Stop Picking On Bibi

Now, I'm the first guy to admit the Palestinians are a disingenuous mess that can be just as intransigent and stubborn...even more so than Israel at times. However, the whole insanity over Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is just ridiculous, the concept of the United States asking Israel to not build settlements in land Israel originally took from the Arabs by force seems like a no-brainer on the path to peace.

But asking Israel to actually do something they're not to fond of is of course frowned upon by our own Village Chiefs, in today's unsigned WaPo editorial on the subject that Obama is just too darn mean to Bibi and Friends.

In part the trouble was unavoidable: Taking office with a commitment to pursuing Middle East peace, Mr. Obama faced a new, right-wing Israeli government whose prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to accept the goal of Palestinian statehood. In part it was tactical: By making plain his disagreements with Mr. Netanyahu on statehood and Jewish settlements, Mr. Obama hoped to force an Israeli retreat while building credibility with Arab governments -- two advances that he arguably needs to set the stage for a serious peace process.

But the administration also is guilty of missteps. Rather than pocketing Mr. Netanyahu's initial concessions -- he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous U.S. administrations -- Mr. Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement "freeze." Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the "confidence-building" concessions to Israel that the administration seeks. Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu. And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration's final year, have yet to resume.

U.S. and Israeli officials are working on a compromise that would allow Israel to complete some housing now under construction while freezing new starts for a defined period. Arab states would be expected to take steps in return. Such a deal will expose Mr. Obama to criticism in the Arab world -- a public relations hit that he could have avoided had he not escalated the settlements dispute in the first place. At worst, the president may find himself diminished among both Israelis and Arabs before discussions even begin on the issues on which U.S. clout is most needed. If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama will need to show both sides that they can trust him -- and he must be tough on more than one country.

Those peace negotiations have yet to resume because Israel has no intention to stop building settlements. All this is is a game of chicken, Bibi fully expects the pressure that Israeli interests in the US can bring to bear on the Obama administration will get him to drop the settlements issue and Israel can go back to the "America as our sugar daddy" relationship that they are used to, and the Obama administration is fully expecting the pressure they can bring along with the rest of the international community to get Bibi to back down.

But categorizing Obama's insistence that Israel follow through on the settlement freeze as a "misstep" is the main problem with the level of discourse (or lack of it) we have in America concerning Israel. The last eight years have been horribly one-sided. Both sides have blood on their hands, both sides need to make sacrifices and changes. I can understand the political climate in Israel right now dictating what the Prime Minister can and cannot do, but America setting limits is not automatically asking Israel to commit suicide here.

As long as Israel is getting billions in aid and military equipment from the American taxpayer, I think we have the ability to call some shots down there. People conveniently forget that.