Is Barack Obama More AIPAC Than J Street?

Anxiety about Barack Obama has afflicted Israelis since his meteoric rise to the White House. Here was an untested president, one whose agenda in the Middle East could only be imagined. Would Obama's America be Israel's lifeline in a dangerous and often hostile world? Or would this American president experiment with mistaken or even unfriendly ideas that could wreak havoc for Israeli security?

Israeli anxiety was particularly visible in the circle around Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who took office two months after Obama in March 2009. The new prime minister and his aides were hearing a stream of worrying reports from Republican friends in the United States, some of whom who painted Obama as a closet Marxist or a confirmed radical with Muslim roots pursuing a Third World leftist agenda. Would Obama waste precious time chasing illusory "openings" for engagement with Iran while the Islamic Republic completed its final sprint to nuclear weapons? Would Obama be open to the dangerous advice of the pressure-on-Israel crowd and try to impose unacceptable terms for a Palestinian state, terms that the Israeli public and national security leadership believe would lead Israel to war and insecurity, not peace? Would he cluelessly undermine the broader strategic balance on which Israeli and regional security depends?

Israel's anxieties deepened in May 2009. Barely eight weeks after Netanyahu took office, Obama turned global attention to the most divisive issue in the U.S.-Israel relationship: Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and special envoy George Mitchell announced loudly that Obama wanted a total freeze on construction of Jewish homes, even in Jerusalem, and that Obama did not consider himself bound by earlier compromises about settlement issues.

Many Israelis, even some who despise the settlements, saw this heavy-handed approach as artless at best, if not downright antagonistic. The episode reinforced the perception that Obama was naïve about the Middle East and easily swayed by the left -- a decision-maker who could be erratic, unpredictable, and dangerous. A theory emerged that placed much of the blame on White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senior Advisor David Axelrod, two American Jews from Chicago. Some of Netanyahu's people painted them as devotees of the strain of Middle East diplomacy that views Israel as the obstacle to peace.

Various acolytes of the American Democratic left, occasionally presenting themselves as representing the true Obama worldview only intensified the impression that Obama's team was unsympathetic to Israel. One after another argued that if only Obama acted to coerce Israel into accepting some perfectly reasonable agreements such as replacing Israeli security personnel in the West Bank with international peacekeepers, peace would be possible.

1234NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

IRMEP

8:02 PM ET

February 16, 2010

Perhaps its time to Cancel the Israel Trade Preferences

If Obama is pursuing a "fundamentally business-friendly" agenda and is a "fierce advocate" for the free market, he will probably want to begin by canceling the US-Israel bilateral trade agreement.

http://irmep.org/ILA/economy/default.asp

Ever since Israeli minister of economics Dan Halpern passed the classified ITC-USTR report to AIPAC (back when you and Martin Indyk were heading up AIPAC trade research), this agreement has seriously undermined US industries and workers. It is not only that AIPAC violated advice and consent rights of the 76 industry and worker organizations by stealing their trade and market secrets, but pharmaceutical and defense industries continue to be plagued by Israeli espionage without any IPR violation protections.

This agreement is the opposite of free trade, it is espionage and theft of government property enhanced debasement of American industry.

ANTONIUS76

8:43 PM ET

Special relationship?

Just what benefit does the United States derive from this "special relationship"? Can anyone explain to me how America gains from this parasitic alliance with a nation that drains our treasury to the tune of 5 or 6 billion per year, and gives us nothing in return? Anybody?

BETTORWORSE

11:54 AM ET

February 17, 2010

The list of contributions

The list of contributions from Arab Americans is long. Perhaps they just don't have the same PR machine as Israel.

Let's be clear, though. Once again, someone is trying to equate Israel with Jews. That's part of the PR - you can't say anything against Israel or you are an anti-Semite.

KASSANDRA

12:18 PM ET

February 18, 2010

You forgot the invention of the cherry tomato

Oh please! The Israelis couldn't even win the 1947 war without all those airplanes and pilot training from the Soviet bloc. And don't forget their invention of the cherry tomato, as the NYT just told us.

1:00 AM ET

February 22, 2010

Get off your high horse. The

Get off your high horse. The jews are no more special than any other ethnic group.

ISRAELDEFENDER

6:22 AM ET

March 11, 2010

to BetterorWorse

Yes, BetterorWorse, Jewish Americans have a great "PR Machine" (why not say what you really mean? You are implying that Jews control the media).

BURNINGCHROME

12:33 AM ET

problems of perception and unrealistic expectations

Personally I am not surprised by Obama.

From the beginning of his campaign for the Presidency, I think he has been assiduously pragmatic and pesented himself as such.

I take some issue with Mr. Rosen's equating Liberals with 'Progressives' and the Left. This gives credibility to the Right Wing debasement of Liberals. The constant accusations that Liberals are Leftists, closeted Socialists or Communists. Sadly this constant drumbeat of delegitimization, questioning the patriotism of Liberals, the constant harangues over the decades have made Liberal a dirty word in US politics and politicians are generally loathe to be labeled as such. Truly a sad commentary on America and a great disservice to the public that suffers from the lack of a Liberal movement.

There is nothing in the choice of Hamas or Fatah or the public discourse that would remotely appeal to a Liberal. However that is not to say a Liberal would not want or actively work for peace. I believe in fact the opposite to be true.

The problems of the Middle East are not going to be solved through a Western prism of Right to Left because that is not the nature of the conflict. Just because the Left tries to force the narrative and definition of the conflict in that didactic.

Obama and his team clearly made some big mistakes at the outset, primarily demanding concessions publicly. However these were tactical errors not idealogical errors.

My personal belief is that the negotiations must be done in secret as the climb down required by both parties can only be presented as a fait accompli. Public scrutiny with rumours of concessions and an impending agreement will only lead to spoiler parties acting to sabotage the process or agreement as we have witnessed in the past.

TOM G

6:23 AM ET

Seriously ..........

Ok i'm a little perplexed at why the world's superpower is worried about offending Israel,it is because of the U.S. that Israel is still there, unfortunately this has allowed them to become belligerent towards Palestinians who have decided to no longer take it. Lets be honest the recent goldstone report from the U.N. shows that war crimes were committed on both sides in the Hamas/Israeli war, however that being said at this moment in time Israel is beginning to look more and more like apartheid south africa and the fact that Washington finally got around to seeing this was welcome and rightly had the Israelis worried to the point where now some members of their military can't leave the country for fear of being arrested for war crimes.Now the way I see it double standards on the part of the U.S can no longer be allowed so if you condemn one you condemn all.

6:24 AM ET

6:32 AM ET

PFNOVAK

12:48 PM ET

Without getting into legal or

Without getting into legal or moral issues, I think it's innacurate to assert that Israel owes its existence entirely to the United States. Though individual donations from private American citizens were important for Israel in the 1948 War, most of the weapons they used were Soviet (purchased through Czechoslovakia). Though US recognition of Israel was important, the US-Israel alliance as it exists today did not really come about until the 1970's. Only after the 67 War was Israel considered a viable ally by Americans, and it was in this context, with the Soviets backing Nasser, that American military aid started in earnest. People forget that Israel's nuclear arsenal was set up by the French, not the Americans. It was only when Israel became a legitimate regional power in its own right that the United States had any real interest. If that ceases to be the case, no American government, Right or Left, will put its relationship with Israel above that of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan or any other influential Middle Eastern state.

6:30 AM ET

Here's why, Tom G

The U.S. isn't "worried" about Israel, but here's why it cares about Israel:

- Facilitating peace between Arabs and Israelis would instantly immortalize any President/administration. It's a siren call they can't resist.
- Israel provides the U.S. with much actionable intelligence about terrorists. The Mossad is a formidable intelligence agency. Israel is on the front line against the kind of Islamic terrorists who struck on 9/11.
- Israel gets aid. Much of it is in the form of military equipment/vehicles/planes that are produced in America (jobs, jobs, jobs - if you want to cancel all of that commerce in this economy, OK).
- The Muslim dictators demonize Israel to distract their subjects from the misery of their own lives. This has boomeranged/back-fired to a certain extent, because the subjects are very worked up over the issue and want it resolved. Thus the Arab dictators complain and ask the U.S. to solve it. The U.S. has more leverage if it is on good terms with Israel.
- Israel has traditionally been of the U.S.'s biggest allies. If the U.S. abandons Israel, what will that say to the rest of her allies?

BETZ55

1:47 PM ET

More drivel from Rosen

Hey Rosen ! Go back to AIPAC, oh, and how did that whole spying for Israel in the US thing turn out?

Israeli is becoming a parody of right-wing lunacy: the last refuge of discredited neoconservatives, supply-siders, and other extremists.

U.S. policy remains in the hands of the same set of "experts" whose policies for the past seventeen years (or more) have been a steady recipe for failure.

Israel continues to undermine the very credibility to the Middle East peace process, making a mockery of existing agreements and sabotaging all prospects for a return to genuine negotiations.
The real thing that threatens Israel’s legitimacy is the way it behaves and maintains the occupation. That is the issue.

I personally could care less what Israelis think of President Obama. Israelis don't elect the US President, and he is not accountable to them.

President Obama is responsible to the US electorate, not the people of Israel. In fact, the US pumps billions of dollars of free money, military aid, and foreign aid into Israel every day. So the people of Israel ought to be thanking BO profusely every day.

The real issue here is that Israel will eventually have to become a member of the international community that, like other every other State, is responsible for their own foreign policy. Currently, Israel hides behind the US.

Israel wants to build settlements? Let them. Israel wants to be at continual war with their neighbors without finding a compromise? So be it. Just let Israel do so without US funds and weapons.

US citizens and the Intl community has had enough of Israels moral impunity and special relationship with the US that somehow allows them to a special place in the international community, a place they have claimed since 1947.

Israel is mature enough, strong enough, and smart enough to fight their own wars. Let them do their own work. I do not want Israel's foreign policy and Israel's wars fought with US funds. We fought your war in Iraq and that is enough.

Of course, the central issue is that the Israel Lobby in the US adroitly massages the US Congress such that US funds that go to Israel, to this point, shield Israel from the anger of the international community. All at the expense of the US taxpayer.

It is sad indeed that the first African-American president of the United States defends in Israel exactly the kind of institutionalized bigotry, apartheid oppression, and racism in Israel the civil rights movement defeated in this country, a victory that made his election possible.

4:49 PM ET

"It is sad indeed that the

"It is sad indeed that the first African-American president of the United States defends in Israel exactly the kind of institutionalized bigotry, apartheid oppression, and racism in Israel the civil rights movement defeated in this country, a victory that made his election possible."

Obama opposes settlement growth in the West Bank which is what the apartheid in Israel argument hinges on. Outside of the West Bank and Gaza, Muslims, Armenians, Druze, and any other conceivable ethnic minority have rights including voting and holding elelcted office. I'm not denying there is racism, but the "institutionalization" of it is questionable. Recently the Israeli Supreme Court ruled developments in East Jerusalem and a military roadblock in the West Bank unconstitutional. The military forcibly removed settlers from Gaza in 2005 and is checking the influx of settlers in the West Bank. While you may disagree with Obama's stance on Israel it's a stretch to say he supports social backwardness which you lazily equate with the American Civil Rights movement.

Also, there is no "special relationship." The US has long supported countries and governments that don't abide by UN regulations. Israel is probably the most controversial but in this regard it is not unique.

6:21 AM ET

Reason for mistrust of Obama?

"Anxiety about Barack Obama has afflicted Israelis since his meteoric rise to the White House. Here was an untested president,..."

Israelis weren't anxious because he was untested. They were anxious because he had sat in the church of an anti-Semite for 20 years, titled a book after a phrase from the anti-Semite's sermon and had the anti-Semite officiate at his wedding!

Also, he had many anti-Israel types around him during his campaign (some of whom he had to get rid of under duress).

Foreign Policy Magazine

Inside National Security

Is Barack Obama More AIPAC Than J Street?

The U.S. president is showing that he's hardly a leftist ideologue when it comes to Middle East peace -- and Israelis are starting to notice.

BY STEVEN J. ROSEN | FEBRUARY 17, 2010

(17)