Why Obama Is Beside Us: The Myth of the Ninth District
Published in Maariv
(Israel) on 22 September 2011
by Ben Dror Yemini (link to original)
(Israel) on 22 September 2011
by Ben Dror Yemini (link to original)
Translated from
by Viktoria Lymar.
Edited by Hoishan Chan.
Abu Mazen was an objector and refused any compromise offered to him. Netanyahu, in contrast, was flexible, and therefore, fairly earned Obama’s pro-Israeli speech.
They say that Israel does not have foreign policy, only domestic policy. In the wake of such a pro-Israeli speech by U.S. President Barack Obama, some would claim precisely the same thing about the U.S. Or, in other words: It’s not what Obama means to says; it’s the upcoming election year that has dictated his words.
And some will add: it’s because of the outcome of the ninth district in New York, which for the first time in 80 years has passed from Democratic control to a Republican victory, which made a difference for Obama.
This is but a myth. There is an explanation, a little closer to reality. In the past weeks, Obama made every effort possible in order to persuade Abu Mazen to come down from the tall tree of turning to the Security Council. Obama wanted a compromise. This is what the man is like, for better and for worse. He wasn’t alone. The Quartet envoys and the foreign minister of the European Union, Catherine Ashton, also raised various propositions in order to strike a happy medium in the matter of the declaration of Palestinian statehood. Obama has threatened again and again that he’s going to cast a veto. The congressmen have warned that aid to the Palestinian Authority will end, without which it’ll find it difficult to sustain itself.
But Abu Mazen insisted. He dismissed any middle ground proposal. Netanyahu said yes. Maybe late, but it’s better late than never. This is the true reason for the special pro-Israeli address of Obama. Because that was the narrative the whole time. For decades Israel said yes, and the Palestinians said no. Israel was thriving. The Palestinians were bringing down upon themselves cataclysm (Nakba) after cataclysm.
Over the past two years, we should keep in mind, the Palestinians have achieved some pretty serious successes on the international stage. Netanyahu has been perceived as an objector. The duo Abu Mazen and Salam Fayad appeared as peacemakers. There was a tremendous gap between what was emerging on the international arena and reality. But Abu Mazen was smarter than that. He relied on Netanyahu to say no. That happened too many times over the past two years. Not over the last weeks. Both Abu Mazen and Netanyahu have changed directions. Abu Mazen has become a dissenter. Netanyahu revealed his flexibility.
With regards to the upcoming election year and Jewish power, either real one or imaginary, two more things should be remembered. The Jewish majority in the district where the Democrats lost two weeks ago, are Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox, — meaning, those that are politically closer to the Republicans. So it’s doubtful whether they are the ones who caused the defeat of the Democratic candidate. And more importantly: even if the Jewish leadership always sides with the Israeli government — this is indeed not the story of the American Jews. There are more Christians than Jews who support the settlements. The Jews are for the Jewish state, but not for a Greater Israel.
Thus, even if Obama has electoral considerations, and even if he needs the Jewish vote and the Jewish contributors, it’s not sure at all that he needs to identify himself with [Netanyahu’s right-wing party] Likud or Netanyahu himself. Yesterday, for the sake of change, Netanyahu earned the pro-Israeli speech fairly. He was compliant, and so he gained. Abu Mazen was an objector, and so he lost. That’s, usually, the whole theory on one foot.
They say that Israel does not have foreign policy, only domestic policy. In the wake of such a pro-Israeli speech by U.S. President Barack Obama, some would claim precisely the same thing about the U.S. Or, in other words: It’s not what Obama means to says; it’s the upcoming election year that has dictated his words.
And some will add: it’s because of the outcome of the ninth district in New York, which for the first time in 80 years has passed from Democratic control to a Republican victory, which made a difference for Obama.
This is but a myth. There is an explanation, a little closer to reality. In the past weeks, Obama made every effort possible in order to persuade Abu Mazen to come down from the tall tree of turning to the Security Council. Obama wanted a compromise. This is what the man is like, for better and for worse. He wasn’t alone. The Quartet envoys and the foreign minister of the European Union, Catherine Ashton, also raised various propositions in order to strike a happy medium in the matter of the declaration of Palestinian statehood. Obama has threatened again and again that he’s going to cast a veto. The congressmen have warned that aid to the Palestinian Authority will end, without which it’ll find it difficult to sustain itself.
But Abu Mazen insisted. He dismissed any middle ground proposal. Netanyahu said yes. Maybe late, but it’s better late than never. This is the true reason for the special pro-Israeli address of Obama. Because that was the narrative the whole time. For decades Israel said yes, and the Palestinians said no. Israel was thriving. The Palestinians were bringing down upon themselves cataclysm (Nakba) after cataclysm.
Over the past two years, we should keep in mind, the Palestinians have achieved some pretty serious successes on the international stage. Netanyahu has been perceived as an objector. The duo Abu Mazen and Salam Fayad appeared as peacemakers. There was a tremendous gap between what was emerging on the international arena and reality. But Abu Mazen was smarter than that. He relied on Netanyahu to say no. That happened too many times over the past two years. Not over the last weeks. Both Abu Mazen and Netanyahu have changed directions. Abu Mazen has become a dissenter. Netanyahu revealed his flexibility.
With regards to the upcoming election year and Jewish power, either real one or imaginary, two more things should be remembered. The Jewish majority in the district where the Democrats lost two weeks ago, are Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox, — meaning, those that are politically closer to the Republicans. So it’s doubtful whether they are the ones who caused the defeat of the Democratic candidate. And more importantly: even if the Jewish leadership always sides with the Israeli government — this is indeed not the story of the American Jews. There are more Christians than Jews who support the settlements. The Jews are for the Jewish state, but not for a Greater Israel.
Thus, even if Obama has electoral considerations, and even if he needs the Jewish vote and the Jewish contributors, it’s not sure at all that he needs to identify himself with [Netanyahu’s right-wing party] Likud or Netanyahu himself. Yesterday, for the sake of change, Netanyahu earned the pro-Israeli speech fairly. He was compliant, and so he gained. Abu Mazen was an objector, and so he lost. That’s, usually, the whole theory on one foot.