Netanyahu forfeits to New York Times - brilliant?

The Prime Minister of Israel has surrendered the debate on Israel. Amazingly, his senior adviser responded to a New York Times request for an op-ed by Prime Minister Netanyahu with a long explanation of why he was refusing. As usual, faithful American Jews will be expected to cheer this bit of audacity and be fortified by it, but the real target audience -- those Jews and non-Jews who still need to be convinced of the justice of Israel's cause (at least as the Prime Minister sees it) -- will not even miss it, because it wasn't submitted in the first place.

No matter that the latest Israeli response could have easily formed the basis for a powerful opinion piece making the case that one of the world's -- and America's -- most prominent newspapers (the "newspaper of record," as even the Prime Minister's Office refers to it) is in fact promoting anti-Israel bias.

According to the Israeli missive, the final straw was a distorted and dishonest op-ed published in the Times by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Just as Israel effectively withdrew from UNESCO as soon as Palestine was admitted, Israel has now withdrawn from The New York Times because the world is unfair to Israel. Boo-hoo.

For all the talk about engaging the American public to make Israel's case, if the Prime Minister is either too proud or afraid to even publish an op-ed in The New York Times, then all the complaints about Israel's bad PR, and the need to spend countless millions on positive "hasbara" outreach, are pointless.

Israel's self-defeating diplomacy

Israel is falling deeper into an international mess that -- while not of its own making -- could have been of its own fixing. And Israel is the biggest loser, immediately and over the long run.

It's hard to believe I've invested three decades of my studies and career to helping shore up Israel's diplomatic capital, which should be reason for me to be angry with Prime Minister Netanyahu for letting the United Nations and world opinion -- and the separation from the Palestinians -- slip through his fingers. But it's not for me to be angry, since I won't have to live with the consequences as Israelis do. So, lets just say, I am sad for Israel, the Middle East, and Jews around the world.

UNESCO CAVES

Technically, it appears Israel isn't directly "canceling" its membership in UNESCO following the vote to admit Palestine. But with the United States cutting off its funding to UNESCO, as it had threatened to do, Israel understandably has little choice but to follow suit. The difference is that the United States just got re-elected to a full four-year term on the UNESCO Executive Board, during which time it can't be suspended, while Israel enjoys no such protection once it is declared in arrears -- which probably won't be immediate. Since the United States returned to UNESCO membership a few years ago, it has been able to win many battles on Israel's behalf.

Has Obama stopped beating his Israeli wife? Or, How I learned to stop worrying and love Obama

I've just been asked whether President Obama will continue making life difficult for Israel as a result of last week’s Republican victory in the midterm elections to the U.S. House of Representatives. My first response was that it’s a bit like asking whether he’s stopped beating his wife -- how does one answer such a loaded question?

The very premise is unsubstantiated. Whatever the Israeli public thinks of Barack Obama, the fact is that his only friction with Israel has involved some personal interactions with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Aside from tactical and strategic miscalculations (or worse) over the priority of Israeli construction over the Green Line, the man has been objectively “good for Israel”. President Clinton is still highly regarded in Israel, despite his famous tarmac standoff with then-Prime Minister Netanyahu at LAX, and all sorts of arm-twisting. 

There may never be a U.S. President with as much gut feeling for Israel as George W. Bush. Yet for all his love, empathy and resolve, Israel’s diplomatic and strategic position eroded during his eight years in the White House -- even after 9/11, with the wind at his back. My point here is not to point fingers, just to point out that what Israel really needs in an American President is neither a lover nor a cheerleader, but a provider.

And just what has President Obama provided for Israel? The week after last summer’s Flotilla fiasco (not Israel’s fault, but definitely not helpful), the Obama administration went to the mat in the United Nations Security Council and extracted new sanctions against Iran -- it’s doubtful President Bush would have had the wherewithal to get any new measures past the Russian and Chinese vetoes. The President has also implemented additional unilateral measures -- or tightened the enforcement of existing rules -- against Iran’s nuclear program.