Bo

There's a little black dog that chases my shadow on the path as I walk to work. Unable to identify his owner I call him Bo, in deference to the "First Dog." He also reminded me of another dog and a piece I wrote last July entitled "The dog could die."

I wrote about the predicament of the legendry Polish rabbi who had a year to teach the nobleman's dog to speak. If the rabbi failed the nobleman promised to kill him and evict his community.

The rabbi’s reasoned response when his congregants admonished him for promising to teach the dog to speak was , "Look he gave me a whole year, a lot can happen in a year. The dog could die, the nobleman could die, I could die... and who knows maybe the dog will learn to speak."

The Hebrew equivalent of “The dog could die” is an expression often used in contemporary speech to describe a delaying tactic. Bo

Prime Minister Netanyahu denies using delaying tactics and blames the Palestinians instead

Bo's résumé describes him as a neutered male Portuguese Water Dog.

I was tempted to make an analogy between Bo's doctored state and his master's sorry situation after the mid-term elections.

The Economist begs the question, "Can Israel now say boo to America?" hinting that the President manacled by a Republican majority in Congress will find it harder to apply pressure on Israel. "Barack Obama’s mid-term setback at home does not mean he will give up his search for peace in the holy land. But it won’t make it any easier. " Argues the paper's correspondent in Israel and reports that, "There is a widespread feeling in Jerusalem that Barack Obama lacks the gut sympathy for Israel that his immediate predecessors possessed. The American president, some Israeli hawks may be thinking, will now have to get off Israel’s pecked back. As for the Palestinians and their Arab friends, they almost universally fear that Israel has seen off Mr Obama and that he may be tempted to deflect his attention elsewhere, especially at home. In other words, the prospects for a peace deal, already dim, seem to have faded even further."

Dov Weisglass a former aid to Arik Sharon quoted Thomas Friedman's unusually harsh critique of the Israeli government over its policy on the Palestinian issue. The column Weisglass referred to appeared in the New York Times early last month. Among other things, he likened Israel to a “spoiled child.” One NYT reader commented that Israel is not only acting like a spoiled child, but one who ran away from home yet keeps using the family’s credit card.

Later on, Friedman was interviewed on Israel’s Channel 2. "Meet the Press" programme Weisglass describes how listening and watching him provoked truly deep concern. In the interview, he explained that the Israeli government’s conduct on the Palestinian front increasingly erodes Israel’s status in the US: Support for Israel is declining among US government circles, the general public, and the Jewish community, especially among young people.

Friedman says, "Americans don’t understand what Israel wants or where it’s heading, and are questioning its desire for peace.

Weisglass himself is familiar with both the U.S political scene and the administration. He is well acquainted with a number of American journalists and accredits Thomas Friedman with similar attributes regarding Israel,

"He is completely aware of the complexity and difficulties inherent in securing an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. However, he is pleading with Israel to at least try. He feels deep concern for the resilience of Israel-US relations;; he keeps warning about the deterioration of the critical ties between Israel and its one and only friend in the world. "

Some cabinet ministers and their spokespersons were quick to cast aspersions on Friedman, hinting that he is a self-hating Jew and the NYT has known left-wing sympathies.

Weisglass rushed to his defence, "Friedman's words are doubly difficult because they were uttered by a lover; a person who does not hide his deep, unalterable sympathy for the State of Israel."

"Listen to Friedman," implores Weisglass, " Be warned: Friedman should be taken seriously; very seriously. Not only because he is an important and influential man, but mostly because of his connections, knowledge, understanding, and vast experience. He maintains direct ties with decision-makers, shows rare familiarity with developments in Israel, in the region, and in

the US. "

A New York Times editorial echoed Friedman's annoyance with Netanyahu's back –pedalling on the peace process. Using his coalition partners reluctance to compromise is no excuse for inaction. "Enough game-playing. Mr. Netanyahu should accept Mr. Obama’s offer and be ready to form a new governing coalition if some current members bolt. Arab states need to do more to nudge Mr. Abbas back to the table and give him the political support he will need to stay there. "

Just the same The Economist is optimistic, "The stalemate can still be broken, even if the chance of an early and durable deal remains remote. The main reason for this guarded optimism is that many seasoned watchers in Jerusalem expect Mr Netanyahu to resume the freeze on settlement building, excluding, as before, the area on the rim of East Jerusalem, which Palestinians foresee as their future capital. It could last at least another few months."

Affirmative action on the peace process involving comprises could precipitate a government crisis. Referring to initiative on Netanyahu's part The Economist says, " it might enrage some bits of his ruling coalition; were Mr. Netanyahu later to make concessions over borders or the sharing of Jerusalem, his government might collapse… Mr Obama’s people have long hoped that a centrist Israeli party, Kadima, led by Tzipi Livni, would join a reshaped and more peace-minded coalition less vulnerable to the demands of the right. "

Well that's easier said than done. Ditching his right-wing partners in favour of a coalition government comprised of Kadima, Labour and Likud would undermine his claim to lead the new government.

From his point of view the present no-win, no-lose situation is infinitely preferable.

Oded Eran, Director of the Israel Institute for National Security Studies wrote in a recent issue of INSS Insight "Yes, the Congress Can, but Not Everything." Not quite a lame duck argues Eran, after all, “Not every foreign policy initiative is subject to legislation. Nonetheless, Congress has ways of expressing its opinion in decisions not requiring legislation, reflecting the 'sense of Congress.' Moreover, even with a majority in both houses, every president must engage with Congress. A Congress that is militant and confrontational is liable to paralyze the president, even one who seeks dialogue and agreement."

Israelis have no time for verbal gymnastics. They prefer clear-cut yes or no answers. Eran doesn't help them much when he continues in a similar vein –

"Should the President want to signal to Israel that he is irritated by its conduct in the negotiations with the Palestinians, he will be able to do so, as did President Ford and President George H. Bush. In 1975, when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was obstinate in the negotiations on interim arrangements following the Yom Kippur War, President Ford stopped the transfer of weapons to Israel as part of what he called a “reassessment.” In 1991-92, President Bush blocked American loan guarantees to Israel because of differences with the Shamir-led government over the settlements. Congress was unable to intervene in either situation. The administration could, should it so desire, avoid a public declaration about not providing Israel with weapons and simply drag its feet, using pretexts of a technical or administrative nature – though the political message behind them would be amply clear to everyone."

Oded Eran maps out an interesting progression- "If the proposal by Republican Representative Eric Cantor to separate general legislation on American foreign aid from the aid to Israel (a move that carries some negative aspects from Israel’s perspective) is passed, it is liable to work against the administration. Foreign aid legislation is not popular in the United States or in Congress, and the fact that Israel appears at the top of the list of countries receiving aid helps the administration gain approval for assistance to other nations and organizations. The separation proposed by Cantor would complicate the administration's foreign aid policy.

In order to advance certain issues, President Obama will have to try to reach understandings with the Republicans in both houses. Therefore, one may assume that he will try to avoid confrontations on issues that are not at the heart of his agenda. Even if peace in the Middle East is a top priority for the administration, it is doubtful that President Obama wishes to invite a head-on confrontation with Israel that would strain his relations with Congress, especially since support for him is already at an all time low."

He concludes, "The Israeli government would be wise to avoid a situation in which it posits itself as a player in the confrontation between the President and Congress and involved in US domestic ideological disputes. An attempt to arrive at understandings with the administration was and remains preferable to conflict, despite the knowledge that in Congress there is a great deal of support – perhaps even decisive – to block initiatives that are liable to damage Israel or run counter to its political and security agendas."

Dan Ephron presented another aspect of the same topic in an article he wrote for Newsweek. He quoted Jonathan Rynhold, an expert on Israel-U.S. relations at the BESA Centre for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv. - “Yes, a Republican Congress will raise the domestic political cost of confronting Israel, but there are plenty of ways to pressure Israel without Congress.

In fact, in some ways Obama might now be more inclined to confront Israel. The Republican House majority could well narrow his scope for major domestic achievements, making him hungrier for foreign-policy successes. There’s no bigger one than advancing peace in the Middle East."

Confused? Don't worry so am I.

Let's just accept Eran's bottom line: "U.S. policy won’t change much as far as Israel is concerned. Netanyahu might be toasting the results of the election now. But when the dust clears, he can expect renewed pressure to resume the settlement freeze in the West Bank and get serious in talks with the Palestinians."

I didn’t see Bo on the path to work this morning. Maybe he went to bury a bone.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 11^th of November, 2010.