Why 'proximity talks'
Evelyn Gordon looks at the obviously imbalanced 'proximity talks' (all of the responsibility and blame for failure is and is to be placed on Israel) and thinks she knows what their purpose is. Therefore, I think the goal is simpler: to provide an excuse for putting more “daylight” between America and Israel — presumably entailing substantive sanctions rather than merely the hostile rhetoric employed hitherto — and thereby further Obama’s goal of rapprochement with the Arab world.I'm afraid she's right.
Why is the proximity-talks charade necessary? Because currently, Obama lacks both public and congressional support for moving beyond mere verbal hostility. If he didn’t realize this before, the backlash to his March temper tantrum over Ramat Shlomo would certainly have convinced him.
So he needs to up the ante by painting Israel’s government as responsible for torpedoing a key American foreign-policy initiative — one he has repeatedly framed as serving both a vital American national interest and a vital Israeli one. He could then argue not only that Israel deserves punishment but that such punishment would actually serve Israel’s interests.
To avoid this trap, Jerusalem must launch its own PR campaign in America now to put the focus back where it belongs: on Palestinian unwillingness to accept a Jewish state. For if Israel lets Obama control the narrative, the public and congressional support on which it depends may be irretrievably undermined.
Read the whole thing.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:29 AM
2 Comments:
That assumes Israel is willing to cross Obama to defend its national interests. It can't even stand up to him on Jerusalem.
What could go wrong indeed
To avoid this trap, Jerusalem must launch its own PR campaign in America now to put the focus back where it belongs: on Palestinian unwillingness to accept a Jewish state.
Don't hold your breath. Who outside of Israel, for instance, knows that any rockets at all come from Gaza nowadays? No one. Who thinks rockets are serious? No one, since Israel doesn't take them seriously. If Israel doesn't take attacks and incitement (i.e., from the PA) seriously, why should anyone else? Every since provocative act by the PA should result in a near hysterical response from Israel. The same for Iran. I read all the things the Iranian government says about destroying Israel and very seldom read about retaliation (although sometimes I do, but not tit-for-tat).
Israel should be constantly ratcheting up the rhetoric and the costs. Instead, it just murmurs and sounds "reasonable."
Now, if I were the PM....
Post a Comment
<< Home