Israel Matzav

Please, no more 'engagement'

Jackson Diehl contrasts President Obama's 'engagement' with the United States' enemies, on the one hand, with his lack of engagement with its allies on the other hand. Two allies are specifically examined: Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and Binyamin Netanyahu of Israel. Diehl's conclusion:

The underlying problems, however, haven't changed. Karzai still has little appetite for attacking the corruption in his government or rallying support for U.S. military campaigns against the Taliban. Netanyahu remains wedded to a right-wing coalition that would not allow him to make significant concessions in peace negotiations, even if he wanted to.

Obama has to find a way to coax each of them toward a change of course. Public bullying won't do it. Assurances of U.S. support and stroking by special envoys go only so far. What's missing is personal chemistry and confidence, the construction of a bond between leaders that can persuade a U.S. ally to take a risk; in other words, presidential "engagement." Isn't that what Obama promised?

Jennifer Rubin argues that we've had more than enough 'engagement' between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. It's time to leave Israel alone.

Bibi is a different story. Here the deliberate and sustained assault (from the fit over Jerusalem housing to the threats of an imposed peace plan and an abstention in the UN Security Council) suggests that more than personal ire or irritation is at play. Here Obama plainly intends — he’s told us as much — a change in American policy. The charm offensive is meant to quiet domestic Jewish opinion, not to repair or moderate its stance toward the Jewish state.

Diehl argues that a personal failing on Obama’s part is at the root of these conflicts. (”Public bullying won’t do it. Assurances of U.S. support and stroking by special envoys go only so far. What’s missing is personal chemistry and confidence, the construction of a bond between leaders that can persuade a U.S. ally to take a risk; in other words, presidential ‘engagement.’ Isn’t that what Obama promised?”) But with regard to Israel, there is something far more fundamental at issue. Despite the PR offensive, Obama’s goal is not to re-establish a more robust relationship with the Jewish state; it is merely to mask the animus that bubbled to the surface over the past two months. It is not through neglect that relations with Israel have been strained — it is by design. We therefore should not expect that increased presidential attention will result in an improved U.S.-Israel relationship. Frankly, the more Obama focuses on Israel, the more damage to the relationship is likely to occur. At this point, benign neglect would be a welcome development.

I'm with Jennifer on this. The less we see of Obama here, the happier we will all be.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:18 AM