Every now and then, I am rewarded with a performance that is truly exceptional. Instead of reasoned arguments, I am regaled with rationalizations so tortuous as to be entertaining. Not long ago, this occurred with respect to president Obama’s Middle East policy.
The president, in the words of many analysts, had thrown Israel under the bus. Instead of defending our traditional ally from encroachments by its neighbors, he opined that it was necessary to negotiate a peace based on a reversion to pre-1967 borders. Some land swaps might be necessary, but the Palestinians deserved a contiguous state of their own.
The reaction to this suggestion was immediate. Obama claimed it had been standard American policy for decades, but most observers sympathetic to Israel begged to differ. They asserted that his proposal would rob the Jewish state of its bargaining chips. In coming squarely down on the Palestinian side, it put an American thumb on their end of the scale.
So obvious did this seem to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he told Obama, to his face, the 1967 lines were a non-starter. Israel would never agree to them, nor accept a “right of return.” Netanyahu insisted that allowing the grandchildren of Palestinian refugees to settle within Israel’s borders was tantamount to demographic suicide. Nor was he going to negotiate with Hamas. This, he said, would be like the United States negotiating with al Qaeda.
After these two performances, the commentators wondered aloud about the effect on the Jewish vote. Would ordinary Jewish voters conclude their favorite president betrayed Israel? Would they be deeply upset by his going back on his word to defend this tiny nation?
Obama’s supporters need not have worried. His political allies remained determined to be his allies. They did not hear what his opponents did. To the contrary, this time they heard the president reiterate his support for the Jewish state. Because he asserted that its security must be sacrosanct, they concluded his commitment to Israel continued intact.
One of the president’s defenders was especially ardent in her support. The president, she explained, only seemed to sacrifice Israeli interests. What he had really done was set the stage for Netanyahu’s passionate defense of his country. In forcing the Israeli leader to be eloquent, he actually strengthened American commitments.
Incredibly, according to this commentator, Obama is so smart that he habitually thinks three or four steps ahead of the rest of us. Others might not have anticipated the consequence of putting Netanyahu into a box, but he had. This indeed was his purpose. The goal was not to give the Palestinians what they want, but to buttress Israel’s position by making its vulnerability obvious.
Other Obama allies have previously described him as “leading from behind,” but here he was supposedly far ahead of the pack. In fact, the point is that whatever the president says his allies interpret as brilliant. Because he is always right, they only have to explain why.
In this, they have the president’s assistance. Those who pay attention to his speeches are aware that he provides ammunition for multiple interpretations. Thus, he tells us he wants to cut the budget while simultaneously arguing we must spend more. Or he says his medical program will bend the cost curve down at the same time he promises greater services.
With respect to Israel he was merely following his standard routine. On the one hand he proposed policies that would lead to the nation’s demise, while on the other he guaranteed its protection. As is his wont, he had it both ways. Well practiced in speaking out of both sides of his mouth, he is especially fortunate that his allies hear only the side with which they agree.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment