Obama hugs the Israeli right

By Max J. Castro

MIAMI – He came, he saw, he listened, he embraced. In Israel, Barack Obama seemed intent on proving that under his presidency relations between the United States and the Jewish state are, to recall the words of a foreign minister of Argentina under the pro-American Menem administration, virtually “carnal.”

The visit by the U.S. president to Israel last week was little more than a charm offensive directed mainly at getting back in the good graces of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose feathers he had ruffled during a visit by the Israeli PM to the United States. Obama’s sin was to insist that a settlement of the conflict must be based on a two-state solution and pre-1967 borders

Never mind that a return to pre-1967 borders – possibly modified by mutually agreed and equitable land swaps to accommodate post-1967 realities – is what peace, justice, UN resolutions, international law, and the longstanding policy of the United States and the international community demand.

For having the audacity to tell the leader of Israel plain facts the PM did not want to hear, Obama was subjected to unceasing and fierce attacks for his alleged weak support of that country.

The offensive started immediately after the private meetings between the two leaders when Netanyahu publicly rebuked Obama before the press corps in the White House. This shocking upbraiding of the U.S. president by the leader of what is, objectively, a client state acted as a signal for every hardcore supporter of Israel and every Obama-hater to take their own shots.

Since that rough encounter, Obama has been trying to make up with Israel and its supporters, not only by endlessly reaffirming the “unbreakable bond” between the United States and Israel but also by stepping up military and security collaboration and assistance to unprecedented levels.

But nothing the president did was enough for Netanyahu or for hard-line supporters of Israel in this country, such as casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who spent a huge amount of money to defeat Obama in 2012.

The leader of Israel, which has as many as 200 nuclear weapons, would like Obama to ditch the diplomatic route as quickly as possible and launch a George W. Bush type “just in case” military action to prevent the Iranians not from building one bomb but from merely acquiring the capacity to do so. Obama has resisted giving up on the diplomatic route just yet, but he has repeatedly stated the United States would not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

But if Obama so far has declined to exercise the military option with the celerity that Netanyahu would like, while in Israel he gave the Prime Minister the next best thing, a promise that the United States would support Israel if it decided to launch a strike on its own. That’s quite a concession for a superpower to give to a state ruled by a coalition rife with ultranationalists and religious zealots, and it’s as close to a green light for war as it gets.

In sharp contrast, while Obama mentioned, in a vague way, the rights of Palestinians in his speeches, he did not address any Palestinian gatherings. This was a U.S.-Israel love fest, and Palestinians were not invited.

Marwan Bishara, the senior political analyst for Al Jazeera, gives an excellent analysis of Obama’s trip to Israel, which is worth quoting at length:

“I am amazed by how much he spoke and how little he said that is new or actionable in terms of the diplomatic process and the two-state solution, particularly since Obama said quite firmly last October, ‘When I go to Israel, I want to make sure that we are actually moving something forward.’

“With all that’s happening right now with Iran, Syria and overall tension in the greater Middle East, I wonder how Obama can talk for so long and say absolutely nothing. On this visit, all we’ve seen are long speeches with dreamy language and no concrete substance.

“Of course, this is not entirely a surprise. Last week, U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes emphasized, ‘We’ve been very clear that this visit [to Israel] is not about trying to lay down a new initiative or complete our work on a particular issue.’ No, it’s all about face.

“Obama embraced the Zionist narrative about Palestine as the historic home of the Jewish people more than any American president that came before him. This rendered Palestinians – the indigenous inhabitants – guests in their own homeland.

“He incorporated all of Israel’s security arguments into his own political lexicon. Arab anti-Semitism, terrorism and rejection of Israel’s existence, he reasons, are to blame for six decades of war, occupation and dispossession.

“Obama pitched a vision of peace, free of occupation and dispossession, to be achieved through Israeli ‘"sacrifices’", not as the long-delayed and necessary restoration of the inalienable Palestinian right to live in liberty and security in their own homeland.

“Amid the pleasantries, Obama was sending an implicit warning to Israel. While it can bank on America as an ally, Israel will be far less secure, democratic and more isolated, should it fail to achieve peace.

“Obama, however, was not prepared to offer the Palestinians anything remotely upsetting to the Israeli Right and, instead, restricted his comments to lofty narratives about the future, and the importance of economic exchanges to achieve coexistence: the mirror image of Netanyahu’s "economic peace", albeit between occupied and occupier.”

Which side are you on? asks the refrain of an old union song. Hard-liners in Israel and the United States have been implicitly asking Barack Obama this very question even before he became president. Obama’s Israeli sojourn provided an unmistakable answer.