By Lara Friedman  

It is Day 3 of the "Obama-caved-to-Bibi" editorializing.  Enough already.  

Yes, it would have great if during this week's visit Obama has made explicit his expectation that the settlement moratorium should be extended past September 26th.  And yes, many of us would have liked to hear him press Bibi on issues related to Jerusalem, Gaza, and Bibi's readiness to discuss all final status issues in negotiations and achieve a peace agreement to realize the two-state solution.  

But we all knew in advance that the goal of this visit - for both Obama and Bibi, each for his own reasons - was a clear public statement that relations between the two are fine.  And barring some 11th hour Israeli provocation - an outrage on par with the Ramat Shlomo embarrassment during the Biden visit, or the announcement of building permits for Shepherds Hotel the same day Bibi was set to meet Obama on his last visit - that was always what this was going to be.  The point being: nobody should be surprised that both Bibi and Obama were content to rhetorically avoid or gloss over any disagreements.

Today ForeignPolicy.com's Middle East Channel published my post (copied below) looking at the latest dust-up over something Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren said (or what he says he didn't really say) earlier this week in a private meeting about the US-Israel relationship.  According to sources in the meeting, Oren said there was a tectonic "rift" developing between Israel and the US.  He later denied saying this, clarifying that the word he used was "shift" not "rift."  Rhyming words are often the source of confusion, right?  Which brings to mind this classic Sesame Street sketch, with roving reporter Kermit the Frog in London, searching for the London fog, and finding instead the London frog, the London log, the London hog, etc... But I digress.

Michael Oren's curious understanding of friendship

Posted By Lara Friedman Thursday, July 1, 2010

Earlier this week Israel's Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, reportedly said that relations between Israel and the US "...are in the state of a tectonic rift in which continents are drifting apart." The implication being that there has been a shift in the US approach to Israel, led by a president who unlike his predecessors is "not motivated by historical-ideological sentiments toward Israel but [instead] by cold interests and considerations."

With Netanyahu due in Washington next week for a visit whose ostensible purpose is to demonstrate that relations between the two governments are good, these comments have raised some eyebrows.

Earlier this week AIPAC President Lee Rosenberg and Conference of Presidents Chairman Alan Solow published an op-ed in the JTA entitled "Only Israel [is] making the effort toward peace."  

Solow and Rosenberg get their facts wrong (more on that in a second). But more importantly, their thesis suggests that there is little that Israel or America's leaders can do to make progress towards peace. That is a dangerous line of thinking, one that ignores how important progress towards peace is for the security of Israelis and for Israel's long-term viability as a Jewish and democratic state.