Outstanding firefighter

Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer, Yediot, May 23 2011

“Better Together” is the slogan that was chosen for the AIPAC conference this year. “Better
Together” was the recurrent phrase in the impressive display of video images that joined into a joint
symbol the flags of Israel and the United States. Better together in security, in the war on terror, in
peace. Better together when skies are clear, better together in stormy weather.

The slogan was coined long ago, as a self-evident statement. The crisis of the past days made it
much more charged, much more political. The message is now intended for both sides: For
President Obama, who gave a third speech in his series of speeches on the Middle East, yesterday at
the conference, and for Prime Minister Netanyahu, who was ensconced in the American guest
house, searching at all costs for a ladder to climb down from the tall tree that he had scaled in the
past few days.

Eleven-thousand Jews attended the AIPAC conference this year, a record number in the history of
the organization and perhaps in gatherings of Jewish organizations in America in general. AIPAC is
becoming not only the most prominent of the Jewish organizations, but also the strongest among
them. In the early morning hours, Israel time, Netanyahu will appear before the conference. He
will be received with great enthusiasm, much greater than the polite reception Obama was given
yesterday.

The trouble is that as the number of Jews connected to AIPAC grows, the affiliation of the Jews
outside the organization with the goals and policy of the Israeli government diminishes. A rather
merry demonstration of Jewish supporters of Palestine was held outside, with a clown leading it and
about 200 demonstrators of all ages behind him. They too do not truly represent the rest of the
American Jews, mainly the younger ones, who are becoming increasingly distant from the entire
Middle East affair, both the Jews living in it and the Arabs.

On the eve of Obama’s speech, two kinds of conjectures arose. The first was that Obama’s speech
would be accompanied by boos on the part of religious young people associated with the right wing;
the second was that Obama would try to get around, with smooth words, what he said in his two
previous appearances, in the State Department and in the Oval Office.

Both conjectures were disproved. With the exception of one young man, who voiced a solitary
protest over the mention of the 1967 lines by the president, Obama received positive attentiveness,
applause in all the sections that were pleasing to the audience’s ear and silence in the sections that
were less pleasing. American culture has a few advantages over Israeli political culture.

As for the content of the speech, Obama did not circumvent anything and did not leave anything
out. He presented his worldview with all its parts, the more comfortable and the less comfortable.

This stood out particularly in comparison with his speech at the conference of the same
organization, in the same auditorium, three years ago, when he was the Democratic Party’s candidate
for president and feared that he was going to lose the Jewish vote. In that speech, he unreservedly
supported every Israeli position. Among other things, he promised that Jerusalem would be united
forever under Israeli sovereignty. He backed down 48 hours later.

A candidate behaves one way; a president behaves differently. In his speech yesterday, he adhered
to everything he had said in the past days (albeit in wordings that were more comfortable for pro-
Israeli ears, particularly the hint to the terms posed by the Quartet).

Moreover, he clarified that the fact that he was now running for reelection would not cause him to
obfuscate in his debate with Israel. “The easy thing to do, particularly for a President preparing for
reelection, is to avoid any controversy,” he said, “but as I said to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I
believe that the current situation in the Middle East does not allow for procrastination.”

He gave the audience a series of reasons why the status quo should not be accepted: The
demographic changes that call into question the possibility of maintaining a Jewish and democratic
state; the technology (such as social networks) that makes things difficult for Israel from a security
standpoint; the rise of a new generation in the Arab world that is not willing to accept a peace
agreement made with one leader or one group; and the changes in the international arena that are
causing many states in Europe and Latin America to recognize a Palestinian state. The campaign for
isolating Israel is gaining momentum.

In the face of all these phenomena, Obama says, an alternative must be presented. The alternative is
serious and credible negotiations.

He justified in complex terms his decision to describe the 1967 lines—with land swaps—as the
correct basis for an agreement. On one hand, this was not a particularly original statement: many
presidents before him have made similar statements. On the other hand, it had a necessary
innovation: There is no choice but to state publicly what has been said over and over behind closed
doors -- the world is moving too quickly.

The decision, Obama summed up, should be made by the Israeli government. The audience in the
room applauded, concluding from this that Obama is not thinking about a forced solution. No one
applauded in the presidential guest house, about ten blocks away; the people there do not like to
decide very much.

Immediately after the end of the speech, the Prime Minister’s Bureau distributed photos of
Netanyahu’s team sitting and discussing the situation. Afterwards, a video clip was also distributed.
Someone might get the impression that the finest collection of minds that the people sitting in Zion
could assemble was holding discussions in the same way that President Kennedy’s team held
marathon discussions during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. The best and the brightest.

Sometimes, a picture can lie more than a thousand words.

Netanyahu ignited this Lag B’Omer bonfire. He did so consciously and deliberately. Before he
boarded the plane, on Thursday night, he issued a very harsh statement against Obama. When the
plane prepared to land at Dulles Airport, near Washington, on Friday morning, he convened the
journalists who accompanied his trip and prepared them for the confrontation that would take place
when he and President Obama would speak to the media at the Oval Office.

Indeed, he kept his word. The statements he made there were certainly unusual in light of the
accepted rules of the game in the White House and the long-standing relations between the two
governments.

One might respect this. Here is a prime minister who fights for his beliefs, for the existence of his
state, for the sanctity of the Western Wall, for the security of his people, for the future of hundreds
of thousands of Israelis who live in Gilo and Ramat Eshkol. There are moments that it is obligatory
to quarrel with friends, even with the president of our largest friend.

The Republicans seized the crisis with both hands. Sarah Palin, the most prominent voice in the
American right wing, appeared on Fox News and described Obama as having betrayed not only
Israel, but also the US. She used the statement issued by Netanyahu as corroboration. Others
followed suit, each in his own style.

Netanyahu understood that he had broken a rule that an Israeli leader must not break -- he had
come between the two American parties in an election period. In his distress, he requested an
interview with AP. In the interview, he accused the Israeli media of having fueled the crisis.

In the Israel Air Force, an officer was caught a few years ago who was responsible for firefighting in
one of the bases. The officer had one weakness: He was a pyromaniac. He used to set fires, and
then to extinguish them and receive a citation for his actions. It would appear that Netanyahu,
following this visit, also deserves a citation.

Yesterday, after Obama repeated all his demands, including a return to the 1967 lines, in his speech
in AIPAC, Netanyahu’s brain trust issued a statement expressing Prime Minister Netanyahu’s
appreciation for President Obama’s statements at the AIPAC conference. The statement read: “I
share the president’s wish to promote peace and I appreciate his past and present efforts to achieve
this goal. I am determined to work with President Obama in order to find ways to resume the peace
negotiations. Peace is a vital necessity for us all.”

In another day or two, we will all understand that the prime minister made the US president back
down. The devil will become a dishrag. I came, I saw, I conquered -- this will be the message, and
anyone who doesn’t believe it doesn’t understand anything about marketing.