TJP

What if Obama was more pragmatic and less conciliatory, would he pay the “Netanyahu premium?” The Netanyahu premium, as defined by The Economist is Bibi’s intransigence towards the Palestinians.

A more pragmatic Obama would ask what is best for Americans, an independent or an occupied apartheid Palestine. Most Americans would choose freedom and independence for Palestine. A global BBC poll indicates that most people support UN recognition of Palestine.

Mr. Obama fails to understand that in today’s interconnected world the United States cannot talk freedom and support apartheid regimes. Mr. Obama is a legal scholar; he knows that it is illegal for one nation to occupy another. Therefore, when he talks about justice and freedom, it is meaningless if he denies Palestinians a seat at the UN.

Mr. Obama should also consider the Arab Spring and its potential intertemporal affect on the West and in particular the United States. Furthermore, the world is witnessing its effects on Israel: isolation and revelation of Israel’s unwillingness to negotiate for peace.

A vote by the United States against the independence of Palestine will give the appearance that the Obama administration, like Israel, does not want an independent Palestine.

Many Americans were stunned when a rude Netanyahu lectured and humiliated President Obama regarding the 1967 borders. Andrea Mitchell from NBC said that he treated Obama “like a school boy.” However, Netanyahu did not pay a price for his rudeness and condescending behavior toward the office of the President in the United States of America.

President Obama’s willingness to be pushed around galls his followers and many US citizens in general. It also signals weakness to his adversaries at home and abroad.

For many, niceness and bipartisanship to adversaries means that the leader does not know the desired destination of followers.

Leadership is about reflecting the desires and goals of followers, not of adversaries. However, since gaining the White House, it appears that most of Mr. Obama’s efforts has been to satisfy the goals of adversaries.

Netanyahu’s behavior toward President Obama has been condescending; he is a user, not a friend.

Mr. Obama’s eagerness to appear conciliatory is problematic. It has adversely affected appointments to strategic offices, where adversaries were appointed to key strategic positions and has not served him or the nation well.

He appointed individuals that did not reflect the philosophies of those who placed him in the White House. And, we are now finding out that some, such as Geithner, did not follow is mandate to dissolve CitiCorp, and apparently he too did not pay a price for disobedience.

Conversely, individuals that reflected the philosophy of his followers and were not adversaries, such Van Jones, Desirée Rogers, Christina Romer, Shirley Sherrod, and so on were quickly shown the door when pressured by adversaries

Followers are bound to question any leader who caters more to adversaries than to them. Obama, for instance, pays more attention to Israel than to America’s poor and working class. Does he think that Israel can determine the outcome of America’s electoral process?

If followers perceive that their Mr. Obama’s propensity is to reward and compromise with adversaries, those that did not put him in office and only wants him to be a one-term president, their future commitment to the leader will be lukewarm.

I have argued in the past that Mr. Obama surrounded himself with poor advisers. It is refreshing to see that longtime Democratic strategist and TV commentator, James Carville, has also observed the weakness of Obama’s advisers.  And, in a CNN Opinion page argues that Mr. Obama should fire his political and economic advisers.

The cadre of advisers around President Obama has yet to demonstrate that they can consistently achieve the goals of his followers. And, he does not seem to be aware on the harm that they have inflicted on his reelection bid and how their advice has affected his standing among followers.

Post Comment