My president looked as tense as I have ever seen him in the press reception he just had with Bibi Netanyahu. His face was reddened, sweat shone on his cheeks and forehead, his jaw was clenched as he listened to the prime minister. I sense their long meeting was also tense.
Obama differed sharply with Netanyahu when the Israeli P.M. kept insisting on the primacy of the Iranian threat over the necessity of Palestinian self-determination. "I personally think it runs the other way–" Obama said. To the extent that we make peace between Israelis and Palestinians– a lasting peace, a "wide-ranging" peace, not "a grudging peace, not a transitory peace"–it will make negotiating with Iran easier.
As Netanyahu promised to begin negotiations, but avoided any use of the word "state," I saw my president standing on his core values and speaking up at last for Palestinian human rights! He spoke of the absence of hope in Gaza.
"The people of Gaza have no hope. They can't even get clean water." Without humanitarian and reconstruction efforts, he suggested, no one can have peace. "Settlements have to be stopped."
Netanyahu seemed to me to be bullying Obama, or trying. He called on an Israeli reporter who promptly suggested that Obama was appeasing terrorists by talking to Iran. Felt like a plant. He said that the leaders had seen "eye to eye" on the importance of security–the Iran threat–when clearly they did not. He spoke of a threat that had united the region and the world–even the Arab states are afraid of Iran, he said–but Obama sat there stony-faced and maybe somewhat angry, too. I saw him smile only once in the photo op.
The most dramatic moment of the new presidency. And my president seemed strong in the face of right-wing fearmongering.
Related posts:
- The drumbeat: Netanyahu adviser fears ‘the West is in trouble’ under Obama
- Warm n fuzzy Netanyahu hugs Obama and peace, but nuthin about a Palestinian state
- Ambassador Sam Lewis: Netanyahu and Obama failed to establish ‘trust’
- Netanyahu thinks he’s pinned Obama on settlements
- AIPAC aligns itself with Netanyahu: Iran is the issue, forget for now about a Palestinian state
{ 31 comments }
Cheeky shwartzer!
The pool report from George Condon of CongressDaily: Talks between the two leaders went considerably beyond the scheduled time. Though their lunch was to have begun at 12:25, they were not joined by the pool until 1:25 and the session did not end until 2 p.m. The body language was good, with the prime minister leaning in toward the President throughout much of the session and nodding his head in assent frequently when the President was talking. He seemed particularly amused and smiled broadly when the President hailed him for both his youth and wisdom, later noting that he was 59 years old. After their opening statements, they fielded four questions, two from each side. No aides were seated on the couches. But several aides were standing near the Resolute desk. Robert Gibbs, Rahm Emanuel and George Mitchell spent much of the session leaning on the desk. Secretary Gates stood with his arm on the chair behind the desk. General Jones stood near the desk. Note the absence of Clinton and Ross.
Anyone have a link to video of the press conference?
Obama had better be careful. Bibi will pull a Lewinsky on him if Obama doesn't play along.
I can't understand how Obama, who seemingly is ready to accept the neo-con military agenda, is free to reject the Israel-centered parts of it. Maybe the neo-cons have thrown the Israel-firsters under the bus.
or a Golan Cipel…
It makes a kind of sense if you see him as tough on Iran and Taliban but sympathetic towards Palestinians (excluding Hamas of course). Netanyahu has no trouble lumping them all together.
Or a Chandra Levy.
Am I wrong in saying that it sounds like Obama is calling for an end to the blockade of Gaza and that this would certainly preclude more military operations on Gaza? Together with disapproval of an attack on Iran, it seems a "space" is being created for the American people to the Palestinian issue.
I don't think it would either a Lewinsky or a Golan Cipel. It feels Obama doesn't have the profile for that. But he has to be very, very careful.
"Maybe the neo-cons have thrown the Israel-firsters under the bus." I doubt it, given that Zionism is so integral to Neoconservatism. It would be like International Communism throwing the Trotskyites under the bus: there would be hardly any brain trust left. But no question that liberal internationalists are beginning to view Israel as a liability to their larger agenda, whereas before they viewed it as a partner. Yet Israel's behavior hasn't really changed; all that is different is the Western public's perception of Israel.
Mooser, concerning the neo-con military agenda. I think you have to realize there are specific trends inside the military and somehow Pakistan belongs into a longer tradition concerning military and intel spheres of US influence. Besides, while Afghanistan was connected to 911 as a training ground, Iraq never was. Some of the "neocon" agendas may well conform with gentile military-complex-war-hawks. They are just war-hawks gone overdrive. But Patrick Lang has discovered that the WaPo oped's have turned into a propaganda and rumor mill. The target at the moment: Gen. Jim Jones If you want to check for movements and events in the military read: sic semper tyrannis.
*RE: "Netanyahu seemed to me to be bullying Obama, or trying. He called on an Israeli reporter who promptly suggested that Obama was appeasing terrorists by talking to Iran. Felt like a plant…." *SEE “Focus Grouping War with Iran” by Laura Rozen, 11/19/07 *EXCERPT: …Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, the founder and president of the Israel Project, contacted Mother Jones and said that her group had commissioned the focus group and that it was designed by Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm. The Israel Project is a nonprofit group that supports Israel and conducts extensive polling on American public attitudes toward Israel and the Middle East. Its board of advisers includes 15 Democratic and Republican members of the House and the Senate, plus actor Ron Silver. Mizrahi says that her group and Freedom’s Watch share a common interest in “thwarting the threat of Islamic extremism” and in “dealing with the threat of Iran.” But Freedom’s Watch “in no way is directing our work, and it’s not funding our work.” She pointed out that the Israel Project is not “involved with Iraq,” a major concern of Freedom’s Watch. But the two outfits, she said, “shared information” produced by this focus group. …[snip] …”Of all the focus groups I’ve ever been to,” Sonnenmark wrote in a subsequent email to a group of fellow volunteers for the 2006 Senate campaign of Jim Webb, “I’ve never seen a moderator who was so persistent in manipulating and leading the participants.” (Webb is lead author of a Senate letter warning President Bush not to attack Iran without congressional approval…) The gist of the event was “anti-Iranian,” says Sonnenmark… ….Sonnenmark left the session wondering if foreign policy hawks would soon be pushing publicly for military action against Iran using language that had been tested on her. But, she says, “It is not going to be so easy this time around.” *ENTIRE ROSEN ARTICLE – http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/11/focus...
Phil Weiss wrote: "my president seemed strong in the face of right-wing fearmongering." No Phil, I'm afraid your President (and mine) folded like an origami swan. Doesn't even get Bibi to say "two states," gets wrangled into making a statement that's gonna be held against him seeming to give Iran one year before he undertakes military action, makes whimpering little noises about the settlements instead of a flat out "they must stop now, completely, absolutely." As Bugs Bunny said, ttttthhhhaaatttt's all folks; we have seen the likely future of Obama on this issue and it don't work. He didn't take a stand, and if he thinks he's going to slowly crank up pressure or whatever that's just Israel's game because it'll be now slicing and dicing and wrangling over ever teensy bit of everything and delay and delay and delay and the settlements won't stop or slow one significant bit.
RE: "…Yet Israel's behavior hasn't really changed…" MY COMMENT: True, but it was so much on display in Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008-9.
" It would be like International Communism throwing the Trotskyites under the bus:" I'm sure your knowledge of the ins-and-outs of International Communism far exceeds mine, but I thought poor Trotsky came to a bad end, in an unfortunate altercation with a common cocktail implement. And if that failed, there were plans to throw him under a lorry.
Israel does not have to go down the path she is on. While it would be very difficult for them, they can make decisions which can improve their future. Failing that, there's always Masala! Banzai!
The link doesn't work. But apart from that, I take your point. "Some of the "neocon" agendas may well conform with gentile military-complex-war-hawks" you say, and I have often said the very same thing.
Harsh! Very harsh! But against that there was the jaw, the sweat, the stony face, the imputed anger. What price these indications of displeasure with Bibi Although I tend toward the harsher view, myself, too, also. And they are gonna screw Obama to the wall. Why on earth will they be able to accomplish, for Obama, all those things they couldn't do for Bush?
I agree, Sin Nombre, he didn't seem red-faced or sweating either. But I understand Phil on the lookout for signs. ;) It was a little better to see the realist dream today. ;) But I guess we have to be pleased that he didn't follow orders concerning a very, very limited time frame. Which are the best thing to make sure they won't surrender, would anyone under these conditions. So now its a new assessment towards the end of the year. To get more allies into the camp. Not just the usual suspects? He obviously doesn't have much space to move. I don't hear much difference either. But let's see. It would have been of course much more interesting to watch their "polite"(?) encounter. But theoretically he could mirror the: delay and delay and delay technique. But the sanctions and all the other stuff he said doesn't sound hopeful.
Mooser wrote: "Harsh! Very harsh!" Yeah I know, and even though I meant that Obama blew it/folded more in a … functional way rather than in any interpersonal manner (such as showing weakness), nevertheless, the functional way unfortunately is *the* important way. That is, sure, Obama may seem to have stuck to his guns and not caved in on them, and as LeaNder22 says he may think he just now goes and "gets more allies" and fights it this way and that. But my point again is that is *exactly* Israel's game, and it's won every such round with eveyr US Pres. on such grounds. They'll stall and stall, and Obama will try this and Israel will play it that way and pull this card and and blah blah blah. In my estimation what Obama had to do—and somewhat knew it—was screw Netanyahu right to the wall right now, and say "it is *unacceptable* to the US for you to not abide by Wye and a two-state solution, *openly,* the minute we walk out to the press. And it is *unacceptable* to the US for you to insist that the Palestinians recognize Israel as "the jewish state," whatever that means. And I am going to go out and say that publicly right after we are done here unless endorse Wye and retract the 'jewish state' demand." Because without putting it point blank like that and putting Netanyahu up against the wall and making it a "crossing the Rubicon" moment, he's thrown it right back into the game Israel plays so well. Endless issue-dicing. Endless Game-playing, spinning, you name it. So I'll bet you a million bucks Obama is sitting right now steaming to Michelle saying "I got rolled today, damnit." Because look at the situation Netanyahu has placed him (and the US) in: We are subsidizing Israel's colonization, and now Israel itself is saying "we have nothing to talk about in terms of ever giving the Palestinians a state," absolutely stripping the US of the paper-thin veneer up until now it always insisted on which was that "oh sure, we support Israel because it doesn't object to a Palestinian state and it's just a matter of negotiations." Now what's our veneer? All we're doing is subsidizing a territorial aggrandizing state that now doesn't even *pretend* it will ever cede that land back so that Palestinians can have a state. We are entirely freaking naked and exposed and people like Osama bin Laden are now saying "see see, it was always a pretext before and now they've even dropped the pretext." And you damned right the arab street is listening and knows it, and Obama knows that they see it too and he's gotta deal with it. So now, we're not just at the stage of Israel dragging out negotiations with the Palestinians, we've taken a step back and now it's *us* who have got to negotiate with Israel as to *getting* it to negotiate with the Palestinians and more delay and on and on and on. And here's the sticker: Obama's got the big stick, doesn't he? He could make it abundantly clear to Netanyahu that just as much and as long as he can play games not stopping the settlements and not negotiating for two states we are going to play games at not doing anything about Iran, and not give Israel fly-over rights in Iraq either. So let Bibi sweat that shit. But, obviously, Obama didn't. He shrunk from same, and like I say I bet right now he's saying "damn it I wish I could have." But the fact that he felt he couldn't shows the future I think. Dinking around endlessly now with Israel, one step further removed even from the Israelis dinking around with the Palestinians. And all the while the settlements continue. Gentlemen, (and ladies), Obama was eyeball to eyeball today, and he blinked. And while he might be consoling himself thinking he's being smart to put it off and fight another day, piece by piece, he's condemned himself to playing the other side's game where he's gonna get chopped up like hamsalad.
Stalin has Trotsky assassinated not just because of personal rivalry but an ideological dispute. Stalin favored "Socialism-in-one-country" (consolidating the Bolshevik revolution) while the Trots favored "Permanent Revolution." "International Communism" refers–to my understanding– much to the Trots than Stalin.
Good analysis, Sin Nombre. (Start yourself a blog!)
Obama has lived up to the office to which he was elected, the most despised position on earth–an American president.
Chicago politics does not work on Bibi…The real question is, what does bibi have on Obama? which caught obama by surprise in that private meeting?
And now I've read that all Obama's going to do is announce yet another freaking new "peace process" plan, this time somewhat taking off from King Abdullah's offer which was endorsed by the entire Arab League. Except … Abdullah's offer, remember, was essentially that if Israel retreated back to it's pre-'67 borders and otherwise concluded the easier issues with the Palestinians all the Arab League members would normalize relations with Israel. Well that was a fine and dandy offer; nice and clear and unequivocal and exactly the kind of thing needed. Of course there was room for good-faith haggling over this or that detail by the Israelis, but was nice and clear and neat and said to Israel precisely what it always pretends which is that theoretically it is willing to give up the vast majority of the occupied territories. But what's Obama lamely saying? "Oh well, my new peace process proposal is that *first* I get the arab countries to recognize Israel and normalize relations with it and *then* Israel reaches a deal with the Palestinians…." Worse than lame. Indeed any new "peace process" would be just embarrassing; who the hell would be fooled by them anymore? But this one is worse than pathetic. The sun will run out of hydrogen before he gets the arab countries to buy into such a sucker's deal of them acting first. What does Obama think they are, retarded? Like I said, this is all one huge step backwards in fact. Before we at least got Israel playing games "negotiating" with the PA, even though of course those went nowhere. Now *we* are negotiating with Israel to try to *get* them to negotiate. And then … we're doing it by saying "hey, how about if we *first* negotiate with all the arab countries to recognize you and then…." Belly-laughable. Not a single arab country will bite I can't imagine, no matter how much we bribe 'em to. Nor will a single arab be fooled; yet *another* "peace process," the US can't even make it's supposed "client state" stick with its past agreements such as the two-stater at Wye …. Who the hell does the US think it's kidding? My view is … it's own people who ain't paying attention. "Oh yeah," it's saying to the historically impaired, "yes we are subsidizing the hell out of Israel essentially so they can go on stealing land, but no no no we don't agree with that stealing because otherwise we'd have to admit that the arabs who are mad at us have a point, wouldn't we? So that's why we have this fancy 'peace process' because that *proves* we don't approve of Israel stealing that land…." Except now … Israel itself has spit in our eye and essentially said "fie on your pretext because now we won't even agree to a two-state solution (even though we agreed with it before at Wye), so there. And by the way, go attack Iran for us," and what's Obama done? Effectively, acted like a little kid scrambling to make nice with the neighborhood bully, running after him saying "oh but please please please, how about I'll go and get all these arab countries to recognize you … *then* will you agree to talk some more….??? Pleeeeaaaasssseeee?" Cosmically naive, at best.
I doubt he "has" anything on Obama. Instead I think it's more like Khruschev and Kennedy at Berlin. Khruschev took the measure of Kennedy there and found him a young, callow boy who he could bully, and then went too far pushing that and put those missiles in Cuba and put Kennedy in a spot where Kennedy had to grow a pair. (Although, firstly, even then Kennedy did secretly fold a bit by taking our missiles out of Turkey. And, secondly, he didn't need to grow a very big pair; at the time the US had something like a 100-to-1 advantage in nukes over the Soviets. Wasn't much of a gamble really that Khruschev would back down, but of course Kennedy acolytes and the Democratic party had ever reason to make it seem like he was like Leonidas at Thermopylae.) The problem isn't that Chicago bare-knuckle politics didn't work on Bibi; the problem is they weren't used, and are the only ones that would.
Curious statement Ben, what are you referring to. I think Obama was simply caught by his lack of foreign policy knowledge and experience. Bibi is a clever fox and knew what buttons to push long before he came to washington. Obama will need to learn how to negotiate with those who have years of experience. The other curious note, where was Hillary?
I actually wondered, if Obama was using that main propaganda line and dress it in a compliment. A clever fox? Hmm? Basically I think Obamas move to postpone Iran to an assessment at the end of a year could be quite "clever". He could be simply mirroring Israeli stalling techniques. But I have to admit, that I don't give a damn about experience the way it showed during the run up to the Iraq war on US ground. Didn't feel like "experience" in democratic leadership, many, many very "experienced" people among the decider's willing followers. So what please do you mean by repeating this silly meme?
If you think of the neo-lib version of military keynesianism (which is what currently proposes to turn Pakistan into a new Cambodia) as working in accordance with the desires of Big Oil, whereas the neo-con version of military keynesianism worked against the desires of Big Oil, then I think you cover all the bases at once.
"Ben Israel" is probably hypocritically accusing Obama of having succeeded in Chicago politics by means of ethnic pull and corruption. In fact, he succeeded due to Jewish sponsorship, which is what makes 'Ben israel"'s accusation hypocritical.
Comments on this entry are closed.