Bitzuism — talking and doing

If you’ve lived in Israel even a little while, you’ve heard of the "bitzuist," the guy who says little and gets a lot done.

It translates as "implementationalist," which means it doesn’t translate at all. Although, I once had a love sonnet published in which I used "doers" to describe the phenomenon, and rhymed it with "sewers" (yes, you read that right, including "love sonnet" and  "published").

Anyhow, the "doer/talker" contradiction has been needling me as the U.S.-Israel "crisis," or more accurately, the Obama-Netanyahu "crisis"  has grown: Ask anyone who knows, and they will tell you the "doer" part of the relationship is more robust than ever:

There’s closer cooperation on missile defense, the defense assistance package is untouched despite the still haggard economy, the strategic dialogue (which is more than "talk," because it involves intelligence sharing and strategy planning) is more intense than ever.

Contrast this with the Bush administration: The strategic dialogue was suspended for three years until Israel rolled over and begged and gave the Pentagon veto over virtually all its arms sales — Israel’s most lucrative and strategically important industry, mind you. Bush tacked loan guarantees to settlement spending, which Obama has not done. Bush included Israel assistance in across the board Katrina cuts, and also because of the hurricane, reneged on a resettlement package for Gaza evacuees.

But Iran, you say: Israel wants to ratchet up sanctions, favoring the package of enhanced sanctions under consideration in Congress now, and is reportedly  considering military options. Obama is still stuck in multilateral mode.

But Iran, I say: President Bush, like President Clinton before him, never used the sanctions he had. He was equally as unfond of the new sanctions package, partly because of an overall philosophy of preserving executive privilege — and Republicans blocked it from passing in 2008, apparently loath to hand a legislative victory to candidate Obama, who had coauthored the bill.

Most substantially, Bush told Ehud Olmert in May 2008 that an Israeli attack was off the table, period. If Obama has delivered a similar warning to Netanyahu, we have yet to hear about it. In fact, The New York Times is now reporting that the Obama administration is considering its own military options.

And yet my inbox fills up with warnings about the worst crisis in the relationship, the most unfriendly administration in history, the outright abandonment of the Jews.

It must be said, though: The talk stinks.

I think a close analysis will show that both sides are to blame — Israel and its defenders here were the first to make the settlements dispute public, period. I know this because I cover it, and the first folks I heard from, the first folks anyone heard from, either were in Jerusalem or were taking their instructions from Jerusalem, even before Netanyahu was sworn in a year ago. I can’t help but wonder now: Had the Israel side made its case quietly for perpetuating Bush’s "natural growth" pledge, would Israel have won the concession?

But: A case could certainly be made that how Team Obama handled the issue once it became public was not exactly smooth. Going straight into "no growth, wherever, whatsoever" locked the administration into an automatic impasse, and gave the Palestinian Authority an excuse to indulge its default "don’t wanna" posture.

It’s gone downhill rapidly in recent months, with top U.S. officials using words like "insult" and "affront" to describe what no-one denies was a blunder, however blunderous: The announcement of new Jerusalem building during Joe Biden’s fence-mending outing. And then, Obama excluding Bibi from photo ops (his life blood, it must be said), just two weeks before bear-hugging every twobit tinpot willing to squeak "no nukes!" And coming late, at least publicly, to the realization that P.A. intransigence has as much to do with keeping talks from starting as does any perceived Israeli provocation.

Still, there’s that "talking" vs. "acting" thang: The tachles* is good and getting better — what does all this matter?

Journalists are hardwired to cover actions more urgently than words. If the generalissimo threatens an invasion, for sure, you put out a news alert. If the generalissimo invades, you yank  the diplomacy correspondent out of the embassy luncheon, the business columnist off the exchange floor, the sports writer out of the locker room, the intern off the photocopier and you send them packing to the front.

I asked a senior Jewish policy type about  this recently, and he reminded me that diplomacy is, after all, about talk. Bush and Clinton were very good at it (as far as Israel goes, in any case). So Bush could roll back some loan guarantees, and no one noticed; George Mitchell says, citing Bush that it’s one tool in the box — and he says this under persistent questioning — and it becomes yet another minicrisis, although there’s no sign anyone is even considering it.

And it’s not as if the Jewish community is uniquely susceptible: Read this mirror image story in The New York Times story today: The Obama administration is talking nicer to Muslim and Arab Americans than Bush did — and doing not a whole bunch.

And guess what: At least according to this story, the Muslims and Arabs are pleased as punch.

*Tachles: The bottom line, substance, the real thing. And I haven’t used it in a love sonnet, published or unpublished. Yet.