Why Do Israelis Dislike Barack Obama?

There are many people, gifted with rare intelligence and tolerance for humankind, who, when addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, run off the rails.

This week, it was the turn of former American Jewish Congress national director Henry Siegman. Noting opinion polls showing that a bare six to eight percent of the Israeli public supports Barack Obama, Siegman concludes that the dislike for Obama is a reflection not of the president's policies, but of something essential -- and fundamentally defective -- in the Israeli people itself:

"The Israeli reaction to serious peacemaking efforts is nothing less than pathological," Siegman writes in an opinion piece for the International Herald Tribune, calling the response "the consequence of an inability to adjust to the Jewish people's reentry into history with a state of their own following 2,000 years of powerlessness and victimhood."

He concedes that polls show that a clear majority of Israelis favor a two-state solution, and thus, Palestinian statehood. But he argues that, while they insist that they much prefer peace, if put to the test, Israelis will prove to be liars, and opt for occupation. "Israel's public never tires of proclaiming to pollsters its aspiration for peace and its support of a two-state solution." Nonetheless, "the reason for this unprecedented Israeli hostility toward an American president is a fear that President Obama is serious about ending Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza."

Siegman's thesis makes no room for the possibility that the administration may have made more major mistakes in handling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, than it has made in any other primary policy sphere.

There is no allowance for the sense that when Barack Obama made an early priority of his presidency a high profile visit to Cairo, its centerpiece an extended address to the Muslim world, a subsequent personal appeal to Israelis might have helped him advance his peacemaking goals.

There is no consideration of the possibility that the administration failed in doing requisite preparation with Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak prior to dropping on Israel the bomb of a blanket settlement freeze demand -- which might have been well-received by the Israeli public, had it been accompanied by gestures on the Palestinian or wider Arab side. As it was, rumors of normalization moves were humiliatingly waved away by Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, who wrote in the New York Times that a settlement freeze, even if agreed to by Israel, fell far, far short of his key nation's minimum preconditions for any steps toward relations with Israel.

Demanding not a freeze but total removal of all existing settlements as a mere initial precondition, the prince states that any gestures will have to wait until the return to Arab hands of the West Bank, the Golan, and Shabaa Farms in Lebanon ...

But what should any of that matter to Henry Siegman? From the tone of his arguments, he belongs to the school of thought which suggests that hating Israelis is a form of working for peace.

So willing is Siegman to disavow any legitimate feelings on the part of Israelis, that he suggests that that their worst fears -- of Iran, of rocket attacks, of world isolation and abandonment -- not only are baseless, but are also a source of consolation:

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's message that the whole world is against Israel and that Israelis are at risk of another Holocaust -- a fear he invoked repeatedly during his address in September at the United Nations General Assembly in order to discredit Judge Richard Goldstone's Gaza fact-finding report is unfortunately still a more comforting message for too many Israelis."

Siegman doesn't merely think that Israelis are mistaken. He loathes them. In his reading, they are venal, deceitful, the source of the conflict and the barrier to its solution. In Siegman's reading, the conflict continues because U.S. presidents " ... have accommodated a pathology that can only be cured by its defiance.'

It may be argued that Israel has much more to fear from people who think like Henry Siegman, than from Richard Goldstone. A close reading of the Goldstone report, and an open hearing of his views, as in a recent interview with Rabbi Michael Lerner on Tikkun.org, shows that Justice Goldstone cares a great deal about Israelis and the direction in which their country is headed.

Meanwhile, given Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's opaque, work-in-progress assessment of current Israeli policy as an unprecedented restriction on settlement, yet far short of what the administration would like, it should surprise no one in Washington if the White House has now managed simultaneously to alienate Israel's left, right, and center.

For Israel's sake, for the Palestinians' sake, and for the good of his presidency, the administration must radically reassess its approach to the Mideast conflict.

The fears of Israelis are real. The grievances of the Palestinians are just. If both peoples have one trait in common, it is that they cannot be bludgeoned, bribed, or sweet-talked into supporting a policy which favors only side.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are nothing if not good students. It is time to go back and hit the books. If they can broker a package deal which addresses the most critical needs of the Palestinians (including fostering Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, furthering PA security and solcial welfare responsibilities, easing the Gaza siege, and curbing settlement) as well as providing something Israelis can reasonably view as an advance over their current situation (such as making good on hopes for Muslim-world normalization measures), they have a chance of success.

If not, it is time to leave the people here who hate one another to themselves. And to Henry Siegman. In a place where dignity is everything, there is a certain honor to be gained in recognizing that you tried your best, but that peace will have to wait for a time when Israelis are less preoccupied with hating one another other, and Palestinians, the same.

For the full post, please see haaretz.com:

 

Follow Bradley Burston on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bradleyburston

Comments

[hemara]

You need only to view maps that show the expansion of Israeli settlements over the years to understand the true intentions of successive Israeli governments with regard to the Palestinian people.

[StCuthbert]

You only need to look at the statements of the Palestinian governments for the past sixty years to understand the true intentions of the Palestinians with regard to Israel.

[hemara]

An unoriginal response, however it does contain an essential truth: you speak of the huge disparity in power between the Israelis and Palestinians.

While I criticise Israel for their calculated takeover of ALL the land supposed to house the future Palestinian state (which the Israelis claim to support), the only thing you can think of that the Palestinians have done wrong is make threats.

Perhaps not intentionally you've hit the nail on the head: the Palestinians are essentially powerless in their own land, which is why there are now 200,000 Israelis in East Jerusalem and 500,00 Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Meanwhile Israel accepts BILLIONS of dollars annually from the US in aid.

Gaza conflict casualties -
Israelis dead: 13
Palestinians dead: 1400

Who has the power in this situation? Yet who claims to be the victim?

If you want to speak about the true intentions of nations how about we look at the Arab Peace Initiative, offering full normalistion of relations between Israel and the 22 Arab League nations, which has been on the table FOR SEVEN YEARS and Israel have done what they always do: stall.

Look at the facts. Disgusting.

[Fireslayer]

The two state solution is dead without major international intervention and a very unlikely change in US policy to actively restrain Israeli expansionism.

It is all one big stall for more land grabs.

[vascopyjama]

All that business about a settlement freeze was just for public consumption. Hillary Clinton proved that when she spoke about "unprecedented concessions". But this should come as no surprise to anyone. Look at the caliber of the advisers Obama has surrounded himself with.

[AlexKTahoma]

Why would we leave Israel, our biggest supporters in the middle east on their own? They've been supportive of us during our entire time over in the middle east. We would merely be turning our backs on allies.
Obama has not done what it takes for the Israelis to actually like him. He denied them troops and support when they needed it dearly. I would think that explains why they don't like Obama.

[MarcusT]

Simply from a strategic point of view, we don't need them. In retrospect we never did and they have caused us, and everyone else, nothing but trouble.

[SimonNZ]

So you're saying Israeli fears are more important than Palestinian grievances. Sounds like racism to me.

[TheLonelyGod]

If you actually read the article, he said that both are important.

[GZLives]

The don't dislike him ... they just see how incredibly naive he is and refuse to be those who pay the ultimate price for his learning curve

[larce1948]

Israelis know Congress will allow Obama to nothing against them. He's just not rolling over fast enough for their liking.

[lightningbolt]

"But he argues that, while they insist that they much prefer peace, if put to the test, Israelis will prove to be liars, and opt for occupation."

The reason many Israelis feel uneasy about leaving the West Bank is because they fear the same thing that happened after the withdrawal from Gaza will happen again in the West Bank. Hamas could take over and start launching rockets and sending suicide bombers once again. The PA is not powerful enough to withstand a takeover by Hamas like the one that happened in Gaza. It will be very difficult for Israelis to accept a West Bank withdrawal without a guarantee against terrorism from the PA.

[SpoonieLuv]

Why should Obama care if the Israelis dislike him? I certainly don't and I don't know anyone who would not vote for Obama in 2012 simply because he does not show the same mindless support for Israel that Bush did.

[TheLonelyGod]

Why should he care of the Egyptians, British, Iranians, Iraqis, or Afghanis dislike him?

The fact is that he seems to care about America's standing with the rest of the world. That should include Israel.

[SpoonieLuv]

Yes, but none of the countries that you mentioned are dependent on the United States for their armaments. Israel is. Hence, Israeli discontent with the US seems not only irrelevant to our goals in the Middle East, but it also demonstrates that country's ingratitude toward its own patron state.

[Donatella]

“dropping on Israel the bomb of a blanket settlement freeze demand”

So the real problem is that Obama has been too harsh on Israel, he needs to speak softly, pamper them and give them some more time to adjust; over 40 years of occupation is not enough time. The world Mr. Burston is describing is truly a bizzaro world. He talks about the pain Israelis feel regarding the rhetorical “bombs regarding freezing settlements” while the Gazan Palestinians suffered from white phosphorus (at least 14 civilians were burned to death), flechettes bombs designed for maximum damage and highly carcinogenic tungsten shrapnel and dime munitions.

So the U.S. policy should be to speak gently to the Israelis while providing active support for the cruel military slaughter of an occupied people. This certainly is a policy that will be eagerly supported by AIPAC.

[StCuthbert]

It's not too often that I agree with Mr. Burston, but this time I definitely do.

Palestinian grievances do not supersede Israeli fears, and the opposite is true. The sooner both sides realize the other side has a case and needs to be met, the sooner peace will be achieved.

[PWM]

Good point. Both sides have to realize that peace only happens when we look at the guy on the other side of the street as a human being.

[TheLonelyGod]

This is a great article, Mr. Burston. The Huffington Posters here seem to reflect the same view that Mr. Siegman had: If they don't like Obama, it's only because there is something wrong with them, not something wrong with him.

Obama doesn't mind apologizing for American actions in an effort to improve diplomatic relations with EVERYONE. He should do the same for Israel. Not just expect Israel (and only Israel) to do whatever he asks just because he's the President.