OBAMA CHANGES THE SUBJECT: RICHARD BAEHR
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/today.php
Obama changes the subject
It has become fairly clear to anyone who takes the time to examine the facts, that the invitation by House Speaker John Boehner to Prime Minister Bienjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress was neither a breach of established protocol, nor any kind of snub or slap in the face. The process was, in fact, identical to what occurred the last time Netanyahu addressed Congress in 2011 — the speaker informed the White House, hearing no objection, he then invited Netanyahu. Of course, as soon as the invite became public this time around, all hell broke loose.
The extremely nasty White House propaganda campaign directed against John Boehner, but even more at Israel and its Prime Minister, took three forms. The first argument was that the White House had not been informed. This was blatantly false, and the New York Times, which could not have been more excited to highlight the growing tension between the two countries (all Netanyahu and Boehner’s fault of course), was forced to issue a correction on its initial reports stating the White House had not been informed. Of course, the news source of record then went right back to misreporting the chain of events soon thereafter. It is still widely believed that Boehner disrespected the president, and surprised him with the invitation, though this is not what happened. The White House is well aware it is nonsense. Score one for the president and his propagandists.
The second myth was that the president’s problem in meeting with Netanyahu had to do with the short time frame between the date for the speech to Congress and the upcoming Israeli elections. The initial invitation date was February 11, five weeks before the Knesset elections (subsequently moved back to March 3 to coordinate with Netanyahu’s AIPAC visit). Former President Bill Clinton met with then-Prime Minister Shimon Peres in 1996, even closer to the date of the upcoming Israeli elections. At that time the Israeli prime minister was directly elected, as opposed to the system in place today, where the elected prime minister represents the party that wins a large number of seats and can put together a 61-seat majority in the Knesset. Peres’ visit with Clinton was probably worth more, given how well-liked Clinton was in Israel. Obama, on the other hand, has had much less success fooling Israeli Jews that he is well-intended toward the Jewish state. Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress would reinforce the division that currently exists in American politics — between a president who is now generally considered less supportive of Israel than any president who came before him, and a Congress (and public) still largely supportive of a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.
The timing problem reflected something more basic — Obama is committed to doing anything in his power so that Netanyahu loses the upcoming elections. Former Obama campaign team members are working in Israel with groups that have received support from the U.S. State Department to encourage anti-Netanyahu voters to show up on election day — bringing Obama’s vaunted “ground game” to Israel’s elections.
This week also marks the release of Obama adviser David Axelrod’s lengthy book, detailing his life in politics, including a third of the book devoted to his years with Obama. Axelrod maintains that Obama pulled his punches with Israel the first six years because he had elections in front of him, and did not want to antagonize American Jewish voters who favor Democrats (though by smaller margins since Obama took office). But now, in his last two years (hint, hint), things could be different if Obama gets really annoyed with Israel. There might be real pressure applied to Israel to force a deal with the Palestinians (suggesting of course that both Axelrod and Obama believe it is Israel that has been the recalcitrant party in recent years).
On the Israeli front, there is no evidence thus far that Obama’s campaign of sullying Netanyahu’s name and image in America has worked to shift Israeli voters away from the prime minister. In fact, the reverse may be occurring, and Likud and its allies seem to be doing better in recent polling. Obama clearly figured his hostility toward Netanyahu would scare Israeli voters who in turn might vote for parties more amenable to working with Obama (in reality caving to American pressure).
Where Obama’s campaign against Israel has worked magic is within American politics. Obama has had several goals since he took office — key among them to make the Democrats a permanent majority party. Obama has tried strengthening ties among Democrats and portions of the American population that are growing in numbers, or naturally lean left in their political orientation — African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, gays, single women, those with advanced degrees, among them. These groups tend to be the least sympathetic to Israel because they are all part of the Left/Democratic party base, and the Left-Right divide is becoming a useful guide for views on Israel. The appeals to these groups worked to get Obama reelected in 2012 (something he loves to crow about), but his divisive approach has not carried over to other Democrats and he has caused real damage to his party in Congress and on the state level. Republicans are as strong as they have been in 80 years in the U.S. House, among serving governors and in control of state legislatures, as those excluded from the favored group pool have shifted right and to the Republicans, especially in lower turnout midterm elections.
Jews are a declining share of the American electorate, and the only growth within the Jewish community is among the most observant, who are least sympathetic to Democrats. Compared to several decades ago, the Jewish vote means far less. Obama is undoubtedly aware of this as well. Jews are becoming much less of a key component of the Democrats’ emerging coalition, while Obama’s goal mainly seems to see how far he can push Jews before some of them turn on him. Thus far, it seems he can push pretty far, with minimal pushback.
Liberal Jews do not produce as many votes as in earlier years, but are still a significant funding source for Democrats, though little of that support has to do with Israel. Jewish Democrats give to Democrats because they are liberal Democrats, and a president’s policy on Israel seems to have limited consequence as far as shaking that allegiance. Jimmy Carter succeeded in driving a large number of Jews away when he ran for a second term in 1980, but Obama had enough Jewish shills working for him when he ran for reelection in 2012 (just as he did in 2008) that he still looked safe enough in regards to Israel (a very low threshold), taking slightly over two of every three Jewish votes.
Now the brouhaha over the Netanyahu invite has made the invite the political story of the day, and the debate over the pending Iran nuclear deal secondary. This was the third prong of the Obama strategy — preferably force Netanyahu to cancel the talk because he alone among world leaders has the ability to draw attention to the almost signed and sealed giveaway to the Iranians. Of course, cancelling the speech now would make Netanyahu look like a quitter, damaging his electoral prospects. Failing a cancellation, Obama wanted to change the subject from the substance of Netanyahu’s talk to the politics — who would show up, who wouldn’t; who will applaud, who won’t.
Perhaps even more important for the long term Obama strategy — the Netanyahu speech provides ammunition to advance another Obama objective, which is to make Israel more of a partisan issue and make it easier for Democrats to break from the bipartisan consensus that has historically existed with regard to Israel in Congress. In perhaps one of the ultimate Orwellian twists to the current story, Obama took advantage of his press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel to again tear into Netanyahu’s planned speech and decry it for the naked partisanship it displayed in the alliance between Likud and the Republican Party.
This lie had three parts: one — communicate to Israeli voters that the Likud is risking support from America and its president by aligning with Republicans; two — tell American voters that Israel is now an issue like Obamacare, where Democrats and Republicans disagree and Republicans again try stymieing the president. And perhaps most galling is the third part: Drive home the theme that Obama is advancing the national interest by negotiating with the Iranians and trying to secure a deal that is good for America and Israel, while Republicans are just up to their usual tricks of blocking anything Obama supports, and that Netanyahu is just being Netanyahu, mainly for self-serving political purposes.
While the pundits tally who will boycott a speech by Israel’s prime minister to the U.S. Congress, Iranian proxies have taken over Yemen, with American soldiers and embassy personnel leaving in a chaotic fashion. Hezbollah and Iranian forces are becoming Assad’s principal force in the Golan region, and Iraqi and Iranian forces are becoming indistinguishable in the battle against ISIS while enjoying American air support. In other words, Iran is pushing its aggressive expansionist agenda in full view, with American support either explicit or tacit. When Iran joins the nuclear weapons club, which the all-but-signed deal with the P5+1 will ensure happens in the near future, that expansionism will become unstoppable in the region.
At this point, Netanyahu is the last standing threat to Obama’s new strategic engagement with Iran — which involves not only the nuclear accord but the emerging strategic partnership between the two countries that countenance Iran as a growing regional power. This state of affairs was unthinkable six years ago. It is now not only thinkable, but in full view.
But what are people talking about in Washington? There, the media is still asking why Boehner and Netanyahu are being so disrespectful. Obama may not have a true understanding of America’s strategic interest (and even worse, he might be working to thwart it), but he does know how to spin his story.
Comments are closed.
