Hurt by the Israel lobby, Obama kisses it goodbye

Everyone is talking about Tom Friedman’s interview with President Obama Saturday, published in the New York Times today. Meeting with the official press, Obama states his firm commitment to a new relationship with Iran even as he says that he was personally hurt by the attacks on him for not being supportive of Israel.

The president doesn’t use the word hurt. But his confession that overcoming the criticisms of him from Israel supporters has been as “hard as anything I do,” toward the end of the snippet above, is sure to be parsed for a long time. Hat’s off to Tom Friedman for eliciting an emotional response.

But this has been as hard as anything I do because of the deep affinities that I feel for the Israeli people and for the Jewish people. It’s been a hard period.

You take it personally? Friedman asks.

It has been personally difficult for me to hear … expressions that somehow … this administration has not done everything it could to look out for Israel’s interest — and the suggestion that when we have very serious policy differences, that that’s not in the context of a deep and abiding friendship and concern and understanding of the threats that the Jewish people have faced historically and continue to face.

There is real vulnerability in Obama’s eyes. He surely means the accusations that he is Neville Chamberlain. In that context, he makes his one reference to the occupation:

There has to be the ability for me to disagree with a policy on settlements, for example, without being viewed as … opposing Israel.

This was an ability that Obama was denied for six years. After he stated in Cairo in June 2009 that the settlements must end, he had to eat his words, and nullify American policy at the United Nations. He will not do that again.

We are witnessing a “transformational, generational” moment, Edward-Isaac Dovere said on WNYC this morning. For six years Obama has been conducting a battle inside the D.C. establishment, including the Democratic Party, to rethink American foreign policy so as to talk to countries deemed enemies; because the previous policy was such a failure. So Obama is at last fulfilling a promise of his presidency.

Even though the Friedman interview never mentions Palestine or Palestinians… even though at a hinge moment in his presidency, the president has reached out to a reporter with Zionist bona fides to convey his views to the establishment– as he sought out Jeffrey Goldberg in the past– I’m hopeful that the interview represents a dis to the lobby.

Obama can’t mention Palestine because this is an interview for the Israel lobby; it is pitched entirely to Jewish fears and Israeli fears. The fact he doesn’t mention the Palestinians doesn’t mean that Palestine is not central to him. It means that he has lacked power to do anything about Palestine in his presidency, and sadly, his new alliance with the liberal Zionists doesn’t bode well for them either.

He mentions Netanyahu half a dozen times, but seems to take the Iranian leaders’ side over Netanyahu in this crucial realist moment, at 2:20 in the segment above, when he is asked “What would you tell the Israelis”:

Even those [in Iran] who we consider moderates and reformers are supportive of some nuclear program inside of Iran, and given that they will not capitulate completely, given that they can’t meet the threshold that Prime Minister Netanyahu sets forth– there are no Iranian leaders who will do that.

Friedman then mentions Netanyahu’s demand that the Iranians should recognize Israel. Obama ignores that, and describes Iranian resolve.

And given the fact that this is a country that withstood an eight-year war and a million people dead, they’ve shown themselves willing, I think, to endure hardship when they considered a point of national pride or, in some cases, national survival.

So Iranians also feel existential threats. Obama expresses genuine warmth for Iran in the interview.

It’s important to recognize that Iran is a complicated country — just like we’re a complicated country… what we’ve seen over the last several years, I think, is the opportunity for those forces within Iran that want to break out of the rigid framework that they have been in for a long time to move in a different direction. It’s not a radical break, but it’s one that I think offers us the chance for a different type of relationship, and this nuclear deal, I think, is a potential expression of that.

And notice the philosophy of engagement, regardless of whether the regime is changed. This is the exact opposite of neoconservatism.

It is a good deal even if Iran doesn’t change at all. Even for somebody who believes, as I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu believes, that there is no difference between Rouhani and the supreme leader and they’re all adamantly anti-West and anti-Israel and perennial liars and cheaters — even if you believed all that, this still would be the right thing to do.

The Friedman interview must be seen as a turning away from the lobby. Obama defeated the rightwing lobby; the liberal Zionist lobby is still there but it is supporting him on the Iran deal. It will also support him on baby steps about Palestine. The baby steps will have no real effect. But two years from now Obama will join realist Ian Lustick in stating that two states were a delusion.

Donald Johnson is more pessimistic:

Obama is trying to line up with center left Israelis and presumably J street, so I don’t think Palestinian supporters should be celebrating too much. Iran is a hugely important country, with enough resources to work against whatever power games our elites want to play in the region. Palestinians don’t have oil or the possibility of developing nuclear weapons. They only have morality and many people’s sympathies on their side and politicians often try to tap dance around that kind of thing if donor money is at stake.

Obama wants the freedom to disagree with Israel on settlements without people hurting his feelings by saying he is anti-Israel. He will maintain support for Israel’s military edge. The U.S. has been disagreeing with Israel on settlements for decades. Lots of US Zionists disagree with Israel on settlements. They all support bombing Gaza now and then.

Now he could be saying this while still intending to support the Palestinians on the settlement issue, but it looks like he is really concerned about being seen as anti-Israel and there is nothing in this interview about Palestinian rights. It’s more back to the usual rhetoric about vibrant democracies, people respecting each other while disagreeing, empathy for Israeli fears and so forth. I don’t expect him to be as honest as Max Blumenthal, but he could have sounded like he empathized with both sides equally and he didn’t. He wants to reassure pro-Israel Democrats. He doesn’t feel like he has to reassure supporters of Palestinians.

This disagreement with Israel and the Lobby was sparked by Netanyahu and Boehner and it was mostly about Iran, not Palestinian rights. If Obama thinks it will be expedient to throw them under the bus to ensure Democratic support for his Iran policy, he probably will. I don’t know that polls about the feelings of liberal Democratic voters will be enough to stop this. It might depend on how J Street sees things–that is, whether enough liberal Zionists really care enough about settlements to urge Obama to pressure Israel on them. And no, I don’t think it should be that way, but I think Obama will need plenty of cover.