How to defeat Obama

[Womble]

Looks like Dennis Ross has outlived his usefulness now that the gloves have come off.



source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/136769

It appears from the rant of the "unnamed official" that Ross tried to explain to them more or less what I explained in this thread- that they're not going to get any better than the current government, and pushing past its red lines isn't going to do any good, and the Obama team handled the disagreement the way they always do.

The really worrying part is that they apparently think that "this has become bigger than Jerusalem but is rather about the credibility of this Administration". Get it? Saving Obama's face is "bigger than Jerusalem".

[Aliyah1995]

I think you are all overestimating the impact that Israel, as in issue, will have on Obama's popularity. Israel is NOT a major issue for most American Jews, let alone most Americans. It's true that rates of support for Israel are high, but Israel lags far behind issues like Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, healthcare, the budget, etc. even among most Jews.

Regarding the J Street Poll, I would disregard it. J Street is a group whose sole purpose is to advance a specific political agenda. I would certainly like to see reputable newspapers or pollsters poll similar questions, though.

What you are saying is true. Israel, as a single issue, is not necessarily that high up on the list. However, as a significant piece of the larger puzzle, Israel fits in pretty well to the overall anger by Americans at Obama.

Between the "health care reform" that many, many Americans feel was shoved down their throat, to how he is spitting in the face of America's traditional allies (Israel is one of many, but for no small number of Americans, like the fundamentalist Christians, THE most important ally America has) to appeasing and cowering before dictatorial and terrorist regimes, and the list goes on, the general Americans' patience is wearing thinner and thinner with Obama.

Regarding the JStreet Poll, even if it is to be taken at face value, 59% of the American Jewish vote is hardly impressive. I believe Obama received a much higher percentage of the Jewish vote (in the 70s, if not 80s, if I remember) when he was elected, so even amongst American Jews, his polls are declining. And, IMO, the only reason, he still has 59% is because American Jews are still predominately allergic to the Republican Party, not so much because they are in love with Obama.

[wat0n]

There are ways to be tough, and then there are ways to be tough. Obama is substantially increasing the likelihood of war in the Middle East by projecting not only a lack of US support for Israel, but also outright hostility, e.g. the treatment of Netanyahu in Washington on both of his visits. This isn't just "getting tough", it's downright undiplomatic and disrespectful. The Arab states are already salivating at the idea of an Israel without US backing and are hardening their positions, see e.g. the recent Arab League conference on Jerusalem, Palestinian preconditions, Syrian assertiveness, and more.

I don't think this will lead to another war as Obama hasn't really compromised on Israel's security. Let's remember that his gov't condemned the Goldstone thing, in part because it would set a dangerous precedent for the US itself...

But yes, I agree with you on the fact that this clearly gives incentives for Arabs to harden their positions. But then, let's please remember that this whole crisis started when the home starts were announced while Biden was in Israel for restarting talks, the timing of that announcement was unfortunate, at least...

And even as someone who supports the two-state solution in principle I cannot support what Obama is doing, even if you look at it just from a tactical negotiating standpoint. There is no way we can get a fair deal when we are forced to effectively concede our bargaining chips as a precondition to negotiations, with no reciprocal Palestinian concessions.

I partially agree with you... I think that Obama had to make some noise because of the announcement (considering his Cairo speech, his credibility in the Arab world was at risk, why deny it?), but now it's time to calm down and maybe postpone negotiations for some time. Not just because of what he's demanding Israel to do, but also because if Obama wants Bibi's gov't to collapse (and I think he does) I think that it will backfire in the long run, because I have seen no American policy on Gaza.

How does he intend to deal with Hamas controlled Gaza? Does he want the Palestinians to form a national unity gov't? If so, how can he guarantee that such a gov't will be willing to negotiate with Israel and at the same time that it will be stable? Does he want to recognize 2 Palestinian states, one in Gaza and the other in the West Bank? But then that means that even if Israel gets to a deal with the WB state then it would remain at war with the Hamas gov't in Gaza, right? Also, considering that the Palestinians themselves want to have one state (not two) in Gaza and the WB, wouldn't this policy cause war between the WB state and the Gaza state, with Israel right in the middle (with the obvious consequences of that)? Or at last he wants to get to a deal with Fatah in the WB and then topple Hamas rule in Gaza (and we all know Israel will have to do that)? Even though that would mean massive Gazan civilian casualties (because of how Hamas fights)? Even if that could probably desestabilize the newly signed peace treaty and/or the newly formed Palestinian state because Fatah can't look like it's working with Israel? Even if getting rid of Hamas for good would mean that this hypothetic Palestinian state would most probably turn into a Fatah dictatorship? (Maybe this last option is the most realistic way for forming an stable Palestinian state? After all, dictatorships seem to give stability for the Arab world as the alternatives look like Lebanon).

I've seen no answer to these questions, and if Obama aimed to topple Bibi, yes, he would achieve that and Israel would turn to the left. But as long as there are no ideas on dealing with Gaza, having a leftist gov't won't change much and probably it would serve to the seemingly long-term decline of Israel's left as it would not be able to deliver what people expect from it i.e. a diplomatic breakthrough (a peace deal)... Thus making a peace deal look even more unlikely in the longer term (4 years or so).

So, in a nutshell, I hope all of this drama starts winding down (really!)... And serves as a warning for Bibi's gov't.

[wat0n]

He is much tougher. I would liken him to the Eisenhower administration who forced Israel to withdraw from Sinai in 1956, unconditionally instead of forcing the Egyptians to make peace in return for withdrawal. We all know what was the outcome of that 11 years later, an existential war which Israel did win but those of us who were around at the time, remember the anxiety that we faced about Israel's survival in the days leading up to the war ...

Do you consider the following prospect to be tougher on Israel?

Obama will accept unilateral declaration of Palestinian state? Israeli officials fear White House’s ‘very dangerous move’

Sounds to me like the Eisenhower policy all over again ...

By the way, curlyg is spot on. Obama's current tactics are promoting war, NOT peace. Just look at how Abbas has reacted: First he stopped negotiating , then he agreed to proximity talks only (indirect negotiations) and now he is talking of ending the peace process entirely. Doesn't sound like progress to me .... and I can't blame him. From his point of view, all he now has to do is to sit back and Obama will give him everything he wants without him having to sign a peace deal with Israel. And all that is due to Obama's clumsy policies of concentrating all the blame on Israel for the no progress (even though Olmert too offered very generous terms very recently which Abbas just ignored).

I think we should wait and see. All of these "unnamed sources" seems like speculation, but no, I wouldn't rule out that he will force a settlement.

PS: My point is, I don't think he has crossed a red line. If he abstains in a UNSC vote against Israel then he will, but so far it's all talk, no action. And yes, if he forces a deal then that would be way tougher than what he has been doing up until now... I think we should wait and see what he does. I do hope though that he is realistic, and no, blaming Israel for everything and forcing Israel to give everything and not forcing the Palestinians to do anything is NOT realistic.

[bararallu]

He has long since crossed the red line. No Zionist Jew should ever consider voting for this Israel hater again.

[Reffo]

think we should wait and see what he does

We have no other choice but I too think that he crossed the red line.

By the way, if you look back on this Talkback, you'll see that not that long ago I was a bit like you. I felt that we should wait and see and give him a chance but I no longer feel that way. Whether he intended to or not (and I am not sure that he didn't), he has already done immense harm to Israel's cause ...

I do hope though that he is realistic, and no, blaming Israel for everything and forcing Israel to give everything and not forcing the Palestinians to do anything is NOT realistic

Yes I know based on our past interchanges that you have your heart in the right place. We just don't see this particular issue in the same way yet ...

PS
Here is one more thing that could be done: Tzipi Livni should come out and clearly state that she agrees with Netanyahu about East Jerusalem. Even better, she SHOULD agree to join the coalition. That would show a united front. I believe that would be very useful, it would send a clear message that all of Israel's major parties agree about Jerusalem (at least).

[curlyg]

We have no other choice but I too think that he crossed the red line.

By the way, if you look back on this Talkback, you'll see that not that long ago I was a bit like you. I felt that we should wait and see and give him a chance but I no longer feel that way. Whether he intended to or not (and I am not sure that he didn't), he has already done immense harm to Israel's cause ...

Yes I know based on our past interchanges that you have your heart in the right place. We just don't see this particular issue in the same way yet ...

I was the same. If you look over my past posts, I was actually somewhat optimstic when Obama came to power, hoping that his rhetorical commitment to peace would translate to a more long-term and realistic approach towards negotiations over a period of several years throughout his presidency. Those hopes were entirely misplaced, and that is clear to me now. His rhetorical commitment to peace was for Arab consumption only and did not translate to a realistic approach to the peace process.

PS
Here is one more thing that could be done: Tzipi Livni should come out and clearly state that she agrees with Netanyahu about East Jerusalem. Even better, she SHOULD agree to join the coalition. That would show a united front. I believe that would be very useful, it would send a clear message that all of Israel's major parties agree about Jerusalem (at least).

I disagree with that. Not taking anything away from what we have said about Obama, I think Netanyahu has severely mishandled the relationship with the US from the very beginning. I think Israel should have agreed to a complete settlement freeze in the West Bank from the very beginning, to meet Obama's demands then and take away any ammunition our enemies have for calling us anti-peace. Over the past year, Netanyahu has given them ample ammunition, America's demands have increased and the Arabs' position has hardened. And the tone for the US-Israeli relationship was established accordingly.

To expect Livni to back up this crude approach and be tainted by its failure by joining the coalition is unfair.

[Reffo]

I was the same. If you look over my past posts, I was actually somewhat optimstic when Obama came to power

In my case, it would be more accurate to say that I WAS wary but at the same time, I was willing to keep an open mind and wait and see.

The reason why I was wary was because of reports regarding his past associations, like the Reverend Wright and others. But now, I am no longer wary and I am no longer willing to wait and see because NOW I think I know for sure, with whom he stands. NOT US!

To expect Livni to back up this crude approach and be tainted by its failure by joining the coalition is unfair

I didn't mean to imply that Livni should now become Netanyahu's lap dog Ehud Barak doesn't seem to be. Yet he is part of the coalition. What I meant was that by stating that she backs Netanyahu regarding East Jerusalem and punctuating that by joining the coalition, Livni could send a useful message. And in fact, by joining the coalition, she may be able to influence Netanyahu in other policies.

But the bottom line is that Jerusalem should be above party politics and it's high time that all Israeli politicians should show the same determination with regards to Jerusalem as the Arabs have been showing. It's high time that we should stop apologizing when it comes to Jerusalem. Israeli politicians need to show some real spine otherwise we can expect to kiss East Jerusalem good bye ...

[curlyg]

I don't think this will lead to another war as Obama hasn't really compromised on Israel's security. Let's remember that his gov't condemned the Goldstone thing, in part because it would set a dangerous precedent for the US itself...

Absolutely, it's too early for war. But if there is a sustained projected image that the US is not behind Israel and the status quo which has been in place since the 70s whereby the US guarantees the region's stability is ended, you can rest assured that we will enter a new era in Middle Eastern politics. The same is true if, as it seems, the United States increasingly retreats from the Middle Eastern scene to focus on its domestic problems.

The defining characteristic of the "Middle East inter-state system" (if you will) is the American order which is established and the radical states which aim to undermine it. The moment that that order ends, or is seen as having ended (which amounts to the same), you can be absolutely certain that instability will follow as the major powers (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel) begin to push and shove and assert themselves to establish a new order favourable to them.

But yes, I agree with you on the fact that this clearly gives incentives for Arabs to harden their positions. But then, let's please remember that this whole crisis started when the home starts were announced while Biden was in Israel for restarting talks, the timing of that announcement was unfortunate, at least...

I expect an American president whose stated intention is peace in the Middle East to conduct himself with more sense, even where there is a diplomatic incident. As I said I think there should have been a settlement freeze at the outset to set a positive tone for relations and pull the rug out from under the Arabs' feet. Even though that was not the case, Obama's conduct has been harmful to the US, harmful to Israel, and harmful to the stability of the Middle East.

I partially agree with you... I think that Obama had to make some noise because of the announcement (considering his Cairo speech, his credibility in the Arab world was at risk, why deny it?)

Obama's credibility in the Arab world is but one factor that he should balance as a statesman and as someone who purportedly seeks to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. There are two parties to this dispute - the Arab world is but one.

Short of imposing a peace agreement, there is NO way that America can now hope to achieve a real peace agreement within the next two years, which is Obama's stated intention, because of the regional dynamics which his administration has created.

but now it's time to calm down and maybe postpone negotiations for some time.

That is not his intention. He continues to insist on a Palestinian state within 24 months.

Not just because of what he's demanding Israel to do, but also because if Obama wants Bibi's gov't to collapse (and I think he does) I think that it will backfire in the long run, because I have seen no American policy on Gaza.

How does he intend to deal with Hamas controlled Gaza? Does he want the Palestinians to form a national unity gov't? If so, how can he guarantee that such a gov't will be willing to negotiate with Israel and at the same time that it will be stable? Does he want to recognize 2 Palestinian states, one in Gaza and the other in the West Bank? But then that means that even if Israel gets to a deal with the WB state then it would remain at war with the Hamas gov't in Gaza, right? Also, considering that the Palestinians themselves want to have one state (not two) in Gaza and the WB, wouldn't this policy cause war between the WB state and the Gaza state, with Israel right in the middle (with the obvious consequences of that)? Or at last he wants to get to a deal with Fatah in the WB and then topple Hamas rule in Gaza (and we all know Israel will have to do that)? Even though that would mean massive Gazan civilian casualties (because of how Hamas fights)? Even if that could probably desestabilize the newly signed peace treaty and/or the newly formed Palestinian state because Fatah can't look like it's working with Israel? Even if getting rid of Hamas for good would mean that this hypothetic Palestinian state would most probably turn into a Fatah dictatorship? (Maybe this last option is the most realistic way for forming an stable Palestinian state? After all, dictatorships seem to give stability for the Arab world as the alternatives look like Lebanon).

I think Hamas is a smaller problem than it has been made out to be. We should give up right now on the idea that we will have a stable democratic neighbor state called 'Palestine.' That is a pipe dream. Our interests are best served by a divided Palestine in a number of ways.

First, a divided Gaza and West Bank mean that the problem of passage over Israeli territory needed to make the Palestinian state contiguous is not an issue. Secondly, the West Bank state, which is the more dangerous one (from our security perspective) will have no sea access which will place it at a significant disadvantage if it makes any attempt to arm itself. It also places it (even more than it would otherwise be) at the mercy of Israel and Jordan in many respects, both of which have an interest in ensuring that the state remains weak (Jordan due to its large Palestinian population, us for obvious reasons). It also divides the enemy into smaller (and consequently weaker) numbers.

The threat posed by Hamas/Gaza as a state entity is minimal. They are more of a minor pest than a real opponent. They are not an existential problem, and Israel is more than capable of handling them militarily. Their international isolation works to our advantage and we should ensure that it continues long after any hypothetical peace deal with Fatah.

I've seen no answer to these questions, and if Obama aimed to topple Bibi, yes, he would achieve that and Israel would turn to the left. But as long as there are no ideas on dealing with Gaza, having a leftist gov't won't change much and probably it would serve to the seemingly long-term decline of Israel's left as it would not be able to deliver what people expect from it i.e. a diplomatic breakthrough (a peace deal)... Thus making a peace deal look even more unlikely in the longer term (4 years or so).

So, in a nutshell, I hope all of this drama starts winding down (really!)... And serves as a warning for Bibi's gov't.

I support the two-state solution as a tactical and strategic Israeli interest. But, as I see it, the window of opportunity for this solution is closing fast. Every year lost is a year closer to the day that this is no longer a viable option, and that day is fast approaching. I would say that in 10 years, and certainly in 20, any talk of a two-state solution will be sheer fantasy. Israeli settlements will make it impossible, and we will have a de facto binational territory.

All of the solutions to that situation are undesirable. The first is that we grant the Palestinians citizenship and destroy the Jewish state, which as far as I am concerned is not an option. The second is that we attempt to continue the current regime, but that is unsustainable and will ultimately fail, and we will have a binational state by way of civil war. The final option is that we will have to wait for an opportune moment (politically speaking) and expel the Palestinian population, which is morally gray at best (probably more accurately described as simply immoral) and will incur a significant political cost in terms of international isolation.

Needless to say, none of these solutions are particularly appealing. The two-state option is the least of all evils. But that is why I find Obama's incompetence all the more frustrating. Time is not on our side. We need an agreement on favourable terms, and we need it now. Obama's policy has made that impossible, at least during his first (and hopefully last) term in office.

[dayag]

...I would say that in 10 years, and certainly in 20, any talk of a two-state solution will be sheer fantasy. Israeli settlements will make it impossible, and we will have a de facto binational territory...

People keep saying that, but I must disagree for two reasons. One, the "settlements" currently take up 5% of the West Bank and no new settlements are being created. The fact that the population of these towns is growing doesn't change that fact significantly.

Second, it assumes that any Palestinian state must be judenrein. If Arabs can be citizens of Israel, why cannot Jews be citizens of Palestine?

[curlyg]

People keep saying that, but I must disagree for two reasons. One, the "settlements" currently take up 5% of the West Bank and no new settlements are being created. The fact that the population of these towns is growing doesn't change that fact significantly.

Second, it assumes that any Palestinian state must be judenrein. If Arabs can be citizens of Israel, why cannot Jews be citizens of Palestine?

The settlements might take up little land (is it really only 5%? Doesn't really look like it) but they are strategically placed to cut up the territory into pieces. That made sense at one time from a purely military perspective, but it is no longer viable if Israel is to continue existing as a Jewish state. The problem is that the settlements are widely spread and are not contiguous, and so any Israeli attempt to annex them all with Palestinian approval is impossible unless they are willing to accept them as citizens.

But that is not an option. Palestine must be judenrein, both because that is a key demand for them, and because it is undesirable for us to leave Jews at their mercy which will spark constant conflict and tension when they are inevitably oppressed. The aim of any peace agreement is separation and reconsolidation - Jews on one side of the border, and Palestinians on the other, insofar as that is possible.

Evacuating these settlements is much easier while their populations remain small.

In any case I have a difficult time believing that any self-respecting Jew would voluntarily choose to live under Palestinian rule.

[dayag]

...But that is not an option. Palestine must be judenrein, both because that is a key demand for them, and because it is undesirable for us to leave Jews at their mercy which will spark constant conflict and tension when they are inevitably oppressed...Evacuating these settlements is much easier while their populations remain small.

There are almost 500,000 Jews living east of the green line. It is already too late for a judenrein Palestine. If they cannot live peacefully alongside Jews then they are not ready for peace or statehood. They will have to settle for autonomy if they are not careful.

The so-called "right of return" is a key demand as well. As is returning the Temple Mount. We have some key demands as well. They are the losers. They don't get everything they want.

...In any case I have a difficult time believing that any self-respecting Jew would voluntarily choose to live under Palestinian rule.

Because it is the heart of our homeland!

[Mediocrates]

Of course PLOstan will be Jew-Free. It's an Arab state. They didn't ethnically cleanse their own Jewish populations because they love or hate Israel. They did it because they hate Jews. Since it is more than impractical, e.g. impossible to 'relocate' all those Jews no matter what Obama thinks, they will have to live withing a redrawn map of the border between Israel and the Palestinians. For the most part.

[curlyg]

There are almost 500,000 Jews living east of the green line. It is already too late for a judenrein Palestine. If they cannot live peacefully alongside Jews then they are not ready for peace or statehood. They will have to settle for autonomy if they are not careful.

It doesn't work like that. Like I said, time is not on our side. We have an advantage for the short-term future in terms of population and power, but that advantage is declining (at least on the demographic front). They won't settle for autonomy, and Israel won't give it to them anyway.

Many of the 500,000 Jews East of the Green Line can easily be annexed to Israel. A good number of those are in East Jerusalem in Jewish neighborhoods which will be ours. Others are in settlement blocs near the Green Line which can be included in Israel by a minor border adjustment.

In exchange we give them territory - the Triangle and any other predominately Arab regions along the Green Line. Like I said, the aim is a realignment and reconsolidation based on demographics.

The so-called "right of return" is a key demand as well. As is returning the Temple Mount. We have some key demands as well. They are the losers. They don't get everything they want.

That's right. And that is why we insist on those demands, and concede those which are less important, like maintaining a few dozen outlying settlements in the midst of a sea of hostile Palestinians. Two states for two peoples - that's the mantra. Separation of populations, and consolidating our majority. That's the overriding aim. Consequently right of return is out of the question, but evacuation of settlements is negotiable (and somewhat desirable in some cases).

Because it is the heart of our homeland!

Are we building a modern Jewish state where we can rule over ourselves or reminiscing about the good old days? Our history is important, but should not be used in a way that drags us to our death. To leave a minority of Jews in a Palestinian state is to condemn them to severe discrimination at best, and regular pogroms at worst. It is out of the question.

It once was the heart of our homeland. Today, it is populated by Palestinians. That is a fact on the ground which we won't soon change. Israel is a modern state, and needs to formulate its policy based on practical considerations in accordance with the best interests of the Jewish people. Historic control of the West Bank is not such a powerful and overriding consideration that it justifies jeopardising the future of the Jewish state, or the lives of Jews today. If we could viably hold on to that territory, I would support doing so. We cannot. It is time to acknowledge that, move on, and do what we can with the hand we have been dealt.

[dayag]

It doesn't work like that. Like I said, time is not on our side. We have an advantage for the short-term future in terms of population and power, but that advantage is declining (at least on the demographic front). They won't settle for autonomy, and Israel won't give it to them anyway.

Many of the 500,000 Jews East of the Green Line can easily be annexed to Israel. A good number of those are in East Jerusalem in Jewish neighborhoods which will be ours. Others are in settlement blocs near the Green Line which can be included in Israel by a minor border adjustment.

In exchange we give them territory - the Triangle and any other predominately Arab regions along the Green Line. Like I said, the aim is a realignment and reconsolidation based on demographics.



That's right. And that is why we insist on those demands, and concede those which are less important, like maintaining a few dozen outlying settlements in the midst of a sea of hostile Palestinians. Two states for two peoples - that's the mantra. Separation of populations, and consolidating our majority. That's the overriding aim. Consequently right of return is out of the question, but evacuation of settlements is negotiable (and somewhat desirable in some cases).



Are we building a modern Jewish state where we can rule over ourselves or reminiscing about the good old days? Our history is important, but should not be used in a way that drags us to our death. To leave a minority of Jews in a Palestinian state is to condemn them to severe discrimination at best, and regular pogroms at worst. It is out of the question.

It once was the heart of our homeland. Today, it is populated by Palestinians. That is a fact on the ground which we won't soon change. Israel is a modern state, and needs to formulate its policy based on practical considerations in accordance with the best interests of the Jewish people. Historic control of the West Bank is not such a powerful and overriding consideration that it justifies jeopardising the future of the Jewish state, or the lives of Jews today. If we could viably hold on to that territory, I would support doing so. We cannot. It is time to acknowledge that, move on, and do what we can with the hand we have been dealt.

I have posted elsewhere that I am in favor of a two-state solution. That does not change how I feel about our homeland. All of the land between the river and the sea is my homeland regardless of where the political border ends up. I have no doubt most Palestinians feel the same way.

Our biggest difference is that I am not willing to force any Jew living in the West Bank to repatriate should they end up on the wrong side of the border. That is their decision to make. If Jews cannot live in Palestine, then Palestinians should not be allowed to live in Israel and we should have a full population exchange like was done between Greece and Turkey.

Giving up the triangle will decrease Israel's Arab population only a tiny fraction and make our narrow waist more vulnerable should we be invaded by our peace-loving neighbors. I also don't accept the idea that we have to compensate the Palestinians for any territories we keep. We are negotiating over disputed lands, not Palestinian lands.

Time my prove me wrong, but I am absolutely convinced that the Palestinians will NEVER agree to any reasonable compromises that would be necessary for a peace agreement to be reached. Also, I think that the withdrawal from Gaza proved that we will be in a better position to defend ourselves if we remain in control of the territory.