In Light Of The International Perception Of Obama, Netanyahu Pushes Back (Updated)

From The Washington Post:

Israel Puts Iran Issue Ahead of Palestinians
Shift on One Tied to Progress on Other

The new Israeli government will not move ahead on the core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in U.S. efforts to stop Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Tehran's rising influence in the region, according to top government officials familiar with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's developing policy on the issue.

Ed Morrissey puts Netanyahu's move into perspective:

Give Benjamin Netanyahu credit for learning from the experience of others. The new Israeli Prime Minister has watched Barack Obama get pushed around on the international stage for the past 100 days, and figures that he can redefine a relationship, too. Bibi will tell Obama that Israel will move no further on Palestinian peace talks until the US removes the threat from Iran

If accurate, maybe we will finally see a different Israel--one that is not quites as easily pushed around as in past years. 

I remember when we felt the same way the first time Netanyahu was Prime Minister. I recall reading one source back then that went so far as to point out that while walking and talking with President Clinton, Clinton put his arm around Netanyahu's shoulder--a gesture implying superiority--immediately after which Netanyahu put his arm around Clinton, balancing the equation. 

That is a bit much for me, but Obama's apparent lack of gravitas (American Thinker claims he has more levitas than gravitas) on the international stage may make him more of a pushover than Bush--how's that for change.

David Hazony writes:

Lieberman is not just an ideologue but a shrewd political player, and together with Netanyahu, Israel is taking a foreign-policy stance that is overtly independent of the Obama Administration. This may make things trickier for the State Department in the short run, but down the road it will make it much easier for the Israeli government to strike deals, make concessions, or, alternatively, serve Israel’s interests by refusing to make concessions. Israeli voters do not want to feel disenfranchised by American pressure.

The US is not used to the idea of an Israel that stands up for itself and refuses to automatically make concessions. In the short term, that may give Israelis a certain amount of self-respect. The key is the long term--whether Israel can take such a position consistently without appearing to be outright rejectionist. Of course, the Palestinian Arabs have shown themselves quite a adept at this, but that is mostly because have cornered the market on being the underdog victim, a position that Israel lost long ago.

Not so long ago, it was considered a slam dunk that an Obama Administration would put the screws to Israsel pure and simple.

Now that is not so obvious.

But neither will Netanyahu's task be easy.

UPDATE: Yid With Lid notes the denial by Israel of what the Washington Post article said, coming from the Jerusalem Post:

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon on Wednesday denied a report that Israel will not move ahead with diplomatic talks with the Palestinians until the US places more pressure on Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program.

"We will deal with the Palestinian issue as if there is no Iranian issue, and with the Iranian issue as if there is no Palestinian issue," Ayalon said.

He was responding to a Washington Post article published earlier in the day that claimed the "new Israeli government will not move ahead on the core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in US efforts to stop Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Teheran's rising influence in the region."

Hmmmm, "We will deal with the Palestinian issue as if there is no Iranian issue, and with the Iranian issue as if there is no Palestinian issue"--that's an odd paraphrase of Ben Gurion's "We will assist the British in the war as if there were no White Paper and we must resist the White Paper as if there were no war."

But in Ben Gurion's case, his message was that Israel's problem with Great Britain would not prevent them from joining them against the greater menace. 

Is Ayalon saying that Israel will still cooperate with the US in the search for an equitable peace with the Palestinian Arabs even while pursuing its own interests in defense against Iran?--or merely that both issues will be pursued concurrently.

Ben Gurion was making an important point. 
If Ayalon is doing nothing more than resorting to clever rhetoric, then Israel has not made much progress yet after all.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Netanyau and Obama.