Israelis read Obama right. Well, half right.

I have been arguing that the Obama administration's promise to reassess its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in light of Netanyahu's late-election disavowal of a two-state solution is not an expression of pique but the seizing of an opportunity. A report from the New York Times' Jodi Rudoren suggests that a lot of Israelis agree with me:

Several Israeli analysts said the administration’s criticism of Mr. Netanyahu seemed like a pretext for a longstanding plan to change the United States’ policy of protecting Israel in international forums, which the administration has said it will reassess. Others suspect a ploy to undermine Israel’s lobbying efforts against the American negotiations for a nuclear accord with Iran.

I don't know that there was a longstanding plan; policymaking is usually more reactive than people assume. But any rational U.S. actor (see Baker, James) would look for an opportunity to alter the U.S.'s one-sided relationship with Israel -- the U.S.'s near-total absence of leverage, the political imperative to provide unconditional support no matter how thoroughly Israel undercuts U.S. policy, the impossibility of imposing consequences such as limiting aid or joining the rest of the world in condemning Israeli settlement activity.

I see Giora Eiland, a former Israeli national security adviser (cited by Rudoren), as half right here:

Chastising Netanyahu: Fury or cold calculation?

Characterizing the Obama administration's reaction to Netanyahu's late-election comments denigrating Arab voters and promising to prevent formation of a Palestinian state, the New York Times' Jodi Rudoren and Julie Davis echo a comment them in asserting

the White House issued a new signal that it remained furious with Mr. Netanyahu for campaign comments that also appeared to close the door on a two-state solution to the Palestinian conflict.

and

there was no sign of any softening from the administration over its anger with Mr. Netanyahu over his comments about the Palestinian question.

Perhaps Obama, Kerry et al really were personally incensed by Netanyahu's comments. I've read at least one account quoting anonymous sources who claimed they were. Perhaps they find it useful to project "fury."  But I see the reaction more as seizing an opportunity than as an expression of pique.

One more Jewish Voice for Peace

Update 7/7: Haaretz, voice of what's left of the Israeli left, published an astonishing indictment of Israeli society and culture in a staff editorial today:

No less responsible for the murder are those who did not halt, with an iron hand, violence by Israeli soldiers against Palestinian civilians, and who failed to investigate complaints “due to lack of public interest.” The term “Jewish extremists” actually seems more appropriate for the small Jewish minority that is still horrified by these acts of violence and murder. But they too recognize, unfortunately, that they belong to a vengeful, vindictive Jewish tribe whose license to perpetrate horrors is based on the horrors that were done to it.

Prosecuting the murderers is no longer sufficient. There must be a cultural revolution in Israel. Its political leaders and military officers must recognize this injustice and right it. They must begin raising the next generation, at least, on humanist values, and foster a tolerant public discourse. Without these, the Jewish tribe will not be worthy of its own state.

That makes me feel moderate in my little manifesto, originally posted on July 4, below.
 ----
A personal note here that I have joined Jewish Voice for Peace, which "seeks an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem; security and self-determination for Israelis and Palestinians; a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on principles established in international law; an end to violence against civilians; and peace and justice for all peoples of the Middle East."  JVP campaigns to induce organizations and investors to divest from companies that profit from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

As a Jew, I feel a vital chord is struck by the JVP assertion that "we are among the many American Jews who say to the U.S. and Israeli governments: 'Not in our names!'" Not in my name the land theft, the caging of people in cantons via roads to which they're barred access, the legal codification of second class citizenship, the rampant housing discrimination, the mass arrests and consequence-free killings, the disproportionate assaults and bombardments, and the enablement of all of the above by obscene amounts of military aid showered on a first-world country by a U.S. Congress and executive branch forever in the pocket of a toxic combination of Jewish and Evangelical Christian lobbies.

I note that JVP is noncommittal as to the form of a just resolution of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and that's as it should be. If conditions change to a degree almost unimaginable at the moment, and an Oslo-type two-state solution becomes acceptable to both sides, who would gainsay it?  I have come to believe, though, that a just state in which citizenship is defined by religion and ethnicity is impossible. Ultimately, by course of nonviolent evolution -- perhaps in a hundred years -- I would hope that a single democratic state with no special status accorded to any religion or ethnicity might emerge in present day Israel-Palestine.

Iranian attitudes toward Israel: the TFT poll

The now-notorious poll of the Iranian electorate conducted in May by Terror Free Tomorrow and the New America Foundation may not have shed much light on the final presidential vote, given that less than half of those surveyed expressed a preference for any candidate, and that the poll was conducted a month before the vote in a short campaign that changed radically in the final weeks. But its basic methodology was sound. And the survey does contain a wealth of data about Iranian beliefs on a wide range of issues.

That includes some chilling -- albeit somewhat contradictory -- data on Iranians' attitudes toward Israel. The 1000 respondents were asked which statement was closest to their own opinons: "I would favor a peace treaty recognizing the State of Israel, if an independent Palestinian State is established" or "I oppose any peace treaty recognizing the State of Israel, and I favor all Muslims continuing to fight until there is no state of Israel in the Middle East." 269 (26.9%) favored the peace treaty; 615 (61.5%) opposed any treaty and favored fighting until Israel, pardon the interpolation, vanishes from the page of time. 8.9% didn't know; 2.7% refused to answer.

Respondents were also asked, however, about their attitudes toward "several proposals which some Iranian diplomats were willing to give to the United States in return for normal relations." Among them: "recognizing Israel and Palestine each as separate, independent states." Here, 35% strongly favored the two-state solution; 17.1% somewhat favored it; 9.1% somewhat opposed, 27.2% strongly opposed; 10.3% didn't know, and 1.4% refused to answer.

Almost twice as many respondents were willing to support a two-state solution in this context as in the prior one. It would appear that a good number of Iranians are willing to put their hatred of Israel on ice in exchange for normal relations with the U.S.

Iranians also consider Israel to be the country that poses the greatest threat to Iran -- with some justification, given Netanyahu's loud saber rattling. 44.1% said that Israel was the greatest threat to their country, vs. 37.9% for the United States and just 2.1% for Russia -- which, incidentally, might indicate that Mousavi's recent effort to portray Ahmadinijad as a Russian tool will not have much resonance.

I must say that I will remember Iranian policy preferences toward Israel when reading accounts of Iranians' apparent growing enthusiasm for nonviolence as a means to effect political change at home. At the same time, one might hope that success in nonviolent resistance at home might dispose Iranians more favorably toward nonviolent resolutions of conflicts abroad. Indeed, a major reason for Mousavi's strong support is Iranians' wish for a less confrontational foreign policy, a wish demonstrated by the response to the second question about Israel cited above. In fact the subtitle of the TFT report on their Iranian poll is "Iranians Continue to Back Compromise and Better Relations with US and West." But it's worth remembering that if Iranians do indeed manage to unclench their collective fist, they may yet hold a rock under the armpit for Israel.