Barack Obama hasn't been shy about his admiration for Ronald Reagan. So how well is he emulating his role model? Michael "I am not Gary Busey" Oren (the Israeli ambassador to the U.S.) explains:
While Oren said there were fundamental differences between Israel and the US on building in Jerusalem and the settlement issue, and while he said the US does make its positions known, he can't find any "physical evidence of pressure."
And this, he said, stood in contrast to previous US administrations.
For instance, he pointed out that the Reagan administration, which he characterized as a "very pro-Israel administration, an ultimate pro-Israel administration," cut off the supply of jet aircraft to Israel following the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.
"That is pressure," he said.
I never thought I'd find myself wishing for a U.S. president to be more like Ronald Reagan, but this is the place Obama has brought us to. But maybe it's not fair to hold him to that standard, because he's a Democrat and Democrats don't like to be so blunt. Right?
Likewise, he said that during the Camp David negotiations with Egypt in the 1970s, then-president Jimmy Carter "threatened to cut off aid if we didn't agree to certain positions. That is pressure."
Whereas Obama's posturing over settlements is not pressure, but empty rhetoric—kabuki theater for the bewildered herd. And while it's worked on liberal Democrats here and frothing right-wing lunatics in Israel, diplomats like Oren understand perfectly well that there's nothing to it.
So what are some of the meaningful actions the Obama administration has taken, in Oren's estimation?
"They have been good on the whole issue of QME [qualitative military edge]. The have been excellent on QME. When they ascertained that our qualitative military edge had been eroded they worked very quickly to redress that."
Anything else?
There have recently been reports that the US was making changes in some of the arms deals the Bush administration had brokered with Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf states, to ease Israeli concerns that this would damage the qualitative edge.
So not only is Obama more servile than Reagan, he's also more pliant than Bush! Isn't it wonderful to have a Democratic president again?
In addition, Oren said, the administration was "very good" on the Goldstone Commission report, "unequivocally condemning" it and "working to mitigate the impact of the report."
Likewise, he said, the US was "very active, at many levels" in lobbying the EU against adopting a Swedish EU resolution that would have called for east Jerusalem to be the capital of a future Palestinian state. US efforts there, he said, "brought about a real change."
Now that is a change I believe in.
The Distant Ocean 
And yet most people on the right continue believing that Obama is anti-Israel!
I wonder how much money he needs to give Israel, how many nations he needs to occupy, how many Muslims he needs to murder before they realize that he’s one of their own.
LikeLike
Yes, it boggles the mind. I’d say there are a few things at work there: one is that the totalitarian mind can brook no dissent—which is why for conservatives, the existence of even one mildly liberal voice in the mainstream media translates into the entire media being biased against them (to name one example). And another is just working the refs, which you don’t stop doing just because the last ten calls have gone your way.
I can barely imagine what a luxury it must be to be able to complain that a pro like Obama is insufficiently subservient on an issue like this.
LikeLike
I don’t remember this from real time, but I’ve read that even Bush senior was able to speak harshly to the Israelis on occasion (don’t recall the reason). Can anyone confirm or deny?
Here, the site for one of the many with actions to take in support of the people in Egypt trying to get into Gaza in support of the Palestinians.
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/
LikeLike
Yes, George “Wouldn’t Be Prudent” Bush was also better than Obama when it came to Israel:
Meaningful U.S. opposition to Israel (such as it was) basically ended when Bill Clinton became president.
LikeLike
John, do you think Egypt is acting as it is at direct (though unpublicized) pressure from the U.S., or do they just realize where much of their military money comes from and act accordingly? And doesn’t Egypt get almost as much as Israel from American taxpayers?
LikeLike
John, I’m glad you’re back.
LikeLike
Waiting to see answer to Catherine’s question…hi
LikeLike
Yes, Egypt gets around $2 billion/year, and has long been the second-highest recipient of U.S. foreign aid after Israel (in recent years you’ll see Iraq and Afghanistan in the list, though those are more accurately considered U.S. war expenditures and so they don’t really qualify for the word “foreign” in foreign aid). So I’d say that’s why Egypt willingly carries out U.S./Israeli policy—once the money’s counted they just follow instructions, and there’s no need for pressure.
In terms of its behavior toward the Palestinians, Egypt’s relationship to Israel is a lot like the U.K.’s relationship to the United States, except that Egypt has to be a little more subtle about its collaboration (since it’s ostensibly antagonistic towards Israel’s colonization project). But it’s an open secret. It’s a little like Israel’s nuclear arsenal: everybody knows that Egypt is bought and paid for, but in mainstream commentary you’re supposed to pretend it’s an open question.
LikeLike