Category Archives: Israel

Only the most hard-core anti Obama-ites could fail to be impressed by President Obama’s visit to Israel this week, notwithstanding all the inconveniences to travelers and residents. He said all the right things, went to some (not all) of the right places, effectively retracted some of the anti-Israel rhetoric from his Cairo address four years ago, publicly demanded nothing of Israel, and read speeches that could have been (actually, have been) delivered by Shimon Peres and others on the Israeli left.
The only discordant note – and a familiar rhetorical trope of the last 20 years – was his plea to Israeli youth to force their government to “take risks for peace.” The university youth with whom he spoke – there was no dialogue at all on this “listening tour,” unless by that he meant listening to applause – was effectively hand-picked, and trend to the far left of Israeli society with little influence on the political system. No Hesder students, or students at the University of Ariel, need apply.
The notion of taking “risks for peace” is quite rich coming from someone who does not walk four ells without hundreds of bodyguards, who will not drive on a road with other cars or fly in a helicopter unless the traffic below is routed elsewhere. That is to say, how about you taking some risks first, to show your good faith in humanity, as you wish Israelis would do?
Of course, the Secret Service would never allow it, and the American President faces special threats that deserve – he is a symbol, after all – special protection. But every human being is precious, and knowing as he does that territory surrendered by Israel to the enemy has always become a base for new terror against Israel, how can he propose that Israelis should take risks that he would not in his own life, and risks that have blown up in the faces of Israelis when ever carried out? Even this, timed for Obama’s visit, Hamas fired rockets from Gaza that destroyed a house in Sderot.
He can suggest it because that phrase – “risks for peace” – has been uttered by Shimon Peres for decades, and is a close cousin to its still-grieving relative, “sacrifices for peace,” the label affixed to the unfortunate Israelis who were murdered by Arabs when “risks for peace” were taken in the 1990s and 2000s. It asks that hope triumph over experience and logic, and sounds compassionate, albeit short-sighted and foolish. But people of the left often glorify and extol compassion more than they do facts and logic.
Nonetheless, Israelis warmed to Obama, who was charming, gracious, eloquent and used all the code words that Israelis want and like to hear. So, what’s the catch? The Arabs were beside themselves with irritation bordering on rage; the only anti-Obama demonstrations took place in Ramallah (except for some environmentalists here protesting something about exploration in the Arctic; there are all types of Jews). They genuinely expected threats, recriminations and pressure; none of that happened. In fact, the opposite occurred. Obama essentially said to Abbas, if you want to keep talking about talking, you can, but nothing will change ever. That suits Israel well, as the current situation can easily continue until Messiah comes, whenever he comes. (The real threats to Israel are again external, and even if the local Arabs resume their terror – as has happened recently, on a low scale, the IDF and security forces are well-situated in the cities to thwart it. What is end game?
A few possibilities present: First, that we had Obama all wrong, and that he is as pro-Israel as other American presidents like Bush II or Reagan, but leans more toward Labor and they lean more to Likud. It could be that his first term speeches were written by an anti-Israel speechwriter who has now been dispatched to al-Jazeera.
Second, that Barack Obama is playing good-cop, bad-cop, and after Obama leaves to universal acclaim, Kerry and his hammer will come down hard on Israel, and make demands for new settlement freezes, more withdrawals and prisoner releases, and other empty good faith gestures. That is very possible, although Israel – if it wishes – is well-suited to deflect that pressure because the Arab leadership is so inept and always looks angry and cantankerous. They just make demands, and – like a petulant child – do not know how to respond to a “no.” (Part of the reason is for twenty years, they became accustomed to hearing “yes” to whatever they wanted.)
Third, that Obama was playing to a domestic American audience. Presidents always look good on friendly foreign soil, and he has been stung by criticism (he is remarkably thin-skinned for a public figure) that he is anti-Israel. This doesn’t seem likely at all, as he is not running for re-election, and could say or do anything and still get 70% of the Jewish vote.
So, why, why? It might be (I can certainly hope) that Obama has tired of the Mideast mess, realizes the problem is intractable, and that there is nothing to gain – politically, militarily or otherwise – in pressuring Israel or catering to the Arabs. The real obstacles to negotiations dwell in Ramallah. Why should Obama waste his time in this region? So, he came here, paid his debts, spoke his piece, did his due diligence and can now move on without being accused of “ignoring” the problem. He basically challenged both sides to work it out, employing the empty arguments of the left, but nothing that is completely outside the broad consensus of Israeli life. He realizes that with Egypt and Syrian in turmoil, the specter of Iran looming, and Jordan and Saudi Arabia trembling before the future, the odds are not great that Israel will take “risks for peace,” but the words sound good, as does the applause. At least he did something.
Of the four possibilities, the last strikes me as the most plausible. Israel could benefit from a little benign neglect of the American president, who was quite clear that Israel has the complete right to defend itself. With the demographic edge shifting to Israel (unlike the hackneyed claim of the left here and Obama himself), and the balance of power heavily in Israel’s favor, there is no reason at all for Israel to respond with concessions to a vicious, hateful enemy.
As for Obama, if this is why he came, and this is his end game, I can only say – despite the inconveniences to residents – “please come again.”

President Obama is gracing the State of Israel with his presence this week, for no discernible reason other than that to have continued avoiding Israel when he has visited many of the world’s despots would have seemed churlish. He comes with a huge entourage, no new “peace” initiatives (thankfully), and the stagecraft of presidential pomp that is always impressive.
How do Israelis feel about it? Many readers may not be able to imagine that Israel is a small country, with a land mass the rough equivalent of New Jersey and a population far smaller than that of New York City. In a small country, symbols matter, and the official preparations have been underway for days – dress rehearsals, itineraries, signage, and the who’s who of invitations to the various official functions. Every such visit, in sense, validates the “legitimacy” of the small country visited, and certainly here where Israelis are always a touch insecure about their place in the world, and for good reason.
One point cannot be overlooked: whoever planned this trip chose the absolutely worst week imaginable to have a presidential visit. The week before Pesach in Israel (as anywhere in the Jewish world, but particularly so here) is a beehive of activity, and to have a presidential visit on the busiest shopping and travel week of the year is pure insanity. I wouldn’t accuse Obama’s handlers of insensitivity, but of rank cluelessness.
Consider: Israel’s main highway connecting its airport (near Tel Aviv) to Jerusalem will be closed for several hours on Wednesday, mid-afternoon; dozens of streets in some Jerusalem residential areas are closed to cars – parked or moving – from Wednesday through Friday. (Most homes do not have garages, nor are there parking garages in residential neighborhoods. Where will the residents put their cars? Beats me. And how come they don’t clear New York streets of cars when the President visits?) Israel’s only international airport will be closed for hours at a time.
Stores within a 2.1 kilometer radius of Obama’s travels have to be closed for three days – at the height of the tourist season. Merchants were so informed on Sunday, and will receive no compensation from the government for their lost earnings. The King David Hotel had to relocate hundreds of guests on the week before Passover, because the hotel must be completely empty except for the President’s official party. The Inbal Hotel had to find new places for only half its guests; the White House press corps does not merit the same exclusivity. (And both hotels eagerly competed against many other hotels for the right to host both parties.)
The Israel Museum will be closed to visitors on Thursday to accommodate the presidential visit, and Yad Vashem will be closed on Friday for the same reason. Israelis are being told to avoid coming to Jerusalem this week, the Holy City, the week before Pesach. Clueless, indeed. People plan visits to Israel around the holiday season, and want to visit sites that will simply be off-limits to them.
Obama’s stated purpose for the visit is to “meet with Israelis.” For that reason, he strangely eschewed addressing the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament, as several of his predecessors have done. Of course, he can’t “meet” the people, because he is ensconced in a sterile zone in which regular “people” are not allowed. The “people” that he will be meeting, in the one session devoted to meeting the “people,” is a get-together with Israeli university students in which all universities were invited to send representatives, except for the University of Ariel (in Samaria), excluded for the lamest reason fathomable, unworthy of repetition here.
Because Obama will not ever be in the presence of spontaneous crowds, he will receive a cordial welcome wherever he goes – and rightfully so. I am not of the mind that he will be convinced to do anything – let Israel determine its own future, free Jonathan Pollard, etc. – by embarrassing him. Suffice it to say, the Pollard issue has been revived by the Obama visit, as there are signs all over Israel with pictures of Obama and Pollard and the text between their pictures reading “Yes, You Can.” Nice touch. Pollard deserves to be pardoned; he has now served a sentence more than seven times longer than any other American ever convicted of the same offense – passing classified information to an ally. It is unconscionable that he is still in prison, the likely reasons being Jew-hatred and the inclination of American presidents to use Pollard as a bargaining chip to wring concessions from Israel at some future date. (Such was confessed by Dennis Ross when he urged Bill Clinton not to release Pollard as Clinton had promised to then PM Netanyahu in his first term, before the Wye Conference.) But freedom for Jonathan Pollard has become one of the few issues that unite all Israeli politicians – left and right, religious and not-yet-religious – and the Israeli people as well.
So there is no clear reason why Obama is coming at all, and certainly not this week. Of course, for Obama, it is a public relations bonanza. Presidents always look good on friendly foreign soil, and most presidents have traveled more in their second terms than in their first terms, as they grow frustrated with the lack of progress on their domestic agenda. (That itself is a reason why Americans should rejoice that Obama is coming to Israel.)
The clichés will be raining down on our heads – Obama has “Israel’s back;” “Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon;” “all options are on the table;” Israel “has no better friend.” Less clear are the details, in which the devil always finds his place. Iran will not obtain a nuclear weapon – America’s “highest priority” – until it does. And then what? Probably, it will be President Bush’s fault.
Does Israel need a “green light” from the US go attack Iran? Should it coordinate with the US? Frankly, can a Hagel or Kerry be trusted with sensitive information about a planned Israeli strike on Iran, knowing that both are sincerely and firmly anti-war? This is not purely theoretical. A White House source last year leaked to the media Israel’s negotiations with Azerbaijan, a neighbor of Iran, to use their airfields in case a military strike become necessary.
There is a palpable fear that Obama will produce some diplomatic surprise, publicly call for another settlement freeze, a Palestinian state by a date certain, behind-the-scenes threats of repercussions (what could those be? Israel’s economy is stronger that America’s, and Israel would be wise not to complain about the reduced aid it is due to receive this year as a result of the sequester) or something to start the ball rolling on another wave of concessions leading up to a signing ceremony that will be meaningless even before the ink is dry. A plan for new concessions will surely undermine the new Netanyahu government even before the ministers have grown comfortable in their new cars.
The only vocal opposition to Obama’s visit, complete with insults (shoes were thrown at an American diplomatic vehicle driving in Bethlehem the other day, a real affront in the Arab world), comes from the so-called Palestinians, who are angry that Obama is not “forcing” Israel to surrender. They will find that even a sympathetic Obama has tired of their foot-dragging (they could have had a state, G-d forbid, a dozen years ago if they really wanted one) and their incessant demands. Terrorism has unfortunately heated up again; the last two months have seen a marked increase in stoning and shootings of Jews by Arabs in Judea and Samaria, and active terrorist cells in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem have been thwarted just in the last few days before they could carry out their diabolical attacks.
I hope that the President will be greeted warmly, as befits any American President. I hope as well that in response to his request for “good will gestures” from the Israelis that each Israeli with whom he meets asks for an American good will gesture first: the release of Jonathan Pollard after 28 years of imprisonment.
Barack Obama is coming here because he has to come here sometime. The timing is bad, but it makes life interesting and travel treacherous. Ironically, he has finally united most Israelis and Palestinians who, for different reasons, will be happy when he has left.

Events in different parts of the world shine a light on the similarities of the political class, their elastic attachment to truth and the ease with which they attempt to frighten the masses that are largely uninterested in facts and mostly swayed by rhetoric.
Here in Israel, the post-election coalition talks have dragged on for over a month and not yet found a ready solution. The usual alignment – if it could be suggested that there ever is such a thing in Israel – has not coalesced. A Likud prime minister has failed to persuade his “natural allies” on the Right – the Haredi parties and Bayit Hayehudi – to join him, when they alone could form a narrow government. Instead, Bayit Hayehudi has cast its lot for the moment (if not longer) with another party of mixed heritage – Yesh Atid – and to date nothing has swayed Bayit Hayehudi chairman Naftali Bennett to play the usual political game of making deals, renouncing them, making more deals and winding up with ministries and funding for pet causes. For that, he is being roundly criticized by some, but not by me.
The reason is simple, if not fully accepted. Bennett aspires to leadership, and not only patronage. The best comeback line of the post-election period has been Bennett’s: accused of being a political novice who doesn’t know how to make deals, play games, just join the government and share the spoils of victory, he answered, in effect, “indeed, I am a political novice. Therefore, all I know for sure are my values and principles, and on those there is no room for compromise.”
A leader has to aspire to more than the assumption of power for power’s sake. He has to want to fix the country’s problems as best he can, and not simply want to kick the can down the road in order to retain power and its perks indefinitely. Bennett has no illusions about diplomacy, and will not indulge in illusions for the same of media popularity. And diplomacy is likely to be on the backburner for some time. The more pressing issue to deal with – somewhat contrived but real nonetheless – is the “equality of burden” matter, the failure of Haredim to serve their country and/join the workforce in substantial numbers.
Obviously, Talmud Torah is a great value, and the loftiest activity of the Jew. But one has to struggle to piece together sources that can justify learning for years into adulthood at the expense of others, not to mention learning Torah while others are risking their lives defending them. Granted, Talmud Torah protects as well; but army service remains compulsory, and Torah study remains voluntary. Do the Torah students ever serve in a compulsory way? In my perfect world, all Jews would serve for three, two in the army and one learning Torah, or one in the army and two learning Torah. This way, each person would fight for Israel and know for what they are fighting. (Don’t protest that mandated Torah study would be considered “religious coercion; one could just as easily argue that mandated military service is “secular coercion.” The same government that orders one into battle can order one to learn about why Jewish nationhood is important and why Jewish identity is dependent on Torah.)
My good plan is not the Bennett approach – but society will not long tolerate an inequity of public service. Part of the problem is that the Haredi world has not done a good job of convincing the Israeli public of the importance of Talmud Torah, perhaps because self-segregation is usually not an effective way of gaining general acceptance; another part of the problem is that Haredim find it difficult to express appreciation to the Israelis who do serve. One question to which I have yet to receive a cogent answer, despite numerous Haredi interlocutors, is: why don’t Haredi shuls say the prayer for the IDF every Shabbat? Forget, for a moment, the tefila for the medina, but there is a separate tefila recited for the army that protects them. Why don’t they recite that? It seems like rank ingratitude – and if they did? Small gestures would go a long way in repairing relations with the rest of society. And if this problem could be solved responsibly, through negotiations, through love and appreciation for all – how that would transform Israel? But it will not happen if the political class simply makes unenforceable deals and keeps kicking the can.
Likud leaders have lambasted Bennett for “betraying” his voters and bypassing the opportunity to form a “right-wing” government and risking the formation of a center-left government that will not be able to “stand up to Obama.” This sounds plausible on the surface, but is risible after the slightest analysis. It was the “right-wing” Likud government that withdrew from Sinai and expelled Jews from Yamit; the “right-wing” Likud government the surrendered Hevron to the Arabs; the “right-wing” Likud government that expelled Jews from Gaza and northern Shomron; the “right-wing” government that froze construction in Judea and Samaria for almost a year for no discernable reason or advantage. Perhaps the “right-wing” Likud government is not as “right-wing” as they imagine themselves to be; thus, there is an advantage in having a broader-based government that exercise checks and balances on policies that can easily become detached from reality, like the “peace process.”
And one who imagines the Shas party to be part of that “right-wing” bloc clearly does not remember the Oslo Accords, which passed the Knesset only because Shas voted in favor. Indeed, another reason why the Haredi parties attract no general support is because they seem to join whichever party promises them money for their parochial causes, and have no principled positions on matters of national importance. When that changes, then their image will also change, for the better, and so will the Torah’s image. The secular Israeli prefers to castigate the Haredi straw man as the symbol of the Judaism they spurn, rather then extol the Religious-Zionist as the symbol of the Judaism to which they should be attracted.
Speaking of kicking the can down the road, Americans are just hours away from the…SEQUESTER!! Oh, horrors!! Rather than increasing federal spending by $100B this year, the federal budget will only increase by $15B – and you read that correctly.
For all the hand-wringing, the crocodile tears, and the warnings of impending doom, the US budget will increase this fiscal year, even with the sequester.
So how can President Obama threaten the imminent end of all public services, airline safety, the collapse of education and probably looming starvation of millions? Because he is not a serious man, and he recognizes that he is dealing with a most gullible audience. The sequester effectively reduces the amount of a budget increase – in many cases, it will freeze spending close to last year’s level – which doesn’t sound that draconian at all. Failing businesses routinely cut spending, reduce staff and prioritize budget allocations; why should the US government – economically, a failing enterprise – not to the same? Any government agency can easily re-arrange its budget to apportion its funding to reflect the new economic reality, and to prioritize where the public money should be spent. That Obama has suggested – if not demanded – that agencies cut spending in areas that will most affect the public rather than will least affect the public is simply beyond outrageous.
Obama knows only taxing, spending, and income redistribution. For one of the few times in his presidency, he has found himself with no leverage – and, sweet irony – sequestration was his idea to begin with. Rather than govern and lead, he sees fit – once again – to campaign, read speeches, threaten and demoralize. And the saddest aspect of this process is that it has become abundantly clear that federal spending will never be cut unless government’s hands are tied, its feet bound, and its tongue silenced.
Both here and there, one thing is clear: people have less to fear when politicians tell them to be afraid if they don’t get their way – than we do when the politicians actually get their way.