Denial Ain't Just A River Near Israel

Israeli really, really doesn't take being told "no" on anything by the Obama administration very well, does it?

Six months into his presidency, Israelis find themselves increasingly suspicious of Mr. Obama. All they see is American pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to freeze settlements, a request that’s been interpreted here as political arm-twisting meant to please the Arab street at Israel’s expense — or simply to express the president’s dislike for Mr. Netanyahu.

This would seem counterproductive, given the importance the president has placed on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Israel is part of the problem, it’s also part of the solution. Yet so far, neither the president nor any senior administration official has given a speech or an interview aimed at an Israeli audience, beyond brief statements made at diplomatic photo ops.

The Arabs got the Cairo speech; we got silence.

This policy of ignoring Israel carries a price. Though Mr. Obama has succeeded in prodding Mr. Netanyahu to accept the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, he has failed to induce Israel to impose a freeze on settlements. In fact, he has failed even to stir debate about the merits of one: no Israeli political figure has stood up to Mr. Netanyahu and begged him to support Mr. Obama; not even the Israeli left, desperate for a new agenda, has adopted Mr. Obama as its icon.

As a result, Mr. Netanyahu enjoys a virtual domestic consensus over his rejection of the settlement freeze. Moreover, he has succeeded in portraying Mr. Obama as a shaky ally. In Mr. Netanyahu’s narrative, the president has fallen under the influence of top aides — in this case Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod — whom the prime minister has called “self-hating Jews.” Meanwhile, Mr. Netanyahu is the defender of national glory in face of unfair pressure, someone who sticks to the first commandment of Israeli culture: thou shalt never be the freier (that is, the dupe).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the last administration's approach, which was literally agree to everything the Israelis really, really wanted, didn't work so well on the peace process.

Actually saying "no" to Israel on something as counterproductive as settlement expansion was and still is necessary. You don't always get what you want in the end, and both sides, both Palestinians and Israelis, are going to have to make sacrifices.

Of course neither side wants to make them. They wouldn't be called sacrifices if either side was freely willing to give them up. Sacrifices by definition are difficult, unpopular but necessary choices.

Obama is talking to the Israelis. What he's telling them are things they don't want to hear, and as such, they're not listening and instead pretending he's "not speaking to Israelis." This is actually the first thing the US has asked the Israelis to actually do, despite the billions in military aid and equipment we give them annually to defend themselves. If we ask anything reasonable in return, apparently Obama is guilty of trying to dupe the people of Israel, or a shaky ally.

A "shaky ally" wouldn't keep handing over billions in aid without question. It's a self-serving article at best. The era of one side making all the scarifices and the other side getting rewarded, especially while there is blood on everyone's hands involved, has to end. Something has to change from the status quo of the Bush years for peace to have a chance.

Grow up, guys.