led peace initiative (pretty damn unlikely), or that they be soundly politically defeated. My assessment is therefore that no Israeli government will be susceptible enough to American political pressure unless the Lobby, in its current form, is broken. P-E Obama is receiving contemptibly incompetent political advice if he doesn't think that it will come to this in order to complete a successful final-status agreement. His appointments thus far may be consistent with the notion that he is preparing to confront the Lobby in a way that 'shifts its political center of gravity' allowing less ideologically-hidebound folks to determine 'official' policy. Time will tell, and the perpetually hindered and delayed BUT STILL ONGOING prosecution of the AIPAC spies may be an interesting wildcard. His choice of Attorney General could be decisive.
I hope this analysis is correct, however I am not convinced that it is not wishful thinking. The central premise is that an extremist Netanyahu government in Israel would give P-E Obama diplomatic 'maneuvering room' to pressure Israel without being hamstrung by the Lobby, and that he would be hamstrung in pressuring a 'moderate' Livni government. I will hereafter refer to this as 'the Levy argument', for simplicity.
Examining this problem at the highest level of abstraction, I see P-E Obama as having some finite set of tools with which he can pressure any Israeli government, and I use this term to refer to a ruling coalition, not to the structure of the state itself, to accept a final-status agreement. The efficacy of said pressure will depend on two main variables: the degree of support or opposition he will receive from Congress, the media, and the civil service, and the degree to which an Israel government can be influenced by American pressure.
The Levy argument assumes that there is a strong correlation between the degree of extremism of an Israeli government and the degree of support or opposition P-E Obama can expect from those Americans whose cooperation he will depend upon to govern effectively. I question whether such a correlation exists at all, much less a strong one. Extremism is a matter of perception. I don't know how Zionists in Congress and the media differentiate between the political values of, for lack of a better way to say it, the Netanyahu and Livni 'camps'. I was raised with traditional American values: MK Livni is not even remotely a moderate. I see precious little difference between them. She just advocated expulsion (yes yes, in code and by gentle degrees) of 1.2 million Israeli (citizen) Arabs BEFORE AN AUDIENCE OF CHILDREN! Granted this may have been purely for domestic consumption, but that it was said at all speaks volumes. I think I have a 'first-order' understanding of why there is a 'circling-the-wagons' response by many Jews to perceived threats to any of their community, but I definitely don't understand its internal dynamics. This makes me wary of any arguments that are fundamentally predicated on the assumption that a politically significant portion of the American Jewish establishment will 'break ranks' and criticize an Israeli government, any Israeli government, even if it is patently obvious that it would be highly beneficial to the long-term health or even survival of Israel. I would be delighted to be proved wrong (I like my crow well-done please, with a side of mashed potatoes and gravy), and fully expect the issue to come to a test.
The second major assumption of the Levy argument is that an Israeli government will be susceptible enough to American pressure to make the kind of concessions that will be essential to any final-status agreement that Palestinian and Arab League leaders can successfully sell to their peoples. Optimization of the calculus of negotiated trade-offs (we'll give up this if you'll give up that) is not the only obstacle that American mediators will face. My impression from six years observing Israeli political behavior is that they are loathe to allow Arabs 'the last word' in anything. I believe that Israelis have a mentality that Arabs must be subdued, and that genuine compromise will be seen as fatal weakness. I think they are greatly mistaken, but convincing Israeli negotiators of that, much less the Israel public, will be a difficult challenge. I think it more likely that American pressure on any Israeli government will lead to 'a call of the bluff'. They will go through the motions of negotiation as usual, but will not accept any agreement that the Arab side could accept. The bar will always be 'just a little too high'. They will bet on the Lobby to emasculate any Americans who try to compel them to go the final meter. That is why I think it is vital that the traditional American Jewish establishment, by which I mean AIPAC and CPMAJO, either be on board for an American-led peace initiative (pretty damn unlikely), or that they be soundly politically defeated. My assessment is therefore that no Israeli government will be susceptible enough to American political pressure unless the Lobby, in its current form, is broken. P-E Obama is receiving contemptibly incompetent political advice if he doesn't think that it will come to this in order to complete a successful final-status agreement. His appointments thus far may be consistent with the notion that he is preparing to confront the Lobby in a way that 'shifts its political center of gravity' allowing less ideologically-hidebound folks to determine 'official' policy. Time will tell, and the perpetually hindered and delayed BUT STILL ONGOING prosecution of the AIPAC spies may be an interesting wildcard. His choice of Attorney General could be decisive.
Ach, sorry for the double post. I swear I only hit the submit button once, then it hung and I had to close the whole tab.
******************************
The great Jeremiah Haber (nom de plume) concurs!!!!
Monday, November 17, 2008
Endorsement: Benjamin Netanyahu for Prime Minister
Elections for Israel's parliament are scheduled for February 10, 2009. Israel, the least stable parliamentary regime in the Middle East, now holds parliamentary elections on the average of one every 2-3 years. There is no reason to believe that the government to be elected will last longer than its predecessors. So the question is: who will be the best prime minister for Israelis and the Palestinians ruled by Israel. As far as I can see, there are two main possibilities: Tzipi Livni and Benjamin Netanyahu. Between the two, Netanyahu wins hands down……
ENTIRE (EXCELLENT) POST –
link to themagneszionist.blogspot.com
/>
endorsement-benjamin-netanyahu-for.html
I don't even believe that Phil believes that "Obama will pressure Israel." I think on this issue Phil is just plain lying, though doubtless with the best of motives : In international diplomacy countries – especially israel – frequently publish lies about other countries, in the hope that these lies might, by the power of mass media bluff, become accepted 'truths'..
*************************
A somewhat related article:
Netanyahu wants to postpone core issues in Mideast talks
by Ron Bousso â Thu Dec 11, 1:20 pm ET
JERUSALEM (AFP) â Israel's right-wing Likud party chairman Benjamin Netanyahu thinks Middle East peace talks should focus on improving Palestinian daily life and not on core issues, his spokeswoman said Thursday.
The hawkish former premier, who polls say is likely to return to power after February elections, has been a staunch critic of the US-backed peace talks with the Palestinians that were relaunched in November 2007.
"Netanyahu does not oppose the continuation of the talks but he believes that the current negotiations are leading nowhere and their goal is not clear," spokeswoman Dina Libster told AFP……
ENTIRE ARTICLE –
link to news.yahoo.com
/>
_afp/mideastconflictisraelpoliticsnetanyahu
*************************
A somewhat related article:
Netanyahu wants to postpone core issues in Mideast talks
by Ron Bousso â Thu Dec 11, 1:20 pm ET
JERUSALEM (AFP) â Israel's right-wing Likud party chairman Benjamin Netanyahu thinks Middle East peace talks should focus on improving Palestinian daily life and not on core issues, his spokeswoman said Thursday.
The hawkish former premier, who polls say is likely to return to power after February elections, has been a staunch critic of the US-backed peace talks with the Palestinians that were relaunched in November 2007.
"Netanyahu does not oppose the continuation of the talks but he believes that the current negotiations are leading nowhere and their goal is not clear," spokeswoman Dina Libster told AFP……
ENTIRE ARTICLE –
link to news.yahoo.com
/>
_afp/mideastconflictisraelpoliticsnetanyahu
*************************
A RELATED ARTICLE:
Last update – 03:26 11/12/2008
Netanyahu to Haaretz: Likud is behind me; Feiglin will soon disappear
By Yossi Verter and Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondents
Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu reassured his supporters on Wednesday after the primary that produced a particularly right-wing list. He has also launched a campaign to calm down the international community and ease concerns about the peace process should Netanyahu become prime minister after the February election……
……Netanyahu launched a campaign to allay fears in the United States, Europe and the Arab world for the fate of the peace process.
On Thursday, Netanyahu will meet 27 European Union ambassadors to Israel and tell them that he is committed to continuing the peace talks with Syria and the Palestinians……
…..In recent weeks officials abroad have voiced concerns about Netanyahu's plans on the peace process.
A senior EU official told Haaretz that "Netanyahu's victory [in the election] could strike a fatal blow to the peace process."…….
ENTIRE ARTICLE -
link to haaretz.com
J L-D, must you post all these articles? Can't you think of anything of your own to say? Do you imagine we are incapable of keeping up with the news? If so, why not just give is two lines and a link?