The Culminations of a Bunch of Culminations

Barack Obama has polarized like no president has done before. Not exactly the confidence boost one would want to give with 2012 coming up, especially after how George W. Bush laissez faire attitude towards Israel led to him gaining in the Jewish vote in his reelection. Hell, for some reason, Slate, the cattiest of publications, let Elliot Spitzer, a man rich in experience as governor of the state with the most Jews, weigh in on the interpretive dance-off between Obama and Bibi in DC this weekend. Last night began the culmination: Bibi played the grand finale to the AIPAC Policy Conference, where he told a huge chunk of the friends of Israel how they will vote in 2012. And then today, he was the 49th foreign leader, and second Israeli prime minister after Menachem Began did so in 1978.

It was nice of Howard Kohr, AIPAC's Executive Director, to come on between the two as a warm-up for Bibi, and tell the press today that Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. So will Bibi drive the stake in tonight? If what National Security Council leader Yaakov Amrari is the advice Bibi is following, expect the posturing mostly align with Obama. Amrari sees the dispute as what it really is: the media distortion of Obama's words to a soundbite (this is the same conclusion you can draw from the analysis on today's Diane Rehm show, but there still is some question into the hostility of Netanyahu, which can be traced back to the existential safety Israel truly desires), and ignore the land swaps that would be part of the negotiations. Amrari points out that this swap would leave too many Israelis outside of Israeli borders for one reason: this coalition is very dependent on the votes of settlers to keep the small parties, the kingmakers with enough votes to hold that power.

Netanyahu's speech is more of the same: agreeing with Obama, but as an alum of MIT, his tone shows he is fighting, mostly because he doesn't think Obama understands what Israel needs. However, he knows what to tell AIPAC and lawmakers. Still, his address to AIPAC included one clause that Abbas has not been about: recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. For how similar his vision is to Obama, his tone may be the driver that

Netanyahu's speech to Congress looked and sounded like a George W. Bush speech to the same group: lots of standing ovations and no booing (looking at you, Joe Wilson, for ending the streak for Obama). Hell, it may have sounded better because of his obviously tighter grasp on the English language. But the sticking points are very obvious:

1. Hamas is a terrorist organization: They did condemn the killing of Bin Laden, and Netanyahu was wise to use that statement as a rallying around the flag moment for the US legislators. Calling them the Palestinian Al-Qaeda was a bit far, but he has a point, as they quickly accepted the 1967 borders, but still stayed with the goal of destroying Israel, and any Congressperson who doesn't stand to clap for that would be sealing their reelection loss.

2. He agrees with Obama on the swaps: June 4, 1967, didn't work, so there must be swaps. The only issue I have with this is the way he phrases it seems to put him in opposition to Obama. Some people only read tone, and for that reason I think his AIPAC speech might drive a lot of Jewish voters from Obama when he has done much more for Israel (I know, by doing very little) than Bush did (he of putting the Palestinians to election and allowing Hamas to be elected).

3. He wants to sit down to negotiate: Every Prime Minister since Rabin, save Ariel Sharon, has been willing to negotiate. Netanyahu is no difference, and as the first Likud leader to accept two states. Danny Danon and Mahmoud Abbas both made unilateral action sound destructive.

4. Rockets: The rockets need to stop or there will be more incursions. The rockets equal war, and if they don't stop, well, that isn't peace. There is no other way to look at it, and the people who justify it are misinformed.

5. Settlers: C-SPAN opened up to their listeners, and one American Orthodox Jew (he called the West Bank יהודה ושמרון) called to criticize Netanyahu, saying that he had no plan for the settlers. However, he did: the land swaps will bring in many of those settlers, but some will be forced to move. I think that the one sticking point will be Hebron, the second most holy site in Judaism, the Tomb of the Patriarchs, מערת המכפלה, is there, and they will not be willing to put it under the jurisdiction of the Palestinians. Especially with the coalition, this will be the main sticking point for any final agreement.

Having Congressional leaders meet with Netanyahu after his speech put the ball in Abbas' court. Especially with Fayyad's health issue (now not a heart attack) yesterday, Abbas needs to show himself as a stable partner for this to move forward. Otherwise, the American blame will go to the Palestinians, and we will see Abbas and Danon's pieces in the New York Times come to fruition this fall.

The Nakba and US-Israeli Relations: Lots Going On

May 14th was the Gregorian anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel, and the 15th marked the 63rd time that Palestinians have responded to those celebrations with mourning and defiance. The event is polarizing to say the least. Michael Oren wrote in Foreign Policy about the American need for Israel in these turbulent times, an assertion that was countered by Stephen Walt, he of the Israel Lobby fame (a book that just calls for AIPAC's legitimacy to be called into question, not the American relationship with Israel). This year, with the Arab Spring changing the tenor of the Arab world, Palestinians have began to protest in the countries bordering Israel. Ethan Bronner reported on the action for the New York Times, and the reports of protests within the West Bank were bittersweet to hear with the reaction from Israeli forces. A mixture of populist uprising for independence with action that delegitimizes the movement for Palestinian independence seem to be the ingredients of the past 41 years that has led to the stalemate that may have a chance to let up with a vote at the United Nations.

Civil disobedience is one thing that is missing from the Palestinian tenor. People throwing stones have been a part of the first two Intifadas, with protests barely ever staying nonviolent. But what has happened on the borders has provided the world with the polarizing issue that the Mavi Marmara did in its approach to Gaza last May. Both groups called for keeping with international law. The critics found the blockade of Gaza to be illegal and inhumane, and the raid to be in international waters. It is a double edged sword to deal with for the Israelis: keeping out the flotilla keeps their reputation for maintaining territorial integrity. Letting them in would make them lose that reputation (showing weakness) but make them seem so kind.

Rushing the borders in Lebanon and Syria create the same issue. Israel has maintained territorial integrity up there, and even had the UN take their side in a dispute when the Lebanese Army started shelling Israeli forces who turned out to not be violating any borders. These Palestinian refugees rushing the borders have had their actions pinned on the Lebanese government and Syrian government by Israeli intelligence officials. This seems a little irrational, as even a Lebanese MP blames it on UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army for abandoning their posts, probably at the behest of Hizballah. One can put the same blame on Syria's leadership for having their army abandon the border to focus on putting down the protests taking place all over their country. Of course, this can also be seen as Iran trying to make their influence in the region visible, and having it occur in two countries bordering Israel where their influence is known. Of course, Jordan and Egypt minimized the protests reaching the borders, a much harder task in Jordan where almost 2/3 of the population is Palestinian, but easier in both countries where their governments actually have authority throughout their territory.

These issues would stay in the limelight later in the week, with Benjamin Netanyahu scheduled to meet with Obama on May 20th. Mahmoud Abbas put the ball in Israel and the US's court with his New York Times Op-Ed that angered Netanyahu and led Danny Danon to say that Israel would gladly take an eye for an eye and pursue the same grievances and like any good constructivist, make what they will of any new political environment.

With this tense atmosphere, Obama was scheduled to give a sea-changing speech at the State Department in relation of US Middle East Policy, and he did not fall short, condemning the crackdown in Bahrain, telling Assad to either reform or get out of the way in Syria, and endorsing Israeli-Palestinian Peace based on the 1949 Armistice lines. Jonathan Schanzer points out that these lines will not be the endgame of negotiations for Israel, as they give Israel's main population center around Tel Aviv would be in a stretch of land 8 miles wide, with the West Bank on one side and the Palestinian state on the other.

Netanyahu arrived and showed his displeasure in front of the press. The word "unrealistic" doesn't seem to show good signs for the US-Israeli relationship. He was wrongly reported to have been livid beforehand, and the two leaders seem to still be cordial, while some bureaucrats believe that Netanyahu missed the point. While both view Hamas as a terrorist organization, Netanyahu still sees, and so does his whole coalition, that they have done all they can, despite their decisions to continue the construction of settlements.

Abbas made a quick reaction by calling a meeting with the Arab League. However, it does not look promising for Israelis to take the first steps with Hamas's response to the speech. Their legitimacy as a governing partner to negotiate with will not take any steps to give the Israelis good faith. It was refreshing to see Abbas take this step instead of engaging in the competitive chauvinism that his Op-Ed seemed to connote.

The biggest events will be at AIPAC starting today. Obama will preempt Bibi at AIPAC, speaking Sunday and with his Israeli counterpart following on Monday night. AIPAC's mission of blind support of Israeli policy seems to be backfiring as JStreet's mission for a two-state solution became Obama's stated goal. Alas, AIPAC's financial resources are much greater than JStreet's at this time, so their voice will be the one that stays in the ears of administration officials and legislators.

So, yes, basically, this is still a big mess.