Mixed-metaphor warning: Bibi scored a home run in his US visit, especially his speech to the US Congress. Obama's speech the day before Bibi arrived was an own goal.
I said yesterday that his visit "seemed to be going well". It's more than that now, it's even better. Bloomberg is liberal media and Charley Rose is himself rather of a liberal bent. Their default position is pro-Obama and pro-Palestinian. So you know Bibi's won, when you have four guests on Charley Rose, from left, centre and slightly right and all agree: Home Run for B. Own Goal for O.
I'm not sure how long the link to the talk with four guests will last on the Charley Rose site, but you can get there by going here and if it's not on the Home screen, put in "US-Israeli Relations" in the site's Search. The date of the interview was 24th May.
The guests, and my summary of some of the points during the 30 minute interview, below:
Bibi's speech clips:
"President Abbas must say 'I will accept a Jewish state'. These six words will change history".
Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed with the Palestinian version of Al-Qaeda; that we will not do"
To Abbas, I say: "Tear up your pact with Hamas".
If you do, Israel will be the first to recognise the Palestinian State.
Guests' clips:
Benn: Israel has rights and is not just "a bunch of invaders" as Palestinians think (Benn)
Goldberg: Wonderful speech: Republicans must wish he was candidate in the US!...
Third intifada: seems "somewhat inevitable" -- by year's end? -- and will be "horrific". What kind: non-violent or with missiles. May be of the more "peaceful" variety, hordes of "refugee" descendants marching on Israel borders as recently from Syria. May be masses of people "non-violently or semi non-violently" marching on Israel. Though Palestinians have "never excelled at non-violent protest". But they may have learned the lessons of Tahrir Square.
Stephens: The Obama speech wasn't even the Clintonian "land for peace formula", it was "give land and hope for the best".
Mead: every time Obama has gone up against Netanyahu he has lost. The White House seems to hit the "sour spot": they make enough gestures to Palestinians to anger the Israelis, but don't do enough to earn points with the Palestinians.
Goldberg: Obama has shifted from saying settlements are the issue to saying Hamas is the issue.
Stephens: the idea that Israel should court European opinion is ludicrous, for the "Zionism is racism" resolution was 35 years ago and that ship sailed a long time ago. There's no getting EU opinion on side. So Bibi's constituency really is US and Israel. world opinion is so far gone against Israel that they ought to tailor their policies to Spain, Berlin, Russia.... is far fetched.
Mead: peace is not coming soon.
Goldberg: Abbas hasn't shown any great interest in negotiation. No-one will talk to Hamas, even if the US position is slightly more "nuanced".
Benn: there is no move to talk with Hamas in Israel, even on the Left.
Stephen: there will be no progress if you have a president on the Palestinian side [Abbas] who continues to harp on the right of return, which is an existential threat to Israel. "Don't put good money after bad".
Goldberg: the Shia-Sunni split, eg in Bahrain; Iran and nukes these are more important issues [than the I-P peace process]... "Peace processes often lead to more violence".
Stephen: O should focus on Iran/nukes, and its influence on Hamas/Hezbollah.
In sum:
Status Quo.
"Israel's in a tight spot", says Mead, "so what's new?!"
Goldberg: demographic threat to Israel is great. Still, Iran should be main focus for US.
Stephen: there are some problems that have no solution. Have to be managed (quoting Simon Perez)
I said yesterday that his visit "seemed to be going well". It's more than that now, it's even better. Bloomberg is liberal media and Charley Rose is himself rather of a liberal bent. Their default position is pro-Obama and pro-Palestinian. So you know Bibi's won, when you have four guests on Charley Rose, from left, centre and slightly right and all agree: Home Run for B. Own Goal for O.
I'm not sure how long the link to the talk with four guests will last on the Charley Rose site, but you can get there by going here and if it's not on the Home screen, put in "US-Israeli Relations" in the site's Search. The date of the interview was 24th May.
The guests, and my summary of some of the points during the 30 minute interview, below:
- Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal [right of centre]
- Aluf Benn, Haaretz Jerusalem [left of centre]
- Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic [rather more left..] [*]
- Walter Russel Mead, the American Interest magazine. [don't know this one]
Bibi's speech clips:
"President Abbas must say 'I will accept a Jewish state'. These six words will change history".
Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed with the Palestinian version of Al-Qaeda; that we will not do"
To Abbas, I say: "Tear up your pact with Hamas".
If you do, Israel will be the first to recognise the Palestinian State.
Guests' clips:
Benn: Israel has rights and is not just "a bunch of invaders" as Palestinians think (Benn)
Goldberg: Wonderful speech: Republicans must wish he was candidate in the US!...
Third intifada: seems "somewhat inevitable" -- by year's end? -- and will be "horrific". What kind: non-violent or with missiles. May be of the more "peaceful" variety, hordes of "refugee" descendants marching on Israel borders as recently from Syria. May be masses of people "non-violently or semi non-violently" marching on Israel. Though Palestinians have "never excelled at non-violent protest". But they may have learned the lessons of Tahrir Square.
Stephens: The Obama speech wasn't even the Clintonian "land for peace formula", it was "give land and hope for the best".
Mead: every time Obama has gone up against Netanyahu he has lost. The White House seems to hit the "sour spot": they make enough gestures to Palestinians to anger the Israelis, but don't do enough to earn points with the Palestinians.
Goldberg: Obama has shifted from saying settlements are the issue to saying Hamas is the issue.
Stephens: the idea that Israel should court European opinion is ludicrous, for the "Zionism is racism" resolution was 35 years ago and that ship sailed a long time ago. There's no getting EU opinion on side. So Bibi's constituency really is US and Israel. world opinion is so far gone against Israel that they ought to tailor their policies to Spain, Berlin, Russia.... is far fetched.
Mead: peace is not coming soon.
Goldberg: Abbas hasn't shown any great interest in negotiation. No-one will talk to Hamas, even if the US position is slightly more "nuanced".
Benn: there is no move to talk with Hamas in Israel, even on the Left.
Stephen: there will be no progress if you have a president on the Palestinian side [Abbas] who continues to harp on the right of return, which is an existential threat to Israel. "Don't put good money after bad".
Goldberg: the Shia-Sunni split, eg in Bahrain; Iran and nukes these are more important issues [than the I-P peace process]... "Peace processes often lead to more violence".
Stephen: O should focus on Iran/nukes, and its influence on Hamas/Hezbollah.
In sum:
Status Quo.
"Israel's in a tight spot", says Mead, "so what's new?!"
Goldberg: demographic threat to Israel is great. Still, Iran should be main focus for US.
Stephen: there are some problems that have no solution. Have to be managed (quoting Simon Perez)
********
[*] Goldberg is an interesting and insightful guy. Generally pro-Israel, but also a critic. Writes for The Atlantic, which is rather Left (and hence genetically pro-P). Recently criticised Netanyahu's presentation during his meeting with Obama at the White House (a 7-minute talk, which I liked). Criticised it for being a "history lesson", impolitic and impolite, etc, for which in turn he was criticised in "Jeffrey Goldberg is a 'sha shtil' Jew".
