"

Obama and Israel: Not Smart

In both politics and diplomacy, actors must think at least one move ahead. They need to be reasonably sure that when they say or do A, then the other party will say or do B. And they should want the other party to say or do B, otherwise it makes no sense to say A in the first place. The purpose of action isn't just to act, in other words, but to make sure that the reaction you get advances your purposes and your interests. Which is why the administration's behavior in deepening and perpetuating its latest confrontation with Israel is actually rather bewildering. Let's start out by acknowledging that what happened during Vice President Biden's trip last week — the announcement of new housing starts in East Jerusalem — was an affront to the United States. I believe Israel has every right to do what it is doing, but the view of the visiting representative of the administration is that what it is doing is wrong and injurious to future prospects for peace, and this conflict of visions is not going to be resolved. Biden was embarrassed, his visit overshadowed, and expressions of diplomatic dismay appropriate as a result. The Israeli prime minister, who did not know about the announcement, apologized to the visitor and was embarrassed as well by the way in which the dysfunctional Israeli political system was exposed to international view.

All of that happened in a day — on Tuesday. It happened, it was reported on, the administration made its displeasure known, with Biden himself condemning the announcement. Prime Minister Netanyahu's office made clear he had been blindsided by the announcement, which was made by the head of a party inside his coalition government. On Wednesday, privately and publicly, he and other Israelis made their own shame known, and it was clear that there were going to have to be fences mended. Fence-mending is what diplomacy is usually all about, especially by an administration that seems to think its predecessor didn't spend enough time at it.

And then matters escalated. And they escalated because the United States escalated them. Hillary Clinton called up Bibi Netanyahu on Friday and, if one reads between the lines in the reporting on their conversation, basically screamed at him for 45 minutes. Then her spokesman went out and told the world she had done so, and used startlingly violent language — calling the announcement a "deeply negative signal."

That is the kind of talk a country uses against an enemy, and that is why the reaction to it from the Jewish community has been so stark. AIPAC issued a statement the likes of which I'm not sure we've ever seen before, a directly confrontational take on the administration: "The Obama Administration’s recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern. AIPAC calls on the Administration to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State." Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who doesn't usually speak so directly, especially to Democratic presidents, said, "We are shocked and stunned at the Administration’s tone and public dressing down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem. We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States.”

And here's where we get to the bewildering part. The Obama administration had made its point. Op-eds bloomed all over, well before Hillary's phone call, denouncing Israel for its maltreatment of Biden. Israel was on the defensive. But let's say the secretary of state really needed to emphasize the point, so she called Bibi to yell. The substance and tone of that call did not have to be made public; most of her communications, even with recalcitrant allies, aren't. Why would the Obama administration choose now of all times to make a moment of tension into a diplomatic crisis?

Well, you can say it's because of its general ideological presumptions about Israel, which I explored last year in this piece. Or because the diplomatic crisis with Israel can be used to America's advantage — because in an administration whose governing doctrine is that you can't let a good crisis go to waste, you would think it had some game plan for what would follow the release of the news of Hillary's phone call.

I don't think it did. By intensifying the crisis, the administration has essentially put paid to its own "proximity talks" between Israel and the Palestinians, which weren't going to work in any case, but don't tell them that — after all, those talks were George Mitchell's idea. And I don't think they appreciated just how direct and unvarnished the response from Jewish leaders was going to be.

So this was a diplomatic mistake. But what about the politics of it? The word we keep hearing from Washington is that in the upcoming congressional elections there is an "enthusiasm gap" developing between resurgent Republicans and somewhat dispirited Democrats in the run-up to the 2010 midterms. That "enthusiasm gap" is not just anecdotal; it's also about organization, which means it's about money. It's no secret that a wildly disproportionate part of the Democratic donor base is Jewish. While Jews are almost certain to continue to vote lopsidedly for Democrats, that doesn't mean Jewish donors are going to open their checkbooks as widely as they have in the past three election cycles. A diminution in Jewish enthusiasm for Obama and the Democrats is a problem for them. This is not a good moment to be picking fights on an issue of major emotional concern to a key Democratic constituency, even if you know that many of its members are not disposed to support the building program.

It's probably fair to assume that while Jews are divided over Israel's policies in this regard, most of them do not want the United States to become part of the beat-up-on-Israel forces. That assumption doesn't require having my politics. It should be accessible even to Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, Obama's enablers when it comes to the notion that you can simultaneously be Israel's friend and its attacker.

So it's diplomatically problematic and politically problematic. Why did they do it then?

The key is the word used by Hillary on Friday and echoed on Sunday by David Axelrod. The word is "insulting." What Israel did, they say, was insulting. They're not wrong; Biden was indeed subjected to an insult. But they know Netanyahu wasn't responsible for it; they know coalition governments are unruly beasts. I suspect they're not the ones who feel the insult but rather it was the president himself who decided the insult required his slapping Israel in the face with a white glove and threatening pistols at dawn.

This was an emotional response, in other words, in which the president felt free to indulge. And he was free to indulge it. But in doing so, he either didn't think about what the reaction would be, or was misguided by his advisers about the nature of the reaction, or didn't care about the reaction. And he will be the one to shoulder the political and diplomatic consequences from this specific event.

It's hard right now to see any benefits that will accrue from it, especially this week, when he needs every ounce of his own political strength to get the House to act as he wishes on health care; and this year, when he will need every ounce of financial and political support he can squeeze out of his party's core voters and donors to mitigate the effects of a looming political disaster.

Oops.