Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ruffian who wrote (309123)	6/8/2009 7:49:33 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793846

Given that, the question is where Obama is going with this. From Obama's point of view, he wins no matter what Netanyahu decides to do. If Netanyahu gives in, then he has established the principle that the United States can demand concessions from a Likud-controlled government in Israel and get them. There will be more demands. If Netanyahu doesn't give in, Obama can create a split with Israel over the one issue he can get public support for in the United States (a halt to settlement expansion in the West Bank), and use that split as a lever with Islamic states. Barry Rubin has already explained why he thinks this analysis is false here. If Obama gains his point, he will get zero leverage with the Arabs, who will only continue to insist that it's nothing -- since Obama has shown he can deliver the Israelis, he must deliver a total Israeli withdrawal, "impose a solution" like the Saudi FM said. If he doesn't gain his point, he looks weak unless he really decides to punish Israel in a way that would cost him Jewish support. . What Obama has done is restated formal U.S. policy, on which there are prior Israeli agreements, and demanded Israeli compliance. This is just false. No Israeli government ever committed to halt natural growth in the major settlement blocs but the US did agree to allow it as part of the negotiations before the Gaza withdrawal. Obama has scuttled this agreement. Unlike Ariel Sharon, a man of the right who was politically powerful, Netanyahu is a man of the right who is politically weak. No Israeli commentators seem to think that Bibi is nearly as weak as Friedman thinks. Every Israeli PM has to juggle a coalition. If Bibi loses some cabinet members on the right over a decision, he can replace them on the left, and vice-versa. There is no Israeli camp that is pushing now for unilateral withdrawals from the West Bank, not after the results in Gaza! The only question is how to mitigate the rupture with the US, and there Obama may have shown his true colors too early. If they see that Obama just wants to pick a fight to impress the Arab world, that's hardly an incentive to give him any big concessions.