Israel Matzav

Why did Obama and Clinton escalate the crisis?

One thing that is clear to just about everyone here is that the crisis in relations with the US had come to an end on Thursday and the Obama administration - the President and his Secretary of State - chose to escalate it on Friday afternoon with Clinton's phone call to Netanyahu. Why? David Horovitz takes a shot.

But perhaps, too, the Obama administration has recognized an opportunity in the Ramat Shlomo crisis, an opportunity that required deepening rather than defusing the dispute – an opportunity to convey to the unloved Netanyahu, more starkly than ever before, the fateful choice he faces and the urgency of making it.

Does he want to expand home-building for Jews in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, maintain the support of the domestic political Right, offer less than the Americans would wish him to offer at the peace table should direct talks ever resume, and watch Israel’s ties to the United States falter even as Iran closes in on the bomb?

Or is he prepared to halt such building, marginalize the local hardliners, work to create a climate conducive to negotiated progress with the Palestinians, and bolster the partnership with the US, the better to ensure an effective response to the Iranian threat?

Washington may well bet that Netanyahu, being Netanyahu, will even now try desperately to please everyone – somehow bidding to square circles via a mixture of half-steps and articulacy, in order to keep the local hawks on board and at once try to heal the fractures with Washington.

But it may also be aiming to make that task unfeasible. Likud hard-liner Danny Danon asserted on Sunday that Israel is “not a client state” of the US and needs to follow its own policies as it sees fit.

But many Israelis think differently, and regard Israel, especially amid the current global battle against Iranian-spearheaded Islamic extremism, indeed to be a client state – to be existentially dependent on its relationship with the United States. Many Israelis, Washington may also gauge, would rather reconsider their prime minister than their ties to the US.

With Labor starting to mutter about deadlines for diplomatic progress, and with the Israeli public perceived to be deeply invested in the best possible relationship with the US, Clinton, and more pertinently, her president, may believe they have Netanyahu cornered: Settlements or us.

That may well be the administration's thinking. But if so, I believe that they have misread the Israeli people. First, Labor is the only party likely to bolt Netanyahu's coalition over this. And they would not make the government fall.

Second, most Israelis recognize that the 'peace process' is going nowhere regardless of what Netanyahu does. While there may be some drop in support for the Likud if Netanyahu starts building new Jewish villages all over Judea and Samaria, the Likud has become a Right wing party. Most of its MK's will back him if he stands up to Obama and abandon him if he gives in. Ironically, the MK's who are most likely to abandon Netanyahu if he gives in to Obama are the 'centrists' that Netanyahu himself chose like Dan Meridor and Uzi Dayan. The ones most likely to support standing up to Obama are the Feiglin candidates like Boogie Yaalon and Danny Danon. Recall that Moshe Feiglin was the real winner in the Likud primary.

Third, Israelis won't abandon their alliance with America, but they may place it on hold so long as Obama is in office. 4%. Need I say more?

Fourth, most Israelis recognize that Obama is unlikely to do anything to save us from Iran and that Israel will have to take military action with God's help. It's no longer a question of whether but a question of when. Will Obama really take Brzezinski's advice and order American fighters to shoot down Israeli planes over Iraq? I doubt it.

What we do need to do is to round up our friends in Congress and get them to bring the administration into line. Quickly. Has your Senator or Representative made a statement yet? If not, why not?

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:38 PM