Isaac Inkeles, Guest Columnist
Ideology: Republican
In his recent Middle East policy address, Obama made a mistake in statecraft and diplomacy which will prove to be humiliating and counterproductive, not only for him, but for American power as well: President Obama has pressured an American ally to do something that it cannot do. When faced with the choice of committing what it considers to be national suicide or upsetting the United States, vital self-interest will prevail and Obama’s demands will be rejected. In response to this the United States, under Obama’s wobbly hand, will quietly whine, shrug its shoulders, and settle for being rejected.
The result of this: America will look weak and foolish. It will seem as if we cannot even exert influence over nations that rely on our aid, both material and diplomatic. It will be seen as another overreach by the United States in a world of waning American influence.
What I am of course referring to is Obama’s call for a return to the 1967 borders as a base for future peace negotiations. As Prime Minister Netanyahu has already indicated –and as I predicted above – Israel cannot, and thus will not, return to the 1967 borders.
Netanyahu said that the Obama plan “must leave Israel with security, and therefore Israel cannot return to the indefensible 1967 lines”. What’s important here is not whether the ’67 borders actually are indefensible, but rather that Israel thinks they are.
Israel also knows that it needs American support, but knows on top of this that we will not abandon her for refusing us on this one issue. And I’m sure that Israel remembers when, in 2009, 329 members of the Democratic controlled House signed a letter urging President Obama to reconsider what was seen as his anti-Israeli foreign policy (one of the letter’s leaders was Majority Leader Hoyer). With this knowledge, I’m sure Netanyahu felt comfortable slighting Obama, saying how he expected the president to “walk back” his remarks.
So let’s review what happened: Israel, who received well over $2 billion in foreign aid in 2008 and is largely seen as a pariah everywhere outside the US, was pressured by President Obama to use the ’67 borders as a basis for a peace settlement. Prime Minister Netanyahu not only flatly rejected this, but also went on to appear before a joint session of congress where he gave a rousing speech, interrupted 29 times by applause, in which he articulated his objections to President Obama’s proposal.
Obama set himself up. By placing Israel in an impossible situation where it had to pick between what it perceived as vital national interests and his demands, he forced Israel into a position where they had to reject him.
So now the question is why?
As mentioned above, this wasn’t a decision that President Obama could have expected a lot of political cover on. Both the Republican and Democratic caucuses have overwhelmingly supported Israel in the past. The American people also support Israel in record numbers.
President Obama, what were you thinking? You’ve just offended one of America’s biggest special interest groups a year before your reelection campaign. Not to mention that you’re isolating a plethora of voters throughout Florida. It isn’t just the bagel-eating South Florida types who stand with Israel –like my cousins- but also the church-going, barbeque-eating, football-watching evangelicals in the panhandle.
And it isn’t only voters in Florida who the President is offending. 55-12% Americans sympathize with Israel over Palestine, and 66% of Americans think that the President should be a supporter of Israel –interestingly, of those asked, only 40% saw Obama as an Israel supporter. And while 10% of Americans say that Obama’s handing of Israel will make them more likely to vote for him, 27% say that they are now less likely to vote for the President.
The effects in the Jewish community have been even more dramatic. President Obama, who won 77% of the Jewish vote in 2008, now has an approval rating of bellow 60%, for the first time, among Jewish voters.
The answer to the question obviously doesn’t lie in domestic politics –I must say I do admire the President a little for what appears to be political courage. Neither do I think it rests in the olive groves of Israel. The reason for Obama’s decision can really be found in the limousines and five-star hotels of Europe.
“Very much on the European line,” is how Carl Bildt, the Swedish Foreign Minster, described both Obama’s Israel and greater foreign policy. I think, for the first time ever, the EU foreign minister has “warmly welcomed” an American policy, “the EU has had a common position for a long time that the (peace talks) should be based on the 1967 lines, with land swaps.”
Even if Obama’s plan was not designed to satisfy European interests, it certainly has had that effect. In fact, it seems as if European diplomats were the only group who approved of Obama’s speech. Even Arabs, who one would expect to be most pleased with Obama’s call for a return to ’67 and possibly a divided Jerusalem, were left “unimpressed” with the president’s speech. It’s hard to imagine someone as politically intelligent as the President making such a colossal miscalculation. Instead, I believe that President Obama got the response he wanted from the group he wanted to impress.
To even the causal observer of politics, it will come as no shock that the President is fixated on multilateralism. More than any other president, he seems to be concerned with what Europe thinks of him.
This is not a right-wing populist attacking Obama as an elitist. Truth be told, this is an honest observation made by an admirer of bespoke British tailoring and French cinema.
The overwhelming consensus in Europe, and around the world, is that support for Palestine is both morally and politically right. Obama decided to come out and publically pressure Israel as a way to cozy up to and ingratiate himself to Europe. It was out of a desire to be “international” that Obama decided to pressure Israel. Being so focused on pleasing Europe, there was no other option.
There is a word in Yiddish “fahchnyakit” (pronounced FAHCH-NEE-YAKIT) which is used to describe a negative obsession or fixation that leaves one tunnel visioned and all consumed. President Obama is fahchnyakit with internationalism. At least in terms of foreign policy, he seems to be singularly concerned with the opinions of foreign leaders and intellectuals. And don’t get me wrong; this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Unless, it forces him to neglect American interests. President Obama is too concerned with how the world will see him and not concerned enough with maintaining American prestige and standing.
As much as it pains me as a Republican to say this, President Obama truly is a gifted man. He posses a sophisticated intellect and is a master orator. I believe that he has the potential to be a great leader. However, in order to be such, he must lead America and in turn have America lead. Unfortunately, as columnist J.E. Dyer put it “Obama has declined a leadership role.” True multilateralism will be achieved by the gravity and stature of the president, not his ability to be a sycophant. President Obama not only has to realize that he is, but also act like, the President of the United States, and not an academic or international activist. Until he does this, he will continue to advocate a foolish and confused foreign policy that weakens America and degenerates the bonds of trust that exist between us and our allies—just like he did with Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras—and now Israel.
Excellent article my boy. Quite well done. One little quibble: I think it would be grand to include more pictures next time. They just liven things up all cheery and wonderful. But quite a sturdy article indeed.
Very interesting — I agree with your evaluation. Do you think different voices wispering in the President’s ear might influence Obama?
The US should get out of Israel’s affairs and let them settle their disputes on their own. Obama is treating Israel like some puppet protectorate and infirmity on their sovereignty. Where in the Constitution is Israel?
You mean Honduras and Poland and the Czechs aren’t allies? Who knew? Who cares?
Dear Bolder: “…let them settle their disputes on their own…” Uh. they’re surrounded by bloodthirsty medievals who are hellbent on torturing them, and chasing them into the sea, or, in a few months incinerating them. And we were instrumental in this brave nation’s creation, and sustenance, and success against towering odds. And you say “…let them settle their disputes on their own…”
Which argument posing as “sophistication” supports that view?
Very interesting thoughts Mr. Inkeles. I cannot agree with your opinions completely, but you do pose a very persuasive and accurate point.
An enlightening discorse that attepts to explain how misguided foreien policy often result from a need to be part of the popular herd that has made the loudest rumble. Obama has the loud rumble of the plight of the poor Palestinians since his days of hanging out with Rashied Khadi. The echo chamber of European diplomats only served to convince him — leadership listens to a soft inner voice that is authentic to the wishes of Americans. This is an excellent analysis of the problems that face American foreign policy.
This is one of the most insightful articles I have read on the subject. He correctly points out that Israel has the ear and heart of the American Congress as well as the American people and there is not much Obama can do except look worse than he already does. We can only hope that Obama and his anti-Israel and anti -American policies are soundly defeated in November 2012.
Well done Isaac! I especially like the conclusion about Obama not emplying his god given talents to lead in any clear way (or otherwise).
I come to similar conclusions, a bit differently. I don’t think he cares that much about what Europe thinks. I do however think, consistent with your thesis, that he, like the University professor that he is, cares about making his point (which can change daily) often with little regard as to context or consequences simly because he thinks it is the “right” thing to do and that he should be the guy to say it (e.g. uselessly articulating unspoken US written, theoretical “policy” on pre 1967 bordrs without regard as to what happened in that part of the word the last 45 years; just like the well paid, tenured, college professors, you will soon come to know…:-)
GREAT JOB! The conclusion on willingness to really lead (as opposed to just speak) is excellent!
Interesting and persuasive article. Would love to hear more of your opinion regarding israel’s next move. You seem to have an extremely clear and powerful voice.
We very much enjoyed reading this article! The engaging and incisive analysis really started us thinking and talking about the issues. We really look forward to reading more of your views.
You’ve made your folks proud.
This country needs more honest level headed politicians that understand that we need an intact and strong Israel.
job well done, i agree with most of your article ,dissecting Obama’s motive i doubt it very if he can win the second term all jews should think very hard if they want to vote for him again, he fails to lead this country, and much of his time is devoted for fund raising and not governing , i would love to hear more from you next time, it awakened the pigment of my imagination.
Thoughtful and well written, but you’re too hard on Obama. He is merely restating the American policy of the Bush, Bush, and Clinton administrations. Nothing has changed and it doesn’t matter because it’s doubtful that real negotiations will ever take place.
Great article. It was very interesting and insightfull and well written. The writer Inkeles did an excellent analysis of the American foreign policy and what we face. I agree totally with the conclusions drawn by the writer. Mr. Obama is anti- Israel and pro-Arab and the writer was right on and hit the target. I would appreciate hearing other views from this writer Inkeles.
Excellent article!
Obama definitely blew it. You are absolutely on target on a variety of points–especially the fact that Israel cannot go back to the 1967 borders and Obama’s preoccupation with satisfying European interests over our own.
This article was very well written and well researched.
Excellent article.
Obama definitely blew it. You are absolutely on target on a variety of points–especially that Israel cannot go back to the 1967 borders and Obama’s preoccuptaion with satisfying European interests over our own.
Great job very insightful.
I found Isaac Inkeles’ article on Obama and Israel extremely interesting.I hope Mr. Inkeles will be writing more interesting and informtive articles on political issues.
Although your ideology is Republican, I really enjoyed your article. Obama wanted approval of the European community and we know Israel does not have many supporters around the world. It is unfortunate that Obama took this path because it weakens him as a leader. He has shown great strength and has stayed firm when comes to domestic policy. The Republicans have made it very difficult, as they advocate for the wealthy and have not embraced any policies that support the average citizen. I hope he will reevaluate his policy toward Israel and live up to his potential as a leader.
Your article was very objective — kudos! Would love for you to respond. Tell your dad I love the article. Hope to see you as a political commentator with the best of them one day — Helen