Matt Yglesias

Bibi’s Speech

Eli Lake reports for The Washington Times that Bibi Netanyahu is prepared to make major concessions toward the Palestinians. This turns out to mean that he’s willing to accept, in principle, that someday there should be a Palestinian state. But only after all kinds of conditions are met and so on and so forth. Spencer Ackerman aptly characterizes this as Bibi stepping boldly into the cutting edge thinking circa 1993.

That said, while cynicism is appropriate, it shouldn’t cloud all. Politics is a pretty cynical business, and there’s always been a lot of cynicism in Netanyahu’s hard-line approach. A cynical and nominal embrace of a two-state solution still means that there’s no longer any meaningful Israeli political space to the right of the common sense and appropriate view that the only way for Israel to enjoy long-term security is by peacefully coexisting with an independent Palestine. What will follow from that in practice is, as of yet, hard to see. But a great deal follows from that logically. In particular, on the controversy du jour regarding settlements, it’s crystal clear as a matter of logic that if you can’t have a settlement freeze then you also can’t ever have a Palestinian state. Conversely, if you believe there needs to be a Palestinian state, then no matter what you think about when or how that should happen, you’re ineluctably drawn to the conclusion that the settlement project needs to be halted. Will Netanyahu embrace those conclusions? Well, I have my doubts. But the terms of the debate are nonetheless changed by him shifting his position, however much the “shift” doesn’t amount to anything beyond Israel formally accepting Israel’s responsibility for Israel’s previous diplomatic commitments.

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.

Bibi’s Media Strategy

Via Spencer Ackerman, Mike Calderone reports on Benjamin Netanyahu’s meetings with journalists:

Now I’ve heard some more of the big name journalists who met with the Israeli Prime Minister on Monday: George Stephanopoulos (ABC), Chris Wallace (Fox News), Jeffrey Goldberg (The Atlantic), David Brooks (New York Times), Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard), Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune), and Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times).

There was also a crew from the Washington Post: Jackson Diehl, Jim Hoagland, David Ignatius and Charles Krauthammer.

There’s some diversity in there, but overall a distinctly right-of-center tilt. That’s interesting, considering that all the levers of government are in Democratic hands. Normally, an Israeli Prime Minister attempts a strategy of bonding/courtship of the political powers that be. This seems more like a meeting roster for an “outsider” strategy, in which Netanyahu is expecting the administration to do things he doesn’t like, and then to try to mobilize the US domestic opposition to slam Obama for it and make him back down.

As Netanyahu Heads to Town, Israel Launches New Settlement

Maybe Barack Obama can mention something about this?

Israel has moved ahead with a plan to build a new settlement in the northern West Bank for the first time in 26 years, pursuing a project the United States has already condemned as an obstacle to peace efforts. The move comes on the eve of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s first meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, despite Western calls for Israel to halt its settlement activity. [...]

The initiative began three years ago, under the auspices of then-defense minister Amir Peretz, who promised to transform a former army outpost into a permanent settlement for evacuees from the Gaza Strip. The move was then frozen due to American insistence.

Realistically, I think both Obama and Netanyahu face strong political incentives to paper over their differences rather to have Obama state his position forcefully. In the short term, Palestinians will probably pay the biggest price for that. But Israel and the United States will come to grief, too, soon enough.