Little Rock diary: Chickenshits and the midterms

1.

Taking off from the Bush airport in Houston and landing at the Clinton airport in Little Rock gives one some historical perspective with which to think about the upcoming American elections and their impact on US-Israel relations. Assuming – an easy assumption – that American policy heavily impacts Israel; and assuming – a trickier assumption – that American midterm elections impact American policy, foreign policy included; and assuming – this is an assumption we cannot safely make a week before the elections – that the American political landscape is about to change with the Republicans taking over the Senate; assuming all of the above, the coming midterms should be of interest to the Israeli observer.   

In our latest survey of Israeli experts – the Israel Factor survey – we asked two questions that we always ask before a midterm election, referring to the many combinations that can emerge from the election (both houses held by the same party, or one house for each party):

“Thinking about the 2014 midterm elections, which of the following results would be better from an Israeli viewpoint?”

“Which of the combinations would make the Netanyahu government’s life easier?”

The answer given by our panel of 10 experts tells us more about the panel and less about what’s good for Israel. In fact, our panel made an assessment from which we can learn that, on average, the panelists believe that what is “better from an Israeli viewpoint” is markedly different from an election outcome that would “make the Netanyahu government’s life easier”. The panel believes that a split Congress is slightly better for Israel than Republican control of both houses, even while contending that Republican control is much more convenient for the Netanyahu government.

That is to say: the panel believes that Israel’s interest does not correlate with the desires of Israel’s democratically elected government – an assessment that is no less `political` than it is `professional`.

An assessment that was probably strengthened when the chickenshit hit the fan.

2.

It goes without saying that a real chicken is the “senior Obama administration official” who called Prime Minister Netanyahu a “chickenshit” while hiding behind anonymity. It goes without saying that this was one of the more idiotic incidents of recent times. It goes without saying that the bombshell quotes appearing in Jeff Goldberg’s article reveal more about the bigmouthed official (the guessing games have already begun, and many Israeli officials believe that they know the identity of the person) than they do about the Netanyahu government. Consider this: No new facts were revealed in this article that shed light on the strained US-Israel relations, just petty animosity – some of it justified, some misplaced.

I have heard expressions worse than “chickenshit” from Israeli officials who talked to me about the Obama administration and its policies. But I was never given the permission to publicize the harshest of the terms that were used. It’s a sign of maturity to be able to hold back and not use foul language even when there is disagreement between two administrations. It’s a sign of maturity to be able to control foul language and make sure that, even when it is used, it will not be used publically. In this case, the foul language was meant for publication, which raises the question: is this is a return to the bad strategy – it just doesn’t work – of attempting to hurt Netanyahu politically by telling Israelis that he damages the US-Israel alliance? Or maybe it is not a strategy, just juvenile frustration and an inability to keep it under control (David Bernstein discusses the bad-strategy precedent. I should also note that when Minister Yaalon called Secretary Kerry “messianic” he did not intend it to be publicized).

In this case, the permission to publicize the terms that were used justifies the claim that this is a new level of animosity. The article and the quotes add to the anxiety of those who care for US-Israel relations and who want to preserve them. While I disagree with the sensational assessment by David Horovitz, that “we are witnessing the collapse of an alliance”, I do agree with him that what we see today is two administrations loathing one another to the extent that “neither much cares anymore about hiding it”. In fact, if I may brag over a highly questionable achievement, this is exactly what I wrote back in August, following the (also overhyped) incident of the Hellfire missile shipment delay: “I don’t see a clear-cut case here for ‘Obama doesn’t care about Israel’s security’” – I wrote – “But I do see something else that is quite disturbing: Obama no longer cares if people say that he doesn’t care about Israel’s security”. Clearly, Obama’s “senior officials” got the memo, and they too don’t much care anymore about concealing their hostility toward Netanyahu.

They might have even got a little carried away. The White House, understanding the inappropriate nature of the comments and the way they reflect on the administration, dissociated itself from them. If I understand correctly, the White House also has the name of the “senior official” that put the “chickenshit” jab on the record.

3.

No more than a few midterm contenders can benefit from this flare up.

A certain number of Jews and non-Jews might be motivated to punish a Democratic candidate, but most Jewish voters don’t vote `Israel`. Those who are motivated enough to vote against any administration that is confrontational with Israel – Jews and non-Jews – have probably made up their minds a long time ago. So the chickenshit affair is not going to hugely damage the ticket.

To the extent that it will: the fact is that at this point in his political life Obama doesn’t much care if he is hurt a little politically because of his strained relations with Netanyahu – and he doesn’t much care if the Democratic party is hurt a little because of his strained relations with Israel’s Prime Minister (in both cases, he does not believe that it could be more than a little).