Why Obama Still Won’t Go to Israel
Why Obama Still Won’t Go to Israel « Commentary Magazine
08.21.2012 – 12:00 PM The disagreement between Israel and the Obama administration over whether it’s time to acknowledge that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program is starting to make a lot of people nervous.
Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak seem to be interpreting the administration’s staunch refusal to abandon a diplomatic track that has already clearly failed as meaning that the president won’t make good on his promise to stop Iran from going nuclear. That has led to talk that Israel will strike Iran without U.S. assistance or permission and that it may do so even before the November presidential election.
The Americans are doing everything they can to persuade the Israelis to stand down but in the absence of trust in the president, mere words may not be enough. That’s why one of Obama’s leading Jewish supporters, columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, believes it’s time for some symbolism. Goldberg writes today in Bloomberg that a long sought presidential visit to Israel before the election would do the trick. He’s right. If President Obama were to take time out from the campaign for a stop in Israel some time in the next few weeks, Netanyahu would have no choice but to postpone any attack plans. Though it is possible that Obama will listen to Goldberg, such a visit with less than 90 days before the election is a long shot. It is far more likely that the president will rely on his usual form of method of trying to communicate with the Israelis: pressure and threats aimed at making Netanyahu back down. But since that has never worked in the past, Obama’s supporters ought to be asking themselves what’s behind the president’s reluctance to act in a manner that might convince both Israelis and their Iranian foes that he isn’t fibbing about being prepared to act on the issue during his second term.
Though the Democrats’ campaign staff may think any time not spent in a swing state is a bad idea, an Obama visit to Israel now would be a coup for the president. It would monopolize media attention during the trip and thus hurt Mitt Romney. It would also bolster the president’s sagging Jewish support.
Even more important, such a dramatic gesture accompanied by a presidential speech in which he warned Iran that they must halt their nuclear program or face the consequences would convince the Israeli public that he could be relied upon to keep the promise he first made about stopping Tehran during the 2008 campaign. Under those circumstances, there would be no possibility of a unilateral Israeli attack since Netanyahu could not then justify such a move by pointing to distrust of Washington.
It would all be so easy but the question to ask about this scenario is why the president has always been so reluctant to show the Israelis some love when it would cost him so little and bring such a great reward?
The only possible answer is the one we always are forced to return to when discussing the problematic relationship between the Obama administration and Israel: the president’s equivocal feelings about the Jewish state. As veteran diplomat Aaron David Miller memorably put it a few weeks ago, Barack Obama is the first president in a generation “not in love with the idea of Israel.” That’s compounded by his open and very public dislike of Benjamin Netanyahu.
While Obama’s defenders are right to note that there’s nothing all that unusual about the lack of a visit to Israel during a first term, this is a president who has gone out of his way to pick fights with Jerusalem and to avoid the country during trips to the region. It appears that if Obama is to go to Israel, as his campaign hinted earlier during this summer, it would only be as a re-elected president with the whip hand over Netanyahu and not as a candidate who has to show some deference to his ally.
One imagines that Obama is recoiling at the very idea of being forced to pretend to be friendly with Netanyahu even if it meant avoiding an attack on Iran that he opposes or helping his re-election. Given the stakes involved, his refusal to take some good advice from a supporter tells us all we need to know about the president’s attitude toward Israel.
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
WarSclerotic 
August 21, 2012 at 8:03 PM
As an American Jew, presently, my relationships with fellow Jews who are Obama supporters are in tatters (an understatement). We can only socialize if no one brings up politics. More than one nice restaurant dinner has been ruined. I believe that if Obama is re-elected he will end any pretense of support for Israel. I often wonder just what kind of relationship I could possibly have with my fellow Jews who supported Obama. Can I even sit in synagogue with them?
August 21, 2012 at 9:11 PM
We actually dont want to see Obama landing here.
August 21, 2012 at 9:15 PM
Here is another possibility. In the light of the positive political results for Obama as a result of a visit to Israel, might his reluctance to do so be a secret hope that his passive stance will necessitate an Israeli attack. This, he hopes, will stir a massive response by Iran and its minions. The result? Israel would be mortally wounded. For Obama, that would be “Israeli Problem Solved” while still being able to then BLAME Israel while looking “righteous.”
August 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM
I do not think Jonahan Tobin understands the gravity of the situation. The time for gestures has long past. Does he really think that the Israeli leadership is going to put the lives of Israeli citizens into the hands of a US president who supports and promotes the Muslim Brotherhood, gave $900 to Hamas and was against the Kirk-Menedez Iran sanctions amendment?
The press in the US has been reluctant to discuss Islam in general and Shia eschatology in particular for so long that even journalists have fallen behind in understand what is going on. They think Israel is bluffing because they just cannot imagine that Iran is actually serious about starting a nuclear war despite the consequences to its population. Yet they disregard the warnings of people who are most qualified to judge Iran’s intentions – scholars of |Islam in the West like Bernard Lewis and Raphael Israeli both of whom believe the mutually assured destruction doctrine (MAD) will not work with Iran.
David Grossman vs. Bernard Lewis. Whom do you trust more on Iran?
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/david-grossman-vs-bernard-lewis-whom-do.html
The reason Israel will attack the Iranian nuclear facilities is actually quite straightforward. The choice is stark, either use everything you’ve got to delay Iran getting the bomb for a year and hope that something will change in the meantime, like the American electorate electing a president who would not promote the Muslim Brotherhood, or face being incinerated by a Mahdi seeking apocalyptic Twelvers. Simply put, Israel has no other choice, and when someone has no other choice they do things which to other would seem incredible.
August 21, 2012 at 9:24 PM
correction : gave $900m to Hamas
August 21, 2012 at 11:26 PM
That was back in 2009 – he’s given more to them since then. He also gave 1.5 billion to Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt recently over Congress objections.
August 21, 2012 at 9:23 PM
The sad thing is Obama’s anti-semitic views were well known long before the 2008 election. He voted against the Iran sanctions bill and surrounded himself with anti-Israel advisors. He also spent much of his campaign defending the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein.
This November a majority of American Jews will still vote for Obama, just not as many as 4 years ago.
August 21, 2012 at 11:12 PM
”I once had a Persian cat that continually scratched the furniture. I tried everything to preserve the furniture including sprays, tacky stripes, etc. In the end, the only solution was to declaw it. It turned out to be a pretty good cat after that.”
August 22, 2012 at 5:38 AM
Israel attacked Iraq and Syria to stop their nuclear programs. What makes anyone think they won’t annihilate Iran. The US said using atomics on Japan saved a million allied soldiers. Why wouldn’t Israel do the same thing to save six million Israelis?
August 22, 2012 at 6:01 AM
Perhaps because very few people on earth would understand if one nation uses nuclear weapons to try to prevent that another nation develops the means and knowledge to build a nuclear weapon if ever they would decide to do so?
August 22, 2012 at 6:13 AM
If Israel found itself on the throws of defeat in a multi front attack, they’d have no choice!
August 22, 2012 at 5:58 AM
“That’s compounded by his open and very public dislike of Benjamin Netanyahu”.
As Mr. Obama is hardly the only one to dislike Mr. Netanyahu, one could wonder if this dislike might be caused by Mr. Netanyahu’s rather rude way of pushing his agenda or even his personality in general.
August 22, 2012 at 1:02 PM
Some of you seem to have conveniently forgotten how Netanyahu has done his own bit to sour the relationship with Obama, for instance allowing 1600 settlements to be built in East Jerusalem during Jo Biden’s visit in 2009, scuppering any chance of peace talks with the Palestinians which Obama was trying to organise. Israel has every right to be concerned about the threat to Iran, but blaming the US’s reluctance to rush into war on Obama being anti-Semitic is wrong.
I personally believe war is all but inevitable given Iran’s intransigence; I also think Syria is part of this chess game, and the US is waiting for the right moment. Israel rushing into war on its own is not a good idea; getting the US and other Western/Arab/Asian allies (I’d say ‘the international community’ here but Russia and China are actively working against us here) on side first is important and will happen, in good time.
August 22, 2012 at 4:33 PM
Hopefully, we won’t be having this conversation this time next year. Iran will be neutralized and President Romney will be congratulating the Israelis.