Cheers to America
Regardless of this president or another one, a Republican or a Democratic Congress, you can only envy the American political system which proved in the midterm elections that it is a stable democracy.
It was already assumed in our holy and literary sources that there is no greater joy than malicious joy. Look at the Israeli chieftains smiling happily — for the “evildoer” from the White House has indeed suffered a smashing failure. The national mood pendulum swings fast between deep depression and happiness; however, very regretfully, the situation remains as it is. The hopes in Israel are skyrocketing, because the Republicans granted Obama a downfall in the House of Representatives. The justice, according to the leaders of Israel, although being late to come, has indeed arrived. From now on, as all the analysts and political weather forecasters estimate, Obama will drop his pressure on Israel; the Israeli government will be able to do whatever it wants; the conflict with the Palestinians will disappear and Iran will join the Zionist Federation and come unto Zion redeemed.
The prime minister’s visit to the U.S., just days after the president’s defeat, is surely taken by Obama’s enemies in Israel as a victory tour. The prime minister’s retorts on the Americans’ dissatisfaction concerning the construction in Jerusalem are also audacious and becoming more self-confident. What to do if President Obama gets worked up, and his responses aren’t that soft from the diplomatic viewpoint.
The joy, as usual in our province, is very premature. The American Congress is conquered by the Republicans, but President Obama is still sitting in the White House. The optimists are hoping that the president has learned the bitter lesson and will back off his grandiose plans apropos the peace in the Middle East, cease pressuring Israel and concentrate on domestic issues. The pessimists are not ready to be convinced that the painful blow Obama has suffered will lead him to a new policy toward Israel and the Arab world. It makes sense to examine the two approaches in light of the circumstances and tremendous challenges Israel faces.
Let’s suppose that the new, allegedly pro-Israeli Congress will thwart any president’s initiative in the foreign policy field, including Israel. What is the alternative the Republicans offer? The American policy is complicated, not perfect — but nevertheless, there is an order in it. The power of the president, with its wings clipped, is still strong, surely, in foreign policy.
A check of the history of the last decades when the Republicans were in control in the U.S. does not leave room for great hopes that perhaps they will pull for Israel the “chestnut from the fire.”* In Bush the father’s time, the U.S. conducted an aggressive policy toward Israel. Although one cannot compare historical periods precisely, nevertheless, we won’t be wrong to rule that the American pressure under Bush the father had been, at least, similar to that put on Israel today.
Netanyahu knows this well, for wasn’t he a member of the Israeli delegation to the talks in the Madrid conference? The head of the Israeli delegation, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was dragged against his will into an international conference he rejected till the end. The results of non-advancement in the peace process and Shamir’s refusal to give in to the American demands drove the Republican Bush to impose on Israel the heaviest economic sanctions: cutting off credit of $10 billion that was supposed to address the absorption of mass immigration.
Bush the son also didn’t leave Israel alone and give her a free hand to do anything. The “Road Map for Peace in the Middle East” was a product of Bush the son’s designs — a plan accepted by Israel with many reservations (14 of them). Bush the son didn’t deny the agreements signed between Israel and the Palestiniansm, and didn’t go for unilateral moves. Bush the son objected to the building of new neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, and whoever remembers his secretary of state’s tours cannot forget her trips to our region. The discovery by foreign sources of Bush the son’s position on Israel’s plan to bomb a reactor in Syria does not support the comprehensive saying that the Republicans are “good” while the Democrats are “bad.” Moreover, for generations the Republicans did not support the unification of Jerusalem nor recognized its status as the capital of Israel, and they, too, supported establishment of the Palestinian state more or less within the borders of ’67.
Too Early to Rejoice
Anyone who takes an utmost joy in Obama’s downfall in Congress will do better to wait. The American policy is a policy of checks and balances, of continuing negotiations between Congress and the White House and there is nothing new in this. Obama will need to sweat more, to invest more of his time and energy in running dialogues with the House of Representatives — however, his power still won’t be harmed to the point of him being wasted. The Americans have a weird custom called governmental stability. You’re not to expect fundamental changes here.
Israel is standing on the threshold of a critical period from a security and political standpoint. Only with the help of the U.S., that is to say, the presidential administration and Congress, can Israel be capable of ensuring her future. Israel absolutely depends on the U.S., for the good and for the bad, in spite of all the voices heard in Israel. In the two coming years, Obama’s policy will not change from one extreme to another. The prime minister’s expressions and the intentional leaks by those surrounding him are not accidental at all. The Iranian problem is not going to be solved without the U.S., and on the other hand, the Palestinian problem is not going to find its solution without American mediation.
Irrespective of this president or another, a Republican or a Democratic Congress, it is best to envy in a good way the American political system, which has proved once again during the recent Congressional elections that it is a stable democratic system, orderly and possessing a long tradition. At least on this, we’re given free rein to say “Long Live America.”
*Translator’s note: To do a difficult task for someone.
It was already assumed in our holy and literary sources that there is no greater joy than malicious joy. Look at the Israeli chieftains smiling happily — for the “evildoer” from the White House has indeed suffered a smashing failure. The national mood pendulum swings fast between deep depression and happiness; however, very regretfully, the situation remains as it is. The hopes in Israel are skyrocketing, because the Republicans granted Obama a downfall in the House of Representatives. The justice, according to the leaders of Israel, although being late to come, has indeed arrived. From now on, as all the analysts and political weather forecasters estimate, Obama will drop his pressure on Israel; the Israeli government will be able to do whatever it wants; the conflict with the Palestinians will disappear and Iran will join the Zionist Federation and come unto Zion redeemed.
The prime minister’s visit to the U.S., just days after the president’s defeat, is surely taken by Obama’s enemies in Israel as a victory tour. The prime minister’s retorts on the Americans’ dissatisfaction concerning the construction in Jerusalem are also audacious and becoming more self-confident. What to do if President Obama gets worked up, and his responses aren’t that soft from the diplomatic viewpoint.
The joy, as usual in our province, is very premature. The American Congress is conquered by the Republicans, but President Obama is still sitting in the White House. The optimists are hoping that the president has learned the bitter lesson and will back off his grandiose plans apropos the peace in the Middle East, cease pressuring Israel and concentrate on domestic issues. The pessimists are not ready to be convinced that the painful blow Obama has suffered will lead him to a new policy toward Israel and the Arab world. It makes sense to examine the two approaches in light of the circumstances and tremendous challenges Israel faces.
Let’s suppose that the new, allegedly pro-Israeli Congress will thwart any president’s initiative in the foreign policy field, including Israel. What is the alternative the Republicans offer? The American policy is complicated, not perfect — but nevertheless, there is an order in it. The power of the president, with its wings clipped, is still strong, surely, in foreign policy.
A check of the history of the last decades when the Republicans were in control in the U.S. does not leave room for great hopes that perhaps they will pull for Israel the “chestnut from the fire.”* In Bush the father’s time, the U.S. conducted an aggressive policy toward Israel. Although one cannot compare historical periods precisely, nevertheless, we won’t be wrong to rule that the American pressure under Bush the father had been, at least, similar to that put on Israel today.
Netanyahu knows this well, for wasn’t he a member of the Israeli delegation to the talks in the Madrid conference? The head of the Israeli delegation, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was dragged against his will into an international conference he rejected till the end. The results of non-advancement in the peace process and Shamir’s refusal to give in to the American demands drove the Republican Bush to impose on Israel the heaviest economic sanctions: cutting off credit of $10 billion that was supposed to address the absorption of mass immigration.
Bush the son also didn’t leave Israel alone and give her a free hand to do anything. The “Road Map for Peace in the Middle East” was a product of Bush the son’s designs — a plan accepted by Israel with many reservations (14 of them). Bush the son didn’t deny the agreements signed between Israel and the Palestiniansm, and didn’t go for unilateral moves. Bush the son objected to the building of new neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, and whoever remembers his secretary of state’s tours cannot forget her trips to our region. The discovery by foreign sources of Bush the son’s position on Israel’s plan to bomb a reactor in Syria does not support the comprehensive saying that the Republicans are “good” while the Democrats are “bad.” Moreover, for generations the Republicans did not support the unification of Jerusalem nor recognized its status as the capital of Israel, and they, too, supported establishment of the Palestinian state more or less within the borders of ’67.
Too Early to Rejoice
Anyone who takes an utmost joy in Obama’s downfall in Congress will do better to wait. The American policy is a policy of checks and balances, of continuing negotiations between Congress and the White House and there is nothing new in this. Obama will need to sweat more, to invest more of his time and energy in running dialogues with the House of Representatives — however, his power still won’t be harmed to the point of him being wasted. The Americans have a weird custom called governmental stability. You’re not to expect fundamental changes here.
Israel is standing on the threshold of a critical period from a security and political standpoint. Only with the help of the U.S., that is to say, the presidential administration and Congress, can Israel be capable of ensuring her future. Israel absolutely depends on the U.S., for the good and for the bad, in spite of all the voices heard in Israel. In the two coming years, Obama’s policy will not change from one extreme to another. The prime minister’s expressions and the intentional leaks by those surrounding him are not accidental at all. The Iranian problem is not going to be solved without the U.S., and on the other hand, the Palestinian problem is not going to find its solution without American mediation.
Irrespective of this president or another, a Republican or a Democratic Congress, it is best to envy in a good way the American political system, which has proved once again during the recent Congressional elections that it is a stable democratic system, orderly and possessing a long tradition. At least on this, we’re given free rein to say “Long Live America.”
*Translator’s note: To do a difficult task for someone.
Next article![]( "The American Honey Trap")
