Will Congress Bail Bibi Out?
Josh Marshall thinks that Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in Israel probably can’t survive a prolonged confrontation with Barack Obama over the settlement freeze issue. I tend to agree and reach a similar conclusion in my new TAP Online column. But what Josh doesn’t mention is what I take to be the cornerstone of Netanyahu’s strategy—bringing domestic political pressure on Obama.
Thus far, Obama’s taken some really hard hits mostly from the likes of Charles Krauthammer and has only gotten pretty gentle pressure from even very AIPAC-friendly Democrats like Steny Hoyer. But it’s possible that those goes will turn up the temperature, and create a political dynamic in which Obama starts being eager to find some sort of face-saving compromise. At the moment, in other words, the key issue in that part of the world has to do with congressional politics thousands of miles away. The contest here is about whose domestic coalition will remain further. Based on what I’ve seen, most Israelis don’t like the idea of a real settlement freeze. But they’re not fanatics about it, and they like the idea of alienating the United States even less. If Obama continues to have supporters in the media, on the Hill, and among the grassroots, then Bibi will either need to back down or his coalition will be forced out of office.
This, in turn, is why things like J Street helping out Rep Donna Edwards (D-MD) after hawks started threatening to mount a primary challenge against her is so important. If we have a situation in which members of congress willing to stick with Obama aren’t fighting alone, then it becomes much easier for the administration to maintain allies on the Hill and stick to its guns.
30 Responses to “Will Congress Bail Bibi Out?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 11th, 2009 at 11:43 am
But it’s possible that those goes will turn up the temperature.
Was that supposed to be “guys” or “goys”?
June 11th, 2009 at 11:46 am
“goes” = “guys”
“further” = “firmer”
let’s hope obama can back him down.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:49 am
To paraphrase General Sherman, President Osama must be made to feel the hard hand of AIPAC.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:58 am
So, the response is to increase the political costs to the unregistered foreign agents in the US who want to apply Bibi’s pressure for him, to point out that he had no choice and so is a prisoner in his own government, and that it’s only a matter of time before Netanyahu’s government falls, so why deal with him anyway?
Funny that the elections in Israel swung to the right and yet there isn’t enough support for them on this issue, there or here, and that all Obama has to do is enforce what’s been the de nomine position of the US for a very long time.
Actually, no. It’s stupid that Netanyahu would step in this one, but I’m forgetting my own talking points [ahem] he had no choice, he’s a prisoner in his own government …
June 11th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Rest assured that AIPAC, America’s fifth column, will do everything in its power to undermine Pres. Obama’s attempts to press for an I/P peace.
If moderate American Jews who approve of Pres. Obama’s efforts speak out vociferously, there might be some hope of resisting the AIPAC efforts to bribe or threaten members of Congress.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Please, AIPAC is a fig leaf to cover the laundering of Israeli aid back to American military contractors. It’s not so much a bunch of jingoists as it is a very large advertising firm. It’s not like domestic American political rhetoric doesn’t also engage in bogeymanism for the sake of sucking down huge government revenues.
Then again, I expect that the Israeli right and Hamas will renew their alliance against peace. If peace breaks out, they’ll have to get real jobs.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Just to be clear: in #4 I’m addressing Yglesias’ point about Congressional allies. In #6, I’m addressing #5’s comment about AIPAC, specifically.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Reading this post motivated me to give $50 to JStreet. Still, I really don’t appreciate the comments above, calling AIPAC a fifth column. Beyond being redolent of similar comments against peace groups in the runup to the Iraq war, this comment completely ignores that people who support AIPAC really do think that Israel’s interests (especially as seen from the Likud point of view) completely align with American interests. They are wrong, but they are patriotic and do not hold these views to work against the U.S., and it is both offensive and all too reminiscent of GOP-tactics to suggest otherwise.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
This comment taken from the Israelinsider web site tells it like it is.
http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/begin-no-twostage-solution-to
Comment by Sharbano 2 hours ago
A two state solution will bring stability to Israel,.
Not likely. The only stability, according to the Muslim mindset is when there is No Israel. There’s No Denying That. We’ve heard for some time the term “peace and security” used by many politicians. How many of those using that term really understand the ramifications of that term. Peace and security “with” Justice, is the Arabic way of wording the ultimate goal. I wonder if you understand the purpose and meaning of the usage of those terms. The West thinks of these terms in their own definition and not the way of the Arabic understanding. It requires an understanding of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Until a person understands These, then there will be no understanding of what the Arabic countries goals are. “Peace and Security” are a political end for the Arabs. When these words are used it simply means that Dar al-Islam will prevail and thereby giving control to Islam and being ruled by Sharia Law. When this is in effect there is peace. When people subjugate themselves to Sharia there is then true peace and security, because Islam will “protect” those under their rule. Under their rule, those who are Not Muslim will Have to be subservient to all other Muslims, as there is No equality when it comes to infidels. It would be similar to the idea of Hitler, y’mach shmo, whereby the white Aryan race was superior to all other races. This is the same philosophy of Islam. This is why a person must Really look close at the words the Arabs use because it conveys completely different messages. A person can notice that when speaking of Fatach and Hamas negotiating, the word used is “reconciliation”, and Not peace. To the Arab, the word “peace” merely means an “absence of war”. According to the Arabs there was “peace” between the Arabs and Jews in the recent past, as they were Not At war. You’ll know the situation has changed when the Arabs will speak of “reconciliation” with the Jews and Not peace. Unfortunately, many, if not all, the leaders of Israel are unaware of this, and as a result the negotiations are nothing more than misunderstandings. The same problem has plagued those in the West also. To few people have an understanding of Arabs, Muslims, And Islam.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Zionism is a disgrace.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Re abb1
Mr. abb1 is the slime of the bottom of the cesspool.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
While I think calling AIPAC a “fifth collumn” is extreme, I don’t think the above comment is correct.
I don’t see how the people at AIPAC could fail to see how the policies they support harm America’s interests. The only benefit of these policies is the altruistic aspect of maintaining a homeland for people who suffered horrors at the hands of western civilization. The question is how much should we harm our strategic interests to further this altruistic goal. AIPAC believes the answer is “A whole lot.” Most Americans disagree. If there were a strategic aspect to this issue, there would be a real possiility that the American people simply did not understand the benefits they were getting. That is not the case. Since the benefits are entirely altruistic, whatever benefits Americans think we are getting are exactly what they are getting.
AIPAC is in the business of procuring for Israel more benefit than the people of America want to give it at the expense of America’s interests. This doesn’t mean that they have greater loyalty to Israel than they do to the US. Generally, the negative impact on the US is small compared to the positive impact on Israel. But make no mistake, the impact on the US is negative.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Yes, that’s what they’re all like. That what they all want. You know, there’s a word for this kind of attitude (actually several, none of them kind).
After all these years, this kind of psychobabble is actually pretty funny.
Thanks for overplaying your hand all this time. You’ve only made it easier.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
SLC:
Fixed that for you.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
SLC: “To paraphrase General Sherman, President Osama must be made to feel the hard hand of AIPAC.”
Just how small is your penis?
June 11th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Re Mythbuster
Not as big as Clarence Thomas’ favorite movie actor, but I suppose we could say that about everybody, including Clarence.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Re SS
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, if the author of that piece was smoking crack, find out what his brand is so we can provide it for our Middle East advisers.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
It’s the brand of crack that makes you hallucinate and write utter tripe that has no resemblance at all to the truth. Kind of like what you snort.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Snort crack? I don’t think that works.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Perhaps AIPAC can win the battle here, but lose the war. Think Chancellorsville or Chickamauga, not the March to the Sea.
I am sure that Ehud Olmert publicly boasting how he made Condi Rice climb down over a UN resolution made Israel a few enemies in Washington. Pissing off a powerful President who has set out to remake US relations with the Arab world and may be in power for seven more years, while Bibi may be gone with the wind in a few months, is probably not in the best interests of Israel.
Sherman drove a powerful army through his enemy’s heartland, and proved the Confederacy was hollow within. I think Obama is more likely to do that to Nathanyahu than the reverse. The election arithmetic says so.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Keep an eye on The New Republic. If its starts to moan, something is afoot…
June 11th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Hasn’t stopped SLC from trying.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Re SS
Mr. SS mainlines smack.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
…people who support AIPAC really do think that Israel’s interests (especially as seen from the Likud point of view) completely align with American interests.
There are people who are scared of AIPAC, there are people who use AIPAC for their personal or corporate interests, and there are also clueless people who support AIPAC.
The clueless folks who support AIPAC only have one thought that they think over and over again, it goes: “is this good for the Jews?”
June 11th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I think you shouldn’t be taking bets on who will win. That’s horse-race reporting, not commentary.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Once again, when is this moving from TALK to ACTION?
If Obama doesn’t threaten concrete CONSEQUENCES – the sort of “consequences” he and Clinton regularly threaten Iran and North Korea with, i.e., sanctions, and in Israel’s case, cutoff of foreign and military aid – exactly WHAT leverage does he have over Netanyahu?
Just talking about freezing settlements will do NOTHING to cause Netanyahu’s government to fall, let alone actually freeze settlements or move Israel toward negotiating in good faith (the last is a joke since Israel will ever negotiate in good faith).
June 11th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
“ever” should be “never” in last line.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Re abb1
Mr. abb1 is a piece of filth.
June 12th, 2009 at 1:47 am
I wonder if SLC pasted Sharbano’s comment as an example that there are folks more insane than himself, or with intended approval?
Sharbano complains that “peace” for Arabs means merely “absence of war” (and why is it incorrect? but what the heck), so it is a dangerous misunderstanding, because not only those Hitler-like “ymach shmo”’s use word peace, but… hear hear! that use word “reconciliation”. Or actually they talk only about reconciliation.
So let me put it straight: if Arabs use word “peace” it is bad, because it is a shorthand for “submission to Islam”. If they avoid word “peace” and say “reconciliation” instead, it is even worse, because … well? why exactly? I am reading it twice more, and here it is: “a person must Really look close at the words the Arabs use because it conveys completely different messages.”
Duh. Try to convert some plurals to singulars and vice versa and make some other charitable edits, but is it possible to imbue it with some sense?
[An ancient joke from my old country: “Why is the canary different? Because it has left leg more.”
I mean, does Sharbano script pass reverse Turing test: write a short script with the same “philosophical and political acumen”?
Outline: read text about some Arab statements, pull out some two words at random, word1 and word2
echo do not trust! Arabs! Muslim! Never trust!
echo Umma! Sharia! they think only Umma and Sharia!
echo do not trust word1! they think only Umma and Sharia!
echo Europeans stupid! they could trust word1 even if
echo Arab spaked!
echo do not trust word2! they want to make us dhimmi!
echo American left stupid! they trust word2!
echo they want to kill us all!
June 13th, 2009 at 11:47 am
[...] it seems that Joe Lieberman appeared on Bloomberg and joined efforts by congressional hawks to bail Bibi Netanyahu out of his clash with the United States government by putting pressure on Barack Obama to back off his [...]