Who's the boss?

Posted By Blake Hounshell Sunday, March 14, 2010 - 5:16 PM Share

I've been trying hard to find smart criticism of the Obama administration's decision to rebuke Israel for embarrassing U.S. Vice President Joe Biden last week by announcing the construction of 1,600 new housing units in Ramat Shlomo, an area of East Jerusalem that lies outside the Green Line that demarcates Israel's pre-1967 border. The rebuking began with Biden's statement Tuesday, escalated with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's angry 43-minute phone call to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Friday, and continued with White House advisor David Axelrod today describing the housing announcement as an "affront" and an "insult."

Earlier in the week, Washingotn Post editorial writer Jackson Diehl complained that Biden had fallen into a "Middle East trap" by condemning the housing announcement. Diehl made some good points, but his argument would be more persuasive if it didn't cite Condoleezza Rice as an example of how to better handle this kind of Israeli ambush.

All I could find today was this utterly unpersuasive blog post by Commentary's Jennifer Rubin, who says that Ramat Shlomo carries "strategic importance" and that the notion Israeli settlements undermine U.S. security is "rubbish." It is very difficult to think of anyone who isn't a hardcore partisan of the Israeli right who would agree with these sentiments.

Meanwhile, the harsh U.S. criticism is having its intended effect, at least for now. Israeli newspapers are jumping all over a chastened Netanyahu, opposition leader Tzipi Livni is feeling emboldened, and some in the Labor Party are threatening to pull out of Netanyahu's coalition if he doesn't shape up. The Jerusalem council that approved the construction is planning to lay low next week.

I don't believe for a minute that this fight will make U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell's mission any easier; the conditions for peace simply aren't in place. But this showdown with Israel is important for a larger reason: the Obama administration desperately needs to show that it isn't going to be pushed around by anyone. Now that he has embraced a policy of confrontation, the president needs to follow through -- to back down would only signal to powers like China and Russia that Obama really is the pushover they've always assumed him to be.

UPDATE: AIPAC sides with Netanyahu, calling on the administration to "move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, with whom the United States shares basic, fundamental, and strategic interests." This could get ugly for Obama.

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

(8)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

BLUECANARY

12:57 AM ET

March 15, 2010

Israel's intransigence could cost American lives.

" The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives. "

That's the point that never seems to quite get across to the average Joe, or Shmuel. Israel's belligerence and self-serving posture will inevitably spark a confrontation that will end in war - a war not confined to a small patch of land on the eastern Mediterranean but an escalating conflict that will rapidly spread throughout the Middle East and thence to Europe, and beyond.

Israel's intransigence can cost lives throughout half the world. If a child is allowed to behave whichever way it chooses, without any restriction and with no boundaries set to ensure its correct behavior it develops into a threat not only to its own family but to society at large. The Israeli government is currently that child.

INDAR20

8:10 AM ET

March 15, 2010

Dogs that didnt bark

Classic case of the "dogs that didn't bark." In this case, the dogs are the Republicans. Their lack of response to the situation suggests that someone got to them first. And in this political climate, the Mark Perry thesis -- that the military is lobbying for a tougher stand on Israeli settlements -- may be the only plausible explanation for their silence.

BLUE13326

8:50 AM ET

March 15, 2010

The ADL (not usually

The ADL (not usually associated with the Israeli hard right) issued a hard-hitting condemnation of the Obama's response to the announcement that shouldn't be too hard to find.

STACYX

9:44 AM ET

March 15, 2010

Interesting...

It's interesting that the ADL and AIPAC don't seem to find ANY fault on the part of Netanyahu- their predictable knee-jerk defense of Israel is getting really tedious and Bibi just may have overplayed his hand. The idea that Bibi can slap the US in the face and then have AIPAC and ADL run out like Pavlov's dogs and blame Biden for reacting to said slap, is pretty telling about how they have lost all perspective about what it means to be "pro-Israel."

The US is and always will be a great friend and ally of Israel. But friendship goes both ways and as hard as I try, all I see is Israel's constant demand that the US "prove" it's friendship- apparently buckets of money, looking the other way at violations of international law, favored trading/defense contract status aren't enough. What exactly has Bibi done for us lately? Anyone?

DAVID IN DC

12:14 PM ET

March 15, 2010

Obama - pushover or not

Now that he has embraced a policy of confrontation, the president needs to follow through -- to back down would only signal to powers like China and Russia that Obama really is the pushover they've always assumed him to be.

Let's get serious.

Russia and China assume that Obama is a pushover for the simple reason that...Obama has acted like a pushover in his dealings with them (especially Russia).

Obama will have to stand up to Russia or China if he wants to change their perceptions. Bullying Israel into cancelling building plans in Jerusalem won't change their minds. On the contrary, Netanyahu announced this very fact (he announced a freeze that explicitly did not include Jerusalem) and the Obama administration praised them for the announcement. If anything, our statements and the the amateur hour waffling they demonstrate can only serve to embolden Russia and China.

Blake - do you hold the same standard of logic towards the administration's statements about the Iranian nuclear program? What lessons do you think China and Russia are drawing that we continue to beg them to support sanctions, even though it is pretty clear that they will never come on board in a meaningful way?

JACOB BLUES

4:32 PM ET

March 15, 2010

Ah David, but with regards to Iran...

That's what's called "Diplomacy" . . . such as it is.

And isn't the US, just so Diplomatic.

DAVID IN DC

7:28 AM ET

March 16, 2010

This administration has given

This administration has given it the ironic moniker "smart power".

BLUECANARY

5:09 PM ET

March 15, 2010

The new Representatives who Sold their Souls House.

Now is a good time to transfer all AIPAC supporting senators and congressmen to a third House, to be under the Lower House, to be known as the Representatives who Sold their Souls House.

They would be allowed to vote on all domestic issues only, whilst foreign policy would be the exclusive responsibility of the slimmed-down House of Representatives and the new Senate.

Perhaps then America will revert to a democratic way of politics and life, and will proceed to regain the respect of the international community.

Plus, peace will be negotiated in the Middle East on the basis of international law and the majority vote of the amended UNSC. No member would have a veto. Democracy would return not only to the US but also to the UN.

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.