WarSclerotic

Tough love from the President who wants to ‘throw Israel under a bus’ – Obama visits Israel Israel News | Haaretz.

Obama’s challenge to Israel’s conventional wisdom was coated in support and sympathy. After this visit, it will be much harder for Obama’s rivals to claim that he has Israel’s worst interests at heart.

By Chemi Shalev | Mar.22, 2013 | 2:31 AM | 21

Obama speaks in the Convention Center in Jerusalem. Photo by AFP

By Judy Maltz, Anshel Pfeffer, Barak Ravid and Haaretz

Mar.22,2013 | 2:31 AM | 7

One can only speculate what history might have looked like if United States President Barack Obama had made his “Jerusalem Speech” on June 5, 2009, immediately after his “Cairo Speech”, and how the Middle East would have developed if his attempt to turn a page in U.S. relations with the Arab world had been accompanied by the kind of effort to touch the hearts of the Israeli public that Obama made in Jerusalem on Thursday.

Because there’s never been quite such a speech by any U.S. president: “dugri” and direct, admonishing words wrapped in thick layers of support and understanding, sympathy and concern, “tough love” as it was originally intended. The promos from the White House that had built up the speech as the centerpiece of the entire visit, turned out, in retrospect, to be grossly understated.

There wasn’t one Israeli button that Obama didn’t push during the speech and throughout his entire visit: from Holocaust to redemption, anxiety to bravery, victimhood to victory, ancient rights to start-up nation. He embraced Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, complimented his wife, adopted his children and commemorated his hero brother, all in an effort to wipe the slate clean and start anew, as far as possible. He threatened Iran, warned Syria, denounced Hezbollah, criticized Hamas and even tried to get Mahmoud Abbas to come down from the tree of a settlement freeze (which Obama had caused him to climb in the first place).

And he did all of this only as a prologue, a warm up, a pregame show before the main event, which turned out be just a few paragraphs from a long speech that he made to a few hundred students in Jerusalem’s Binyanei Ha’uma. Iran’s nuclear weapons and Syria’s chemical arsenal may have topped the agenda behind closed doors, but the high point of Obama’s public visit, its rhetorical and emotional crescendo, was reached in his challenging words about occupation, settlements and peace with the Palestinians, without which, he suggested, Israel’s future, security, and wellbeing are at risk.

Obama posed the kinds of questions that are hardly asked aloud anymore in the Israeli mainstream, swamped as it is in a steady stream of jingoistic, right-wing rhetoric, associated as it has become with people who are portrayed as loony liberals and self-hating leftists. He confronted the conventional wisdom that time is on our side and the status quo is working in our favor. He asked, blasphemy indeed, that Israelis try and look at the world through Palestinian eyes. He conducted, how ironic, the kind of values-based peace campaign which so-called center-left parties were so afraid of in the recent election campaign, because they thought it was toxic.

In this regard, Obama pulled a Bibi on Netanyahu on Thursday: he played on his home field, but for the rival team. Just as conservative Republicans in America would anoint Netanyahu as their leader in an instant, so too Obama yesterday became the resolute and persuasive spokesman that the Israeli center-left so desperately needs; one who could convince the public that his – or her – support for a two-state solution “along the known parameters” does not contradict his great love for Israel, but quite the contrary.

This is the real Obama, his acquaintances say, no masks and no makeup. Obama, “the Jewish President” as Peter Beinart described him in The Crisis of Zionism, whose formative years in public life were spent alongside liberal Zionist Jews who taught him of the Jewish battle for civil rights and of the Jewish belief in a just and enlightened Israel, before the occupation started taking its toll.

This is the same Obama whose naïve assumptions and mistakes borne of inexperience served as fodder for the nefarious jihad of hate and venom and plain old bigotry that his rivals and enemies have waged against him since his first election campaign, a foul and sometimes deranged campaign that is without precedent in the annals of relations between Jews, both American and Israelis, and American Presidents. This is the man who is routinely compared to the worst Jew-haters and baiters in history, from Pharaoh to Haman to Ahmadinejad, who is hell bent on “throwing Israel under the bus” as Mitt Romney repeatedly and recklessly asserted during the recent election campaign.

In this regard, Obama will henceforth be a much tougher rival for his right-wing conservative critics. After this visit, they will be hard pressed to convince many Israelis – and many American Jews, for that matter – that Obama is a rabid Israel-hater and Muslim sympathizer who has the country’s worst interests at heart. His admonitions, even if rejected, will be categorized under the Proverbs saying of “faithful are the wounds of a friend”.

And contrary to all the learned projections and analyses, it turns out that the U.S. fully intends to try and reignite the peace process, as Obama made clear in his Ramallah press conference with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, he said, “intends to spend significant time, effort, and energy in trying to bring about a closing of the gap between the parties”. This may not make much of an impression on cynical Israelis and Palestinians who expect nothing less than a full-court presidential press in a Camp David style summit, but in the real world, the announcement that America’s most senior cabinet secretary will personally engage in Middle East peace efforts amounts to a dramatic declaration of intent.

“I recognize that there are those who are not simply skeptical about peace, but question its underlying premise”, said Obama, in words that also apply to a large number of the ministers who have just taken up their seats around Israel’s cabinet table. Obama responded to the cynicism, frustration and resignation to eternal strife that have become the hallmark of modern Israelese with the American language of hope, optimism and belief in change with which he has won two elections.

It remain to be seen, of course, whether anything will be left of Obama’s brave efforts to confront Israelis with themselves after Air Force One takes off today, or whether he has indeed planted a seed of hope – or an illusion – that yes, we also can. Even if it’s 4 years too late.

Israel’s defense, political establishments understand Obama’s not bluffing on Iran – Obama visits Israel Israel News | Haaretz.

He has warmed hearts here and gained trust, making up for a sour first impression left during his previous term as president. But despite all the gains, Obama still has to convince Netanyahu on a timetable for attacking Iran, as well as on issues of the West Bank and settlements.

Barack Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu on the tarmac at Ben Gurion International Airport. Photo by GPO

By Haaretz | Mar.22,2013 | 12:50 PM

Both the defense and the political establishments in Israel believe U.S. President Barack Obama when he promises he will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even by use of force. Obama is now perceived here as a tough leader who doesn’t get queasy when it comes to taking tough measures. In spite of mounting criticism hurled at him with regard to human rights infringements, he is relentless in using unmanned drones to eliminate enemies of the U.S.

Leaders such as these, who prefer issuing operational orders over considering the Geneva Convention, are beloved by those who shape Israel’s defense policies. Clearly, they would love to take part in the White House’s forum on operations and strike missions, and would gladly welcome the president to similar forums at Defense Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv.

In the U.S. military preparations are now underway for a possible strike against Iran, and this has proved to people here that Obama is reliable. In Israel, the details of the plans against Iran are known. Senior officials say that Obama shares their assessment that a nuclear Iran will lead to an overturn in the balance of power in the region, one that cannot be tolerated. Such a development would pose real threats to vital American interests. Obama, therefore, is preparing a military option while all the while striving for diplomatic negotiations with the Iranians.

But the U.S. and Israel don’t agree on everything. The primary sticking point is on the timetable, based on the discrepancies in the two nations’ military capabilities, as well as their vulnerability. The window of opportunity in which Israel can do significant damage to Iran is closing – if it isn’t shut already. The Americans have vastly superior means and can operate for longer periods. Obama, therefore, is in no hurry and wants to fully exploit diplomatic channels first.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on the other hand, is concerned that Israel will stall so long that the opportunity will be missed, and at that point circumstances could change and Obama might no longer be able or willing to deliver on his promises. This is the core of their disagreement, which was evident in Obama’s public appearances while in Israel. Israel’s safety margins are considerably narrower, and it takes a lot of hugs and soothing remarks to keep the country quiet while Obama handles things.

Obama’s visit to Israel erased the bad impression he left here during his first term. His supportive speeches are similar to those made in the past by the greatest friends of Israel in Washington: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Obama has impressive rhetorical skills and is able to charm audiences, as he amply demonstrated on his visit. At the official state dinner at President Shimon Peres’ residence, Obama was relaxed, full of humor, easily speaking without the teleprompter used in his official speeches. This was not the sour-faced president, sticking to prepared talking points, who met Netanyahu in the Oval Office on earlier occasions.

One can assume that the public warmth Obama exhibited toward “my friend Bibi” was also evident behind closed doors. Both of these men understand politics and know that the election campaigns are behind them, requiring them to work together from now on. Getting closer on a personal basis makes the relationship easier, as does the increased understanding over Iran.

But this doesn’t resolve their fundamental dispute over the West Bank, the occupation or the settlements. Netanyahu, according to close associates, is angry with the settlers who rejected him and supported his rival Naftali Bennett. It is doubtful whether this will make him embrace Obama’s call for peace, liberty and justice for the Palestinians. This is why the president appealed directly to the Israeli public, calling on it to bring about political change from below.

Obama, Israel and cyber warfare | JPost | Israel News.

Hezbollah slams Obama call for terrorist label | JPost | Israel News.

Obama, Netanyahu grant Iran another three months’ grace.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 22, 2013, 9:34 AM (GMT+02:00)

Iran red line disappears under the red carpet

President Barack Obama persuaded Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in their talks in Jerusalem this week to give Tehran three more months to work through nuclear diplomacy with the P5+1 group of world powers (US, Russia, France, UK, China and Germany), debkafile discloses. After June, this format for resolving the Iranian nuclear issue will be judged to have run its course.

When the US president said “There is still time for diplomacy,” he added, “But Iran must know this. Time is not unlimited. Whatever time is left, there’s not a lot of time.”

When Netanyahu pointed out that the US and Israel might have different timetables and called for “a clear and credible threat of military action,” because “the clock is ticking,” Obama replied that all options were on the table and “We will do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from getting the world’s worst weapons” – a pledge he repeated in his speech to Israeli students Thursday, March 21.
Talking to reporters Wednesday, the US president allowed, “Each country has to make its own decisions… when it comes to engaging in military action. And Israel is differently situated than the United States.”

This public exchange of views undoubtedly sparked Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s bellicose televised rejoinder Thursday: “At times the officials of the Zionist regime threaten to launch a military invasion,” he said. “But they themselves know that if they make the slightest mistake, the Islamic Republic will raze Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground.”
In private, debkafile’s military and intelligence sources disclose, the American and Israeli leaders agreed to keep the diplomatic window open until after Iran’s presidential election on June 24. This does not necessarily mean that a joint US-Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities – or a lone Israeli military strike – will go forward the next day; only that a timeline for bringing the military option forward ahead of the diplomatic track is now before Tehran.

Obama explained to Netanyahu that he owed Khamenei the freedom to conduct Iran’s presidential election campaign without a bludgeon hanging over his head, in return for the same courtesy the Iranian leader afforded him in the run-up to his own re-election last November. In the campaign for his candidate, said the president, Khamenei can’t afford to show weakness by making concessions on the national nuclear program. After that, Obama trusts he will be more flexible.
All in all, on one pretext or another, Tehran has been able to shake off any “credible threat of military action” to curb its nuclear program for a decade or more. And there is no guarantee that things will be different after June 24.

What Obama Said About Iran – The Daily Beast.

Love for the magical Mr. Obama | The Times of Israel.

Local media gushes over the US president’s speech to Israeli students, especially his use of Hebrew phrases of comfort

US President Barack Obama waves to the crowd after addressing Israeli students at the International Convention Center in Jerusalem, Thursday, March 21 (photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

US President Barack Obama delivered a stirring speech at the International Convention Center in Jerusalem on Thursday; it was up to the Israeli press to pick it apart, and discern what he meant by it, on Friday. The thing they loved most: the Hebrew.

Maariv devotes a walloping 11 pages to its coverage of Obama’s activities around Israel and the Palestinian territories, but leads off with a full translation of the president’s address. One analysis piece in the paper says the atmosphere among the students in the crowd was like that of a rock concert. One member of the crowd who was interviewed had voted for Mitt Romney in the last US elections, but was nonetheless excited to attend.

“Because it’s the president of the United States,” he said flatly, clarifying that it’s star status, no matter what your political ideology is,” the daily writes.

Columnist Shalom Yerushalmi writes that the crux of Obama’s speech was that Israel is “strong enough to make peace with the Palestinians, and to give them an independent state, and thus you will also not lose your state’s Jewish and democratic identity.” He made it about the Palestinian issue, first and foremost, but were it up to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who “wanted Iran to stand at the center of things” in the speech, Obama wouldn’t have made the Palestinian issue so essential, Yerushalmi writes.

“The prime minister would have been happy to lock up the Palestinian file in a drawer and throw the key into the sea off Gaza. Obama saw what was the important and burning matter to him. After the carrot comes the stick,” he says.

Israel Hayom plays up the big quote in Hebrew from the speech — “Atem lo levad” — “You’re not alone,” which it displays prominently on the paper’s front page. Boaz Bismuth picks the speech apart, saying the first half was the “Likud Obama” and the second half was the “Meretz Obama.” The first part of the speech appealed to those concerned with Israeli security; the second appealed to those concerned about a Palestinian future, but both parts included the president’s magical delivery, he says.

“Obama came to Israel to try to enchant, and he succeeded at it,” Bismuth writes in his Page 3 column. “He chose to speak directly to the young, in order for them to help the new secretary of state, John Kerry, in his negotiation work and the coming battle.”

“Obama, the good friend of Bibi, spoke clearly about two states for two peoples, when one of them… is Jewish. The time has also come for the [Palestinian] Authority to internalize” the message, he writes. The real issue, according to Bismuth, is whether Obama will deliver like former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, or whether his speech was just good oratory.

The paper’s coverage of “Obamageddon” in Israel takes up the first 15 pages of Israel Hayom’s Friday edition.

Yedioth Ahronoth also puts the “You’re not alone” quote on the front page, splashed over a picture of Obama receiving the Presidential Medal of Distinction from his counterpart, Shimon Peres. On the inside pages, next to the photos of Obama and Peres smiling and raising their glasses at the state dinner held in the visiting leader’s honor, the key words in Yedioth’s analyses of the speech were “love” and “magic.”

Nahum Barnea writes that Obama didn’t come to bring a peace plan, but rather “to calm, to convince, to conquer.” He sums up the president’s speech this way: “The cost involved in establishing a Palestinian state is dwarfed by the benefits that will crop up with the end of the occupation.” Barnea says the speech had a good combination of “a broad historical canvas, a traditional worldview, experiences from the field, information, emotion, warmth, specific criticism.”

“The praises were a lover’s praises; the injuries were a lover’s injuries,” he gushes.

Hanoch Daum writes about “the moment that enchanted me” during Obama’s speech, and Sima Kadmon says that “Israel is in love.”

“On the president’s second day in Israel, it’s definitely possible to determine that Israel is enamored,” Kadmon writes. “The sensation was that if they had ballots at the convention center, Obama would have been elected prime minister of Israel.”

Haaretz leads with what the daily saw as the crux of the speech: “Demand peace from your leaders,” reads the headline. The paper’s editorial urges readers to pay attention to Obama, who pushed for security “through a fair and just peace, based on two states for two peoples,” and international diplomacy to thwart an Iranian nuke rather than unilateral Israeli military action.

“Obama’s objective on his trip to Israel was achieved: He conquered the hearts of Israelis and gave them a sense of security, in the hope that now they will assume the responsibility and push their leaders towards a peace agreement with the Palestinians,” it writes. “Let’s hope that Obama’s vision will fall on attentive ears.”

Nehemia Shtrasler is less enamored of Obama than are the others. He writes that the president’s real objective in visiting Israel and pushing for peace was to “bring quiet, promote trade, and, most important: allow the free and cheap flow of oil to the United States.”

He says that the majority of the conversations between the two heads of state were about Iran and Syria and that Obama seeks to empower Israel in order to protect American interests in the Middle East. “What the two said to each other on the peace process with the Palestinians was only poetic license. Obama will not stop Israel’s continued wallowing in the swamp of occupation on its way to a binational state, which will be the end of the Zionist dream.”

“If we don’t see a significant peace process here in the coming years, what will be left is just internal affairs. And the new government was established exactly for that: to deal with the economic-social-civil sphere,” he warns.

Israel, Turkey agree to normalize relations | The Times of Israel.

Obama, brokering dramatic reconciliation, says it’s important the two nations restore good ties so they can cooperate on regional security

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (left) with US President Barack Obama during a bilateral meeting last March (photo credit: AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

In a reconciliation demanded and brokered by President Barack Obama Friday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke by telephone and agreed to end three years of frozen relations.

In the first conversation between the leaders since 2009, Netanyahu made it clear that the tragic consequences of the Mavi Marmara flotilla interception in May 2010 — in which nine Turkish citizens died — were not intended and expressed sorrow for the loss of life. He also agreed to compensate family members of the victims.

Turkey and Israel were once close allies, but relations unraveled in recent years, exacerbated in 2010 by the Israeli interception of the Mavi Marmara as it sought to break Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip.

The two leaders also agreed to cooperate on improving the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

The leaders agreed to return their respective ambassadors and pledged to overcome differences.

Obama said he welcomed the move and that it was important the two nations restore good relations so they can cooperate on regional security. The call came on the final day of Obama’s trip to Israel.

Last year, Erdogan accused Israel’s leaders of trying to eliminate the Palestinian population in Gaza. And the Turkish leader recently compared Zionism to Fascism at a UN meeting, prompting US Secretary of State John Kerry to object and say the remark complicated Mideast peace efforts. Erdogan said this week he had been misunderstood.

Israel Hayom | Iran Tango Foxtrot.

Israel Hayom | First love, then war?.