Israel Matzav

Obama's line in the sand

Writing in the New York Post, former Israel radio correspondent Benny Avni warns that President Obama is fooling himself if he believes that he will not pay a domestic price for his pressure on Israel over Jerusalem.

Then there's the assumption that most Obama voters, including strong supporters of Israel, won't consider the president "anti-Israel" for leaning on the Netanyahu government over settlements.

Early last week, Obama had his first White House meeting with a group of American Jewish leaders, including the Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman. Foxman, a veteran leading figure in Jewish-American politics, says no one demanded that Obama stopped pressuring Israel, but some told the president that "we were disturbed by this perception that his government is leaning only on Israel."

Then, just a couple of days later, the State Department hit the new Israeli ambassador with its complaint about the East Jerusalem project. Netanyahu, sensing a "red line has been crossed" (as one Israeli official told me), decided to publicly defy Washington.

What will American Jews think? Obama may have been misled by the White House group. Many of the Jewish leaders he invited in are heads of groups, like Americans for Peace Now and J-Street, that act as if the only way to support Israel is to oppose its government.

Whoever set the guest list "stacked the deck," as Foxman explains it.

While the administration emerged from the meeting believing that it can continue pressuring Israel unharmed, "I think they are miscalculating," Foxman says. "In the Jewish community, even those who are opposed to settlements are now supporting Israel" in the growing dispute with the administration.

Indeed, Foxman warns, Obama may lose even more credibility once American Jews realize that "in the administration's jargon, 'settlements' means 'Jerusalem'."

All of which applies to non-Jewish supporters of Israel as well.

I don't believe that Obama is going to pay a domestic price for castigating Israel this week (I'd LOVE to be proven wrong). There are three reasons why. First, most Jews who support Obama do so for reasons having nothing to do with Israel. For those Jews, Israel is a threshold issue that has to be passed, but it's not how they decide their votes.

Second, Israel's strongest supporters - Evangelical Christians (sad, but true, they do a much better job of supporting us than our own people do - and I say that not to derogate the Evangelical Christians but to wake up the Jews) never supported Obama in the first place and never will. They were never his to lose.

Third, Obama's not going to win or lose in 2012 - and Congress is not going to remain Democratic or go Republican in 2010 - based on Obama's Middle East policies. It's going to do so based on domestic issues. For Obama, beating up on Israel is a pleasant distraction from the economy where he's getting creamed. He's losing popularity because his domestic program has been a complete and utter failure.

Somewhere up there, God is smiling at the absurdity of this President trying to use Israel to deflect the domestic pressure on him. It's reminiscent of Richard Nixon touring the region in the summer of 1973 and Bill Clinton launching missiles at Libya while he was being impeached for lying about his relationship with 'that woman.'

When Avni concludes that Obama should

soon directly address Israelis, as he did Arabs and Muslims. He should also start tending to some of Israel's concerns with as much sensitivity as he does those of others in the region.

It's not the tone that needs to change. It's the policies.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:32 AM