How to handle Netanyahu and why he has my vote

As we brace ourselves for the three-pronged attack on sensible approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Netanyahu at AIPAC – Obama at AIPAC – Netanyahu at Congress), three notes regarding Netanyahu’s visit so far:

1.  Every prime minister on a similar visit is mindful to balance the gains and losses on the home front and on the international arena. Netanyahu’s calculation, which makes perfect sense from his point of view, was that there’s nothing to lose on the world arena, because there’s nothing Obama can do to hurt him: The re-election campaign has already begun, Obama is faced with a hostile Congress and is supposed to speak to the AIPAC conference tonight. This means there’s very little reason to concede anything to the American president, especially – as Bibi clearly hoped ever since both of them took office – if this president will be booted out in 2012. Even if Obama stays, Bibi will either have a reshuffled coalition and more room for manoeuvre, because 2012 will be an election year in Israel as well or will himself be out of office, because 2012 is going to be an election year in Israel as well.

At home, by contrast, there are plenty of people eager to hurt Bibi and outflank him from the right; the man exists in a veritable factory of long knives. Any sign of weakness or bowing down to American might and grace – however this may be justified by real-world circumstances – will be pounced upon. So what Netanyahu needed to do is not merely come back unscathed – he needed to bring a victory. In the very petty world of nationalist politics, lecturing the American president in front of the cameras is a victory; Bibi’s aides this morning were busy selling to the press that his tantrum was an act of “leadership” – he stood his grounds and protected Israeli interests.

2. It would therefore be advisable for the White House staffers to remember next time that Bibi comes to drive a bargain; and that if Obama wants to get the Israeli premier to some kind of a pinhead middle ground (for what it’s worth) he should start from higher up. In other words, Bibi would take insult even if Obama sings the Israeli national anthem and appoint Irwing Moskowitz as his Middle East envoy. For this reason, Obama’s next speech on Israel and the Palestinians need to be more assertive, not less; start from higher up – say, the 1967 quartet position and/or hint for America abstaining in September – and let Bibi and AIPAC and company whinge and whine and wriggle down to 1967 borders with land swaps.

3. All of this might make sense from Bibi’s perspective (Obama can’t hurt me; my coalition partners can; therefore, I’ll hurt Obama to soothe my coalition, not the other way around). But in the bigger picture, Bibi has for two years been wasting the near limitless credit of impunity offered to Israel by the American public on ridiculously petty stuff, reducing Israel’s future bargaining capability on more serious matters. This is precisely why I stand by my nomination of Bibi as +972 magazine’s man of the year: No one has attracted more critical attention to Israel than Netanyahu, not all the NGOs and international solidarity movement combined. I’m not only talking about alternative Jewish movements like J-Street and the Jewish Voice for Peace, both of whom would’ve found it difficult to make the ground they made vis-a-vis a more diplomatic (yet equally, if not more, conservative) Tzipi Livni; or about Thomas Friedman, who sensed where the wind was blowing long ago and made Bibi-bashing his pet theme in the last two years. Bibi even managed to piss off Jeffrey Goldberg, who demands: “Dear Mr. Netanyahu, please don’t speak to my President this way“. He goes on:

I was… taken aback when I read a statement from Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday that he “expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both House of Congress.”

So Netanyahu “expects” to hear this from the President of the United States? And if President Obama doesn’t walk back the speech, what will Netanyahu do? Will he cut off Israeli military aid to the U.S.? Will he cease to fight for the U.S. in the United Nations, and in the many  international forums that treat Israel as a pariah?

I’ll state it for the record: If there are ever direct elections to premiership in Israel again, I’ll vote for Netanyahu. A weak rightist government that needs to prove it’s responsible is safer than a centrist government that needs to prove it’s tough; and if the rightist government is reduced to self-destructive rhetoric that will inevitably reduce Israel’s ability to harm itself and others, then all the better.

And in this spirit: Israeli media reported last night that AIPAC leadership has asked its activists to make sure nobody boos Obama when he speaks tonight. Well, despite the fact that Obama’s speech was as pro-Israel as it gets – really, I heard very little difference from anything the previous administration might’ve said – I personally hope somebody does, loudly and live on air.There can be nothing better to drive home the point – to millions of Americans – that both AIPAC and Israel are spoiled, ungrateful twins pushing far above their weight, and that they need to be checked – at least for their own sake, if not for the sake of the Palestinians, Israelis, the American Jewish community, America and the Middle East at large.