Hoffman's analysis
Gil Hoffman, who is the Chief Political Correspondent and Analyst of The Jerusalem Post, was the featured speaker on Tuesday night at the Annual General Meeting of the AACI-Netanya. His topic was "Red States, Blue States and the Jewish State," reflecting his focus on the US-Israel relationship. Having just returned from an 11-state tour of the US he had the following observations.
At the present, Israel is mainly united behind PM Netanyahu, who has managed to keep his wide coalition together and has remained popular with the Israeli public. By contrast, the US is deeply polarized between Democrats supporting Pres. Obama and the Republicans and other opponents. Pres. Obama started off with a high level of expectation among Israelis. But, these were immediately dashed after the first meeting with PM Netanyahu in April and the evidence of what were called "delusional anti-Israel policies of the White House" by a Likud MInister. In June 2009, the percentage of Israelis calling Obama more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian fell to 6% and in August to 4%.
At their first meeting it became clear that the beliefs of Netanyahu and of Obama were diametrically opposed. Netanyahu regarded Iran as the chief threat to the west and particularly to Israel, and considered that the Israel-Palestine conflict could not be resolved until Iran was dealt with. Obama felt that the Israel-Palestine conflict was the chief irritant causing anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world and if this were resolved then Iran and other Muslim States would come around. His priority was to reverse the trend that he perceived of antagonism to the US due to the policies of former Pres. George W. Bush, by engaging in a charm offensive called "engagement" with the Muslim world, hence the address from Cairo.
As part of this "engagement" Obama felt that he had to pressure Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians, and in return he would get concessions from the Arab States. So he forced PM Netanyahu to institute a freeze on building in the West Bank, and then with the gaffe of the announcement of building permits for the Jewish suburb of Ramat Shlomo, he tried unsuccessfully to force Netanyahu to extend the freeze to East Jerusalem. But, Obama was asking more than any Palestinian leader had ever demanded. In doing so, he went too far, and seeing US weakness caused the Palestinians to resist entering talks. Also, there was no response whatsoever to his putting pressure on Israel from the Arab States. So in effect his policy failed. Also, negative reaction started aginst Obama's policies in the American Jewish community, with letters from leading figures and then meetings in the White House with carefully selected Jewish groups.
At this point, the Obama Administration is rapidly back-pedalling. By standing firm, Netanyahu persuaded the US that Iran is indeed the greatest threat, and Iran's lack of positive response to US "engagement" has supported this. Also, the lack of positive response by the Palestinians and the Arab "moderates" has also bolstered Netanyahu's position. Also, Netanyahu has been successful in promoting economic development in the West Bank, the IMF puts the growth rate there at an incredible 8.5%. So after what many judge as a false start, the Obama Administration is finally trying to deal with the reality of the Middle East. Now with "proximity talks" under way at least there is a possibility of some success depending on the decisions of both sides. When the US projects an aura of weakness, the Arabs and Muslims cannot be expected to demand less than America itself.
At the present, Israel is mainly united behind PM Netanyahu, who has managed to keep his wide coalition together and has remained popular with the Israeli public. By contrast, the US is deeply polarized between Democrats supporting Pres. Obama and the Republicans and other opponents. Pres. Obama started off with a high level of expectation among Israelis. But, these were immediately dashed after the first meeting with PM Netanyahu in April and the evidence of what were called "delusional anti-Israel policies of the White House" by a Likud MInister. In June 2009, the percentage of Israelis calling Obama more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian fell to 6% and in August to 4%.
At their first meeting it became clear that the beliefs of Netanyahu and of Obama were diametrically opposed. Netanyahu regarded Iran as the chief threat to the west and particularly to Israel, and considered that the Israel-Palestine conflict could not be resolved until Iran was dealt with. Obama felt that the Israel-Palestine conflict was the chief irritant causing anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world and if this were resolved then Iran and other Muslim States would come around. His priority was to reverse the trend that he perceived of antagonism to the US due to the policies of former Pres. George W. Bush, by engaging in a charm offensive called "engagement" with the Muslim world, hence the address from Cairo.
As part of this "engagement" Obama felt that he had to pressure Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians, and in return he would get concessions from the Arab States. So he forced PM Netanyahu to institute a freeze on building in the West Bank, and then with the gaffe of the announcement of building permits for the Jewish suburb of Ramat Shlomo, he tried unsuccessfully to force Netanyahu to extend the freeze to East Jerusalem. But, Obama was asking more than any Palestinian leader had ever demanded. In doing so, he went too far, and seeing US weakness caused the Palestinians to resist entering talks. Also, there was no response whatsoever to his putting pressure on Israel from the Arab States. So in effect his policy failed. Also, negative reaction started aginst Obama's policies in the American Jewish community, with letters from leading figures and then meetings in the White House with carefully selected Jewish groups.
At this point, the Obama Administration is rapidly back-pedalling. By standing firm, Netanyahu persuaded the US that Iran is indeed the greatest threat, and Iran's lack of positive response to US "engagement" has supported this. Also, the lack of positive response by the Palestinians and the Arab "moderates" has also bolstered Netanyahu's position. Also, Netanyahu has been successful in promoting economic development in the West Bank, the IMF puts the growth rate there at an incredible 8.5%. So after what many judge as a false start, the Obama Administration is finally trying to deal with the reality of the Middle East. Now with "proximity talks" under way at least there is a possibility of some success depending on the decisions of both sides. When the US projects an aura of weakness, the Arabs and Muslims cannot be expected to demand less than America itself.
posted by Jack Cohen at 7:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home