Robert Stacy McCain is among the first, but he will not be one of the last, to declare that this anonymously-sourced Times story is proof that Obama “is now poised to destroy Israel.” First of all, it seems implausible that Obama’s support for the Saudi peace plan, if it exists at all, is any stronger than that of members of the current (and likely future) Israeli government, who have indicated a willingness to reconsider it. Second, were Obama to support this peace plan it would mean that he holds the remarkably sane view that Israel is actually illegally occupying the territories and that no enduring peace settlement is conceivable so long as this occupation goes on. That would be the first real evidence that Obama’s views on Israel are not as conventional as I have assumed they were based on everything he has said and done until now. The difference between this report of backing a particular peace plan for Israel and Palestine and news of the floated intervention in the Kashmir dispute is that Obama has publicly stated on several occasions his interest in resolving the latter. I would be more willing to believe at this point that he is more serious about the Kashmir remarks than he is in supporting the Saudi plan.

In other words, it is possible, but by no means certain, that Obama is aligning his position with that of the current Israeli government and adopting a reasonably good policy at the same time. Of course, Israelis will be able to decide for themselves what course they want to choose when they have their election next year, as they will have a clear choice between coalitions led by Likud or Kadima. If Kadima wins, it becomes increasingly difficult to portray this position, which is essentially an expression of support for the position of the sitting Israeli government, as a “betrayal of Israel.”

P.S. McCain writes in an update:

If Obama pushes the dismemberment and disarmament of Israel, Likud will come roaring back.

Obama is not going to do any such thing, but the choice of words is telling. The Saudi peace plan and suggestions about what Obama might do regarding Israel and the FMCT do not require the “dismemberment” or “disarmament” of Israel. It is doubtful that Likud can come back at all if it cannot come “roaring back” in the wake of the absolutely failed tenure of Ehud Olmert. If most Israelis prefer the Kadima-led coalition, and it seems that they do, that would suggest that Likud is not going to make a comeback on the basis of opposing this peace plan. The peace plan, if carried out, dismembers nothing except an illegal occupation. As McCain might say, anything to the contrary is a lie. Now it’s not as if we don’t have other allies that continue illegal occupations of other people’s territory–the Turks in Cyprus come to mind–but then it is because they are our allies that this illegal occupation should concern us. The FMCT (Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty) does not require Israeli disarmament. If Israel ratified this treaty, which it is not likely to do (just as India is unlikely to ratify it), it would halt the production of fissile material used in making nuclear weapons. Supporting the halt of production of new material for such weapons is quite distinct from “pushing” disarmament. In any case, the Ha’aretz report to which McCain links is a report on an independent institute’s report of what Obama ought to do, which tells us absolutely nothing about what Obama intends to do.