The news today is very much in line with my previous posting about the Obama administration, Israel, and Iran.
See the link below for the full article. I have only quoted the first few paragraphs below the link.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/26/report-obama-brink-deal-mideast-peace-talks/
President Obama is on the brink of a breakthrough deal that would allow him to announce the resumption of long-stalled Middle East talks, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported, citing unnamed officials.
According to the paper, U.S., Israeli, Palestinian and European sources close to the discussions have said the announcement of resumed peace talks would come within a month.
Key to the deal is a U.S. promise to take a harder line with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, the Guardian said. The U.S., along with Britain and France are planning to push the U.N. Security Council into expanding sanctions to include Iran's oil and gas industry, which would cripple the nation's economy, the newspaper reported.
The Israeli government, in return, would be expected to impose a partial freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank.
"The message is: Iran is an existential threat to Israel; settlements are not," the newspaper quoted an official as saying.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Will the Administration Work to End Israeli Fears?
Shalom All,
I have discussed to no small extent on my radio show recently and probably will this week (Thursday 2-4 pm Central on www.macsworldlive.com) the growing concern on the Israeli political left of abandonment by the Obama administration. Aluf Benn's op-ed piece, printed in the NY Times is quite telling. Aluf Benn is Editor at Large of Haaretz. Haaretz is not exactly the most Conservative of papers. Benn himself is a MAJOR lefty.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/opinion/28benn.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
Many people have asked me why it seems that the Obama administration has no interest in speaking with Israelis, but has no problem speaking directly to Arabs and Muslims. My take is that the administration has no problem upsetting Israelis in order to improve its relations with the Muslim world, and the Arab world in particular. Because there is ZERO chance of any peace agreement being reached with the current Palestinian leadership, there is therefore no concern that Israelis or Palestinians will concern themselves with following by US dictates. In other words, it makes no difference if the US says, "Okay, go ahead and build, we recognize that right" or "Don't build, you'll damage the peace process." The first, upsets the Arab world. The second, upsets the Jewish world. Neither makes a bit of difference if there is no possible solution in the peace process. Thus, if the US goal is to improve relations with the Muslim world, then it might as well go for the second option.
On the other hand, while the peace process is going nowhere, Iran is a vital concern and Israel can derail the entire Obama administration agenda by addressing Iran on its own. The Obama administration has misjudged the situation badly. Israel is far more concerned with Iran than it is with upsetting the US. Israel can strike against Iran, has tremendous support to do so from its Arab neighbors, and in my mind WILL if sanctions do not work SOON. Netanyahu was not elected to stop or slow down the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, he was elected to deal with the Iranian threat.
The argument that dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first will help is beyond ridiculous. The Iranian issue has months, if not weeks, to be addressed before a critical mass is reached. There is no deadline on the I-P front. Worse still for the US is that Israel's Arab allies are in agreement with ISRAEL about addressing Iran FIRST. Egypt is about as supportive of Israeli action against Iran as any Arab government could possibly be. It knows that Iran is supportive of those who threaten the Egyptian leadership, namely Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Hizballah, and Hamas. Jordan and Saudi Arabia are also supportive of Israel in this respect. The US had to sent Gates to Jordan to address the fact that Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others are NOT in alignment with the US on Iran but ARE with the Netanyahu administration. My belief is that no amount of assurance will assuage them of their concern. They do not fear a nuclear strike from Iran, but increased militant actions within their borders supported by an Iran using nuclear cover to prevent retaliation.
The belief is that thirty years of diplomacy with Iran, sometimes directly, sometimes through other channels, have failed to result in anything other than allowing Iran to strengthen and to export its military strength and fanaticism around the region, causing problems in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Sudan, the Palestinian territories, Israel and other places in which militant Muslims have received arms and training from Iran. The consequences of Iran continuing these actions under nuclear cover are not pleasant. The thought of having Hamas supported by a nuclear armed Iran will undoubtedly hamper future peace efforts and escalate the threat of any attacks by Hizballah or Hamas against Israel, forcing much more severe Israeli responses to threats. This makes Israeli negotiations with the PA almost laughable. Israel cannot possibly concede anything resembling control over borders under this situation and may even have to increase its current control. Thus, the peace process is on a distant back burner until the Iranian nuclear situation is resolved, not the reverse. One could even argue that Arab nations wanting to make peace with Israel will WAIT until after it strikes Iran to do so, so as to avoid the undoubtedly negative reaction of the Arab street to an Israeli attack and their consequences to their maintaining a new relationship. Better to create one AFTER an attack. Thus, even the Obama administration's push to improve relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors is dependent upon settling the Iranian issue first.
Meanwhile, should Israel decide to strike Iran, US domestic political views will change dramatically. The threat of attacks against the US by Iran will result in a strong shift to the political right, just as has happened in Israel. The economic situation will worsen in the short term, resulting in an inability of the US to address costly social programs and the Obama administration will be faced with years in which foreign policy and defense override its domestic agenda while facing elections in 2010 and 2012 dominated by foreign policy concerns. This should scare the Obama administration into swift action to ease Israeli concerns about Iran and they may well be trying to do exactly that.
The visits of multiple high level US diplomats to the region in recent days are NOT a result of issues relating to the I-P conflict, but a reaction to Israeli fears about Iran and the fact that Israel may just decide that regardless of damage it may suffer to its relationship with the Obama administration and American Jews, the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran is an existential crisis that rises above other concerns. Resolving THAT issue should be far more important to US foreign policy right now than the I-P conflict which as things stand now is impossible to resolve.
I believe that Israelis need both to be addressed directly by President Obama about IRAN in a way that strongly assures them that the US will not ALLOW Iran to acquire nuclear arms and that the administration needs to ratchet up its sanction actions, including pressuring the EU to comply, much faster and much more harshly than it has seemed interested in doing. Without these two actions and prominent Iranian reaction to them by allowing inspection and stopping work obviously connected to nuclear weapons production, not necessarily domestic nuclear power production, I believe that Israeli unilateral action is inevitable and the consequences dreadful.
As someone who wants to see the implementation of a liberal social agenda, including some reasonable form of health care reform, I fear that the opportunity to accomplish it could be lost because of failures of foreign policy during both the Bush administration and this one. We live in a global world. What happens over there affects us here.
-D
I have discussed to no small extent on my radio show recently and probably will this week (Thursday 2-4 pm Central on www.macsworldlive.com) the growing concern on the Israeli political left of abandonment by the Obama administration. Aluf Benn's op-ed piece, printed in the NY Times is quite telling. Aluf Benn is Editor at Large of Haaretz. Haaretz is not exactly the most Conservative of papers. Benn himself is a MAJOR lefty.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/opinion/28benn.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
Many people have asked me why it seems that the Obama administration has no interest in speaking with Israelis, but has no problem speaking directly to Arabs and Muslims. My take is that the administration has no problem upsetting Israelis in order to improve its relations with the Muslim world, and the Arab world in particular. Because there is ZERO chance of any peace agreement being reached with the current Palestinian leadership, there is therefore no concern that Israelis or Palestinians will concern themselves with following by US dictates. In other words, it makes no difference if the US says, "Okay, go ahead and build, we recognize that right" or "Don't build, you'll damage the peace process." The first, upsets the Arab world. The second, upsets the Jewish world. Neither makes a bit of difference if there is no possible solution in the peace process. Thus, if the US goal is to improve relations with the Muslim world, then it might as well go for the second option.
On the other hand, while the peace process is going nowhere, Iran is a vital concern and Israel can derail the entire Obama administration agenda by addressing Iran on its own. The Obama administration has misjudged the situation badly. Israel is far more concerned with Iran than it is with upsetting the US. Israel can strike against Iran, has tremendous support to do so from its Arab neighbors, and in my mind WILL if sanctions do not work SOON. Netanyahu was not elected to stop or slow down the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, he was elected to deal with the Iranian threat.
The argument that dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first will help is beyond ridiculous. The Iranian issue has months, if not weeks, to be addressed before a critical mass is reached. There is no deadline on the I-P front. Worse still for the US is that Israel's Arab allies are in agreement with ISRAEL about addressing Iran FIRST. Egypt is about as supportive of Israeli action against Iran as any Arab government could possibly be. It knows that Iran is supportive of those who threaten the Egyptian leadership, namely Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Hizballah, and Hamas. Jordan and Saudi Arabia are also supportive of Israel in this respect. The US had to sent Gates to Jordan to address the fact that Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others are NOT in alignment with the US on Iran but ARE with the Netanyahu administration. My belief is that no amount of assurance will assuage them of their concern. They do not fear a nuclear strike from Iran, but increased militant actions within their borders supported by an Iran using nuclear cover to prevent retaliation.
The belief is that thirty years of diplomacy with Iran, sometimes directly, sometimes through other channels, have failed to result in anything other than allowing Iran to strengthen and to export its military strength and fanaticism around the region, causing problems in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Sudan, the Palestinian territories, Israel and other places in which militant Muslims have received arms and training from Iran. The consequences of Iran continuing these actions under nuclear cover are not pleasant. The thought of having Hamas supported by a nuclear armed Iran will undoubtedly hamper future peace efforts and escalate the threat of any attacks by Hizballah or Hamas against Israel, forcing much more severe Israeli responses to threats. This makes Israeli negotiations with the PA almost laughable. Israel cannot possibly concede anything resembling control over borders under this situation and may even have to increase its current control. Thus, the peace process is on a distant back burner until the Iranian nuclear situation is resolved, not the reverse. One could even argue that Arab nations wanting to make peace with Israel will WAIT until after it strikes Iran to do so, so as to avoid the undoubtedly negative reaction of the Arab street to an Israeli attack and their consequences to their maintaining a new relationship. Better to create one AFTER an attack. Thus, even the Obama administration's push to improve relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors is dependent upon settling the Iranian issue first.
Meanwhile, should Israel decide to strike Iran, US domestic political views will change dramatically. The threat of attacks against the US by Iran will result in a strong shift to the political right, just as has happened in Israel. The economic situation will worsen in the short term, resulting in an inability of the US to address costly social programs and the Obama administration will be faced with years in which foreign policy and defense override its domestic agenda while facing elections in 2010 and 2012 dominated by foreign policy concerns. This should scare the Obama administration into swift action to ease Israeli concerns about Iran and they may well be trying to do exactly that.
The visits of multiple high level US diplomats to the region in recent days are NOT a result of issues relating to the I-P conflict, but a reaction to Israeli fears about Iran and the fact that Israel may just decide that regardless of damage it may suffer to its relationship with the Obama administration and American Jews, the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran is an existential crisis that rises above other concerns. Resolving THAT issue should be far more important to US foreign policy right now than the I-P conflict which as things stand now is impossible to resolve.
I believe that Israelis need both to be addressed directly by President Obama about IRAN in a way that strongly assures them that the US will not ALLOW Iran to acquire nuclear arms and that the administration needs to ratchet up its sanction actions, including pressuring the EU to comply, much faster and much more harshly than it has seemed interested in doing. Without these two actions and prominent Iranian reaction to them by allowing inspection and stopping work obviously connected to nuclear weapons production, not necessarily domestic nuclear power production, I believe that Israeli unilateral action is inevitable and the consequences dreadful.
As someone who wants to see the implementation of a liberal social agenda, including some reasonable form of health care reform, I fear that the opportunity to accomplish it could be lost because of failures of foreign policy during both the Bush administration and this one. We live in a global world. What happens over there affects us here.
-D
Monday, June 22, 2009
On the Peace Process
Shalom All,
There are those who have praised Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent speech and those who have condemned it as more of the same. Many have looked to the bright side, his agreement that the Palestinians could have a state along side Israel, while others have criticized his refusal to stop the expansion of existing settlements as a way of undermining the process of peace, even while calling for it. Personally, I thought that PM Netanyahu's speech was masterful and have seen little substantial criticism of it from anyone not on the far left or right.
In many ways, it paralleled Obama's Cairo speech in which the section specifically dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was fairly well received by the vast majority of Israelis (Obama's falling approval rating among Israelis has more to do with other speeches in which he has been more harshly critical of Israel and with his failure to address Iran's nuclear issues). I do have problems with the President's treatment of history in the Cairo speech, something to which I believe that PM Netanyahu did an excellent job in responding (Pres. Obama made it seem as if Zionism began with the Holocaust). I also have major problems with completely ignoring anti-Judaism in Muslim history, going back much farther than the 1920s where PM Netanyahu began his history. Worst still is probably Pres. Obama's implicit comparison between the Holocaust and Palestinian suffering. I must, however, strongly applaud Pres. Obama for stating in the midst of the Arab world that the US has an unbreakable bond with Israel. For a more detailed treatment of President Obama's speech please see my radio show found at http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1605803 (there were a few technical difficulties with the video, but the sound is good). This all said, on to the more important point at the moment, both speeches contained idea changes whose implications are not fully realized by advocates for either Israel or the Palestinians.
The first is that Two-State Solution is not accurate enough. I have talked about this before. Leaders are now being more explicit that we are talking "Two-States for Two-Peoples" and not simply "Two States." Some leaders are seeking "two states" both of which would eventually become Palestinian states. Pres. Obama mentioned in his speech that:
We will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians EACH live in peace and security.
The "two states for two peoples" concept eliminates a major threat to Israel, namely the return en mass by Palestinian refugees to homes in Israel because it could not happen while maintaining a Jewish state. Those refugees would go to a Palestinian state. The question then becomes how many could such a state support in addition to its already overcrowded population. The answer is very few, leaving the problem of Palestinian refugees for the Arab nations to handle.
The second is a developing understanding that the Palestinians lack the fundamental institutions necessary for any nation-state to work. President Obama stated in his speech, words that easily could have come from PM Netanyahu:
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.
While THIS statement is lacking "as a Jewish state," it basically puts the ball in the Palestinian's court. It also functionally forces the PA to live up to those same requirements. They cannot simply wait for Israel to act to grant them a state. They have to do these things, "Now." That societal work won't take months, but could take multiple years or even decades. The problem then is the continuing pressure to find a solution ASAP. ASAP may be decades. It will not be the second year or even third year of President Obama's administration.
After the speech, the people looked to PM Netanyahu to endorse a two state solution. In the minds of most, he did exactly that, but did so in a brilliant way. Netanyahu RE-NAMED what is in essence a state-semi-state solution, a 1 1/2 state solution, as a TWO-state solution. It is in fact NEITHER a one or two state solution. The Palestinian entity would be a SEMI-state. This is what I have suggested for years now. It made sense over a decade ago. I thought that was where things were headed in 1993-1994, much less in 1996, much less in 2000... The Palestinians could be granted a state so long as that state is disarmed and not potentially a threat to the existence of Israel.
The state-semi-state idea would never have been accepted by Arafat and will likely not be accepted by Abbas. It CAN'T be accepted by Hamas. IF the world media actually continues to present this idea as a TWO-state solution, which is seems to be doing, Netanyahu has won the war for Israel, much less the battle. I think that is indeed the path the process will be heading and Pres. Obama supports it. Let us not be blinded to the dramatic implications of this path for Israel.
Basically, it rids Israel of its major problems in making peace. It ends Palestinian hopes for conquest entirely, ending any hope that the right of return to Palestine would matter, since the extra-population could not arm and fight, and means that Israel will maintain whatever land it holds when peace is made indefinitely. The only things that it provides the Palestinians are economic opportunity and freedom so long as the latter does not threaten Israel. The only Israelis who could possibly oppose such a deal would be the settlers who want to oust the Palestinians altogether and settle the entire territory. So long as Israel pledges to defend the future Palestinian state from invasion, something that would be in its own interest anyway, there is little that the Palestinians can argue against it.
I am not going to tell you that there cannot be any problems related to security with such an arrangement. In fact, there are additional requirements that go along with this security relationship so as to prevent or limit some of them including guerrilla warfare. These would include control of borders including airspace. The Palestinian state would run like the Vatican, operating under Israeli military auspices and border control just as the Vatican operates within the Italian versions. In fact, the Eastern border of the West Bank would have THREE entities each doing their own security checks: Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian authorities. Gaza would also have THREE: Egypt, Israel, and the Palestinian authorities. Egypt and Jordan would be most concerned with what comes OUT of those territories while Israel would be most concerned with what comes into them.
Israel, Egypt, and Jordan all like this solution very much. The rest of the Arab world and the Palestinians almost certainly cannot abide it.
-D
There are those who have praised Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent speech and those who have condemned it as more of the same. Many have looked to the bright side, his agreement that the Palestinians could have a state along side Israel, while others have criticized his refusal to stop the expansion of existing settlements as a way of undermining the process of peace, even while calling for it. Personally, I thought that PM Netanyahu's speech was masterful and have seen little substantial criticism of it from anyone not on the far left or right.
In many ways, it paralleled Obama's Cairo speech in which the section specifically dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was fairly well received by the vast majority of Israelis (Obama's falling approval rating among Israelis has more to do with other speeches in which he has been more harshly critical of Israel and with his failure to address Iran's nuclear issues). I do have problems with the President's treatment of history in the Cairo speech, something to which I believe that PM Netanyahu did an excellent job in responding (Pres. Obama made it seem as if Zionism began with the Holocaust). I also have major problems with completely ignoring anti-Judaism in Muslim history, going back much farther than the 1920s where PM Netanyahu began his history. Worst still is probably Pres. Obama's implicit comparison between the Holocaust and Palestinian suffering. I must, however, strongly applaud Pres. Obama for stating in the midst of the Arab world that the US has an unbreakable bond with Israel. For a more detailed treatment of President Obama's speech please see my radio show found at http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1605803 (there were a few technical difficulties with the video, but the sound is good). This all said, on to the more important point at the moment, both speeches contained idea changes whose implications are not fully realized by advocates for either Israel or the Palestinians.
The first is that Two-State Solution is not accurate enough. I have talked about this before. Leaders are now being more explicit that we are talking "Two-States for Two-Peoples" and not simply "Two States." Some leaders are seeking "two states" both of which would eventually become Palestinian states. Pres. Obama mentioned in his speech that:
We will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians EACH live in peace and security.
The "two states for two peoples" concept eliminates a major threat to Israel, namely the return en mass by Palestinian refugees to homes in Israel because it could not happen while maintaining a Jewish state. Those refugees would go to a Palestinian state. The question then becomes how many could such a state support in addition to its already overcrowded population. The answer is very few, leaving the problem of Palestinian refugees for the Arab nations to handle.
The second is a developing understanding that the Palestinians lack the fundamental institutions necessary for any nation-state to work. President Obama stated in his speech, words that easily could have come from PM Netanyahu:
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.
While THIS statement is lacking "as a Jewish state," it basically puts the ball in the Palestinian's court. It also functionally forces the PA to live up to those same requirements. They cannot simply wait for Israel to act to grant them a state. They have to do these things, "Now." That societal work won't take months, but could take multiple years or even decades. The problem then is the continuing pressure to find a solution ASAP. ASAP may be decades. It will not be the second year or even third year of President Obama's administration.
After the speech, the people looked to PM Netanyahu to endorse a two state solution. In the minds of most, he did exactly that, but did so in a brilliant way. Netanyahu RE-NAMED what is in essence a state-semi-state solution, a 1 1/2 state solution, as a TWO-state solution. It is in fact NEITHER a one or two state solution. The Palestinian entity would be a SEMI-state. This is what I have suggested for years now. It made sense over a decade ago. I thought that was where things were headed in 1993-1994, much less in 1996, much less in 2000... The Palestinians could be granted a state so long as that state is disarmed and not potentially a threat to the existence of Israel.
The state-semi-state idea would never have been accepted by Arafat and will likely not be accepted by Abbas. It CAN'T be accepted by Hamas. IF the world media actually continues to present this idea as a TWO-state solution, which is seems to be doing, Netanyahu has won the war for Israel, much less the battle. I think that is indeed the path the process will be heading and Pres. Obama supports it. Let us not be blinded to the dramatic implications of this path for Israel.
Basically, it rids Israel of its major problems in making peace. It ends Palestinian hopes for conquest entirely, ending any hope that the right of return to Palestine would matter, since the extra-population could not arm and fight, and means that Israel will maintain whatever land it holds when peace is made indefinitely. The only things that it provides the Palestinians are economic opportunity and freedom so long as the latter does not threaten Israel. The only Israelis who could possibly oppose such a deal would be the settlers who want to oust the Palestinians altogether and settle the entire territory. So long as Israel pledges to defend the future Palestinian state from invasion, something that would be in its own interest anyway, there is little that the Palestinians can argue against it.
I am not going to tell you that there cannot be any problems related to security with such an arrangement. In fact, there are additional requirements that go along with this security relationship so as to prevent or limit some of them including guerrilla warfare. These would include control of borders including airspace. The Palestinian state would run like the Vatican, operating under Israeli military auspices and border control just as the Vatican operates within the Italian versions. In fact, the Eastern border of the West Bank would have THREE entities each doing their own security checks: Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian authorities. Gaza would also have THREE: Egypt, Israel, and the Palestinian authorities. Egypt and Jordan would be most concerned with what comes OUT of those territories while Israel would be most concerned with what comes into them.
Israel, Egypt, and Jordan all like this solution very much. The rest of the Arab world and the Palestinians almost certainly cannot abide it.
-D
Friday, June 5, 2009
On Obama's Speech - Concerning the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Shalom All,
I have looked in depth at President Obama's speech made yesterday in Cairo. It makes some excellent points and some questionable ones. I found myself practically cheering when reading it at times and then muttering to myself, "What the #%$?" at others. Daniel Gordis, certainly no liberal when it comes to Israel, pointed out that the speech as it concerned Israel was basically in line with the Israeli political center. Even Avigdor Lieberman praised it. Shimon Peres glowed.
I found myself overwhelmingly in agreement with its tenor and its demands of both Israelis and Palestinians. The only truly negative reactions from either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I have seen have come from the Far Settler Right on the Israeli side and from Hizballah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood on the Palestinian side. Obama pretty much hit the bull's-eye. You can't do much better than that for targeting the center.
My own criticisms of that portion of the speech really have nothing to do with the peace process. Some have to do with history and others with context. I won't bore you with details unless you wish to see them. I have included detailed comments below. While I and many other supporters of Israel feared this speech and feared that the President would cave in to pressure to pressure Israel, I found his speech generally very supportive of both Israel and of Palestinian aspirations for statehood. I was very pleased with his call for the Arab nations to help out.
Where I do find significant problems with the speech are in areas only tangentially to do with Israel, such as the Iranian nuclear issue, and on issues having nothing at all to do with Israel, such as women's rights in the Arab and Muslim world. I will address those in a separate email entirely. It was a very long speech!!!
On the whole, I was pleased with what it said about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
-David
Detailed comments on issues from the speech having to do with Israel and the peace process follow:
The introduction to the conflict was both good and bad. I was very pleased with the President's strong statement against Holocaust denial, but found the order of the speech itself problematic in that it seemed to equate the Holocaust with Palestinian suffering. I also found it highly problematic that the President made no mention of Jewish suffering at the hands of the Arab world including their forced expulsion from many Arab nations and their oppression as second class citizens, a dhimmi population, at the hands of Muslim rulers for much of Islamic history. It was as if Jewish suffering was only at the hands of Christian Europe.
I wanted to cheer when I read, "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered."
Then, I noticed the problems in this statement. The Palestinians are not oppressed ISRAELI citizens or even people who SHOULD BE Israeli citizens. They are people actively AT WAR with Israel and SEEKING its DESTRUCTION, not to play a positive role in strengthening its future. Say what you will, but Martin Luther King Jr. was not leading silent demonstrations to DESTROY AMERICA, he was leading them to acquire long overdue civil rights and to obtain the right for black people in America to live the AMERICAN DREAM, to live with full liberty and to obtain full prosperity as American citizens. Let us neither pretend that Apartheid South Africa is an accurate representation. Black people in South Africa were not AT WAR for the destruction of the nation. They had not expressed generations of desire to slaughter the white population or drive them into the sea. Apartheid was a system based, much like American segregation, upon racism. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not such a conflict no matter what anti-Jewish conference may equate Zionism with racism.
For Palestinians it is a war for land, for self-determination, and for some it is a holy war. For Israelis it is a war for their very survival, for the security of Jewish lives, with concern over land and for some it is a holy war. Both want LAND. NEITHER are fighting for CIVIL RIGHTS. Let's not pretend otherwise. The war would have been LONG OVER already had it been acceptable to Palestinians to obtain a state living peacefully along side a Jewish Israel in which they had self-determination and liberty with the end of occupation. The reality is that this is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN the primary aim of the Palestinian leadership, neither that of Fatah or that of Hamas. This then takes the conflict to a distance far afield from the American Civil Rights movement or that to overthrow Apartheid.
The President then introduced a statement that could easily be stated by Benjamin Netanyahu who has already repeatedly said similar things, "Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist."
Much has been made of the President's statement about Israeli settlements. I believe rightly so. Why? Not because it was a wonderful statement, but because it says all things to all people. The Israelis can easily say, "Okay, he's reinforcing the language of previous agreements," meaning the status-quo is okay. No NEW settlements. The Israeli response is then to do nothing. The Palestinians can say, "He's condemning Israel's continuing to EXPAND its constructs on OUR SIDE of the 1967 border." In other words, the statement received applause, but frankly will have little effect other than to entrench both sides in their points of view. EVERYONE liked that statement except the Far Settler Right in Israel which wants NEW settlements. FYI that FAR Right constitutes less than 6% of the Israeli JEWISH electorate. The statement came across as supportive of PA demands, but in reality says nothing new and will have little or no impact.
The President's comments about the need to improve the quality of life for Palestinians were excellent. The question that was left wide open, however, is WHOM is to blame for their lack of prosperity now? One could and many do make the case that it should NOT be solely or even primarily be deemed the fault of Israel, but instead of Palestinian leadership that refuses and has long refused to agree to a reasonable peace that would have already dramatically improved the quality of life. One could certainly argue that continuing attacks from Gaza have FORCED Israel to crack down on Gaza worsening life there and that the terrorist threat from the West Bank has FORCED Israel's hand there as well. Allowing for freer travel through the West Bank is a minor issue. Building industrial and governmental institutions are the bigger ones. The issue of settlements is a diversion. Without the settlements there would still be no viable Palestinian Authority. Institutions need to be built.
What the President said about the Arab world's responsibility, I thought was excellent:
Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
I have looked in depth at President Obama's speech made yesterday in Cairo. It makes some excellent points and some questionable ones. I found myself practically cheering when reading it at times and then muttering to myself, "What the #%$?" at others. Daniel Gordis, certainly no liberal when it comes to Israel, pointed out that the speech as it concerned Israel was basically in line with the Israeli political center. Even Avigdor Lieberman praised it. Shimon Peres glowed.
I found myself overwhelmingly in agreement with its tenor and its demands of both Israelis and Palestinians. The only truly negative reactions from either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I have seen have come from the Far Settler Right on the Israeli side and from Hizballah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood on the Palestinian side. Obama pretty much hit the bull's-eye. You can't do much better than that for targeting the center.
My own criticisms of that portion of the speech really have nothing to do with the peace process. Some have to do with history and others with context. I won't bore you with details unless you wish to see them. I have included detailed comments below. While I and many other supporters of Israel feared this speech and feared that the President would cave in to pressure to pressure Israel, I found his speech generally very supportive of both Israel and of Palestinian aspirations for statehood. I was very pleased with his call for the Arab nations to help out.
Where I do find significant problems with the speech are in areas only tangentially to do with Israel, such as the Iranian nuclear issue, and on issues having nothing at all to do with Israel, such as women's rights in the Arab and Muslim world. I will address those in a separate email entirely. It was a very long speech!!!
On the whole, I was pleased with what it said about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
-David
Detailed comments on issues from the speech having to do with Israel and the peace process follow:
The introduction to the conflict was both good and bad. I was very pleased with the President's strong statement against Holocaust denial, but found the order of the speech itself problematic in that it seemed to equate the Holocaust with Palestinian suffering. I also found it highly problematic that the President made no mention of Jewish suffering at the hands of the Arab world including their forced expulsion from many Arab nations and their oppression as second class citizens, a dhimmi population, at the hands of Muslim rulers for much of Islamic history. It was as if Jewish suffering was only at the hands of Christian Europe.
I wanted to cheer when I read, "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered."
Then, I noticed the problems in this statement. The Palestinians are not oppressed ISRAELI citizens or even people who SHOULD BE Israeli citizens. They are people actively AT WAR with Israel and SEEKING its DESTRUCTION, not to play a positive role in strengthening its future. Say what you will, but Martin Luther King Jr. was not leading silent demonstrations to DESTROY AMERICA, he was leading them to acquire long overdue civil rights and to obtain the right for black people in America to live the AMERICAN DREAM, to live with full liberty and to obtain full prosperity as American citizens. Let us neither pretend that Apartheid South Africa is an accurate representation. Black people in South Africa were not AT WAR for the destruction of the nation. They had not expressed generations of desire to slaughter the white population or drive them into the sea. Apartheid was a system based, much like American segregation, upon racism. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not such a conflict no matter what anti-Jewish conference may equate Zionism with racism.
For Palestinians it is a war for land, for self-determination, and for some it is a holy war. For Israelis it is a war for their very survival, for the security of Jewish lives, with concern over land and for some it is a holy war. Both want LAND. NEITHER are fighting for CIVIL RIGHTS. Let's not pretend otherwise. The war would have been LONG OVER already had it been acceptable to Palestinians to obtain a state living peacefully along side a Jewish Israel in which they had self-determination and liberty with the end of occupation. The reality is that this is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN the primary aim of the Palestinian leadership, neither that of Fatah or that of Hamas. This then takes the conflict to a distance far afield from the American Civil Rights movement or that to overthrow Apartheid.
The President then introduced a statement that could easily be stated by Benjamin Netanyahu who has already repeatedly said similar things, "Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist."
Much has been made of the President's statement about Israeli settlements. I believe rightly so. Why? Not because it was a wonderful statement, but because it says all things to all people. The Israelis can easily say, "Okay, he's reinforcing the language of previous agreements," meaning the status-quo is okay. No NEW settlements. The Israeli response is then to do nothing. The Palestinians can say, "He's condemning Israel's continuing to EXPAND its constructs on OUR SIDE of the 1967 border." In other words, the statement received applause, but frankly will have little effect other than to entrench both sides in their points of view. EVERYONE liked that statement except the Far Settler Right in Israel which wants NEW settlements. FYI that FAR Right constitutes less than 6% of the Israeli JEWISH electorate. The statement came across as supportive of PA demands, but in reality says nothing new and will have little or no impact.
The President's comments about the need to improve the quality of life for Palestinians were excellent. The question that was left wide open, however, is WHOM is to blame for their lack of prosperity now? One could and many do make the case that it should NOT be solely or even primarily be deemed the fault of Israel, but instead of Palestinian leadership that refuses and has long refused to agree to a reasonable peace that would have already dramatically improved the quality of life. One could certainly argue that continuing attacks from Gaza have FORCED Israel to crack down on Gaza worsening life there and that the terrorist threat from the West Bank has FORCED Israel's hand there as well. Allowing for freer travel through the West Bank is a minor issue. Building industrial and governmental institutions are the bigger ones. The issue of settlements is a diversion. Without the settlements there would still be no viable Palestinian Authority. Institutions need to be built.
What the President said about the Arab world's responsibility, I thought was excellent:
Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Obama and Netanyahu- Iran and Pakistan
Shalom All,
The big debate going on right now concerns whether or not President Obama will bring pressure to bear upon Israel to make peace with the Palestinians when PM Netanyahu comes to Washington. The wisdom to this point has been that with Israel desiring a stronger tack against Iran by the US, there is leverage against Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians. This is wrong on multiple accounts and Netanyahu is aware of all of them.
First, Iran is at least as big a threat to the US and its interests as to Israel. Yes, an atomic bomb is an existential threat against Israel. However, just imagine the impact of a single detonation of a terrorist atom bomb in any major city in the United States. Such a strike would cripple our nation, result in the immediate rollback of liberty, and dramatically alter how we go about life. It would not kill us all, but the world would change fundamentally. Let's not pretend that the United States is not concerned about even atomic weapons, even without ballistic capabilities, in the hands of those who might use them. Thus, the entire "It's Israel's concern" argument is false. It is OUR existential concern as Americans as well.
Second, we need Israel to do something for us. You see, while Iran may primarily hate Israel, but certainly also despises the US, the US has tremendous problems in Pakistan and with the Pakistani government. You see, the Pakistanis, despite the fact that they are fighting a civil war against the Taliban who are being helped by Al Qaida, are far more concerned with India than with their own insurgents. India is a close ally of Israel. The plot thickens. It is of the utmost importance for the US to secure the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and in the grander scheme of things to prevent Pakistan from going Taliban. If the Pakistanis could be convinced that India is not a threat or more to the point, if India would agree not to be an immediate threat to Pakistan, the Pakistanis could take the fight to the Taliban far more than they are today. The key to getting India to agree just may be Israel.
This leads me to envision an intriguing situation. Netanyahu shows up in Washington with the press buzzing about whether or not he will agree to a two state solution when pressured by Obama. Meanwhile, Obama may well need to ask a favor rather than put forth pressure. The US needs Israel's influence. Take a look at recent news.
Just as an example, the US is asking Israel to warn it before it attacks Iran. Excuse me? I thought the US could pressure Israel to avoid doing that? In fact, I thought that the US told Israel not to attack already.
Rumors are already circulating that pressure is OFF Israel to concede a two state solution. Why? Because that is not currently the primary need of the US. If Israel seeks an exchange for US efforts against Iran, the US has greater priorities than a Palestinian state. Israeli influence with India is more important now than restarting fruitless peace talks with the Palestinians, even if it would make the Arab world happy. Moreover, the US is now the one doing the seeking. Israel likely feels that the only workable solutions with Iran involve sanctions that are only short term solutions and not immediately effective anyway. Hence, the US is holding WEAK CARDS. Israel is holding a royal flush.
Take a look at the two major problems:
1. Problem: Taliban control over Pakistan is an existential threat against the US since Al Qaida would be welcomed and the Taliban would be in control of vastly superior weapons technologies than they currently possess. Imagine Al Qaida roaming the world with several suitcase sized atomic weapons. The Taliban would also destabilize Afghanistan and force the US to redirect resources away from Iraq, allowing Iran to assert itself there. Answer: Pakistani forces need to be diverted from paying attention to India to fighting the insurgency. Solution: Israel can intercede with India, while the US allies itself with India's arch enemy, Pakistan.
2. Problem: Iran's pursuit of nuclear weaponry threatens to destabilize the Middle East and to potentially bring WMDs into the hands of religious zealot terrorists who hate America and American values almost as much as Zionists and Israel. The reality of course is that much of the rest of the Arab world hates Iran also. Answer: The nuclear program must be stopped. Either dramatic sanctions are effective and the weapons program is halted OR military strikes must occur against both nuclear facilities and refined petroleum facilities in Iran. Solutions: Option 1- garner international support for sanctions so that they are effective; Option 2- a major about face regarding the use of US military force and not diplomacy in Washington; or Option 3- a reliance upon Israel's military to get the job done.
The assertion that somehow by forcing Israel to appear to make concessions to the PA, moderate Arab nations would side against Iran is false, because those nations who would be willing to do so are already allied against Iran. They are also allied against the Taliban and Al Qaida. Israel's concessions cannot possibly bring new allies. Worse in fact for those who want the US to pressure Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians, negotiations between Israel and the PA, which are destined to fail, will only damage the coalition against Iran by weakening any Arab leadership working with Israel as their citizenry revolts against cooperation with Israel. In other words, even Arab support against Iran is likely to WEAKEN if the peace process is restarted because it is likely to fail right now. Additionally, as it would be politically impossible for the Obama administration to launch attacks against Iran, US options are limited.
Avoiding military conflict with Iran at ALL COSTS is NOT necessarily in anyone's interests other than Iran's, especially if the sanctions regime is not ramped up to the point of strangling the Iranian economy short of war. The currently imposed sanctions are not stopping Iranian nuclear progress. If the US does not want Israel to strike Iran, IT, not Israel, may have make a concession to the other on this issue as well.
In essence, the two major foreign policy problems facing the United States right now have few solutions and they all involve supporting Israel as it solves the above problems for the United States. One can only hope that the scare tactics being used now, hinting at Israeli strikes against Iran, for example, will be good enough to deter Iran short of actually military conflict. The US may have to offer OTHER concessions to Israel either to avoid attacking Iran or to help with India or BOTH.
Just about all of the bargaining chips that were on the table for the Palestinians are now gone again. More problematic for the Palestinians is that there is a disincentive to reinstate them going forward. Palestinian suffering is diplomatically more beneficial than Palestinian uprising. The risk from failure in the peace process is so damaging at the moment that it is greater than the reward of success.
Obama will almost certainly speak out publicly about the need to create a Palestinian state in the near future, while privately pleading with Israel to help on other issues and conceding the impossible position that the US is in regarding both Pakistan and Iran with Israel being the sole source of help to resolve its problems in both areas. Netanyahu may even help the US diplomatically by talking about the possibility of two states in the future, IF.... Meanwhile, there are bigger fish to fry for both nations.
The Palestinian bargaining position worsens day by day and semi-state status for the foreseeable future, rather than full sovereignty, becomes more and more likely. It isn't just Netanyahu who fears a Hamastan in the West Bank and Gaza, so do Egypt and Jordan as well as anyone who ever wants to see peace in the Holy Land, much less visit its holy sites. What will truly restart the peace process are major concessions by the PA to Israel that allay its security fears, including SUPPORTING, much less recognizing, its status as a Jewish state, and that allow it to move forward diplomatically with its own population. I certainly would not want to be negotiating from that position, which is significantly worse than that faced by Arafat in 2000.
People have wondered what the impact of 9/11 would be on relations between the US and the Arab world. Here is the result. Pakistan and Iran are now far and away the biggest security concerns because they possess, or might possess in the case of Iran, weapons that would make 9/11 pale by comparison. Afghanistan remains a top tier concern as well because it is from there under the Taliban that Al Qaida operated and the Taliban threaten to retake power. Iraq was included with Pakistan and Iran prior to 2003 regardless of whether or not it actually had WMDs because it could easily have constructed them, had them in the past, and had belligerent leadership that was associating with known terrorist entities, Hamas in particular. Internal Arab and Muslim world conflicts including Lebanon, the Palestinians, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, women's rights issues, modernization and a whole host of others have been relegated to second class concerns since 2001 and my friends, that is not simply because George Bush was President.
The simple fact of the matter is that our security trumps others' suffering. Their prosperity and their liberty are dependent on our security. Threatening the United States will result in the United States securing the prosperity and liberty of its own citizenry at the expense of those of others.
This brings me to the final point: OIL. The free flow of oil is still our primary concern PERIOD. Just imagine a Middle East in which a nuclear armed Talibanistan operates from a territory spanning Afghanistan and Pakistan, threatening the entire Indian Ocean, not to mention India, another nuclear power. Imagine on the other side of Afghanistan an Iran possessing nuclear weapons of its own. Now, envision them looking greedily at the vast amounts of money flowing into the hands of abusive despots in the major oil producing nations of the Persian Gulf and looking north toward the Muslim states of the former Soviet Union. Why stop there? Let's put Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Gaza and the West Bank, operating major arms smuggling in the Sinai Peninsula, and threatening Egyptian sovereignty as well as the Suez Canal.
There could be real ugliness on the horizon and the key to all of it is the US-Israel relationship.
-David
The big debate going on right now concerns whether or not President Obama will bring pressure to bear upon Israel to make peace with the Palestinians when PM Netanyahu comes to Washington. The wisdom to this point has been that with Israel desiring a stronger tack against Iran by the US, there is leverage against Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians. This is wrong on multiple accounts and Netanyahu is aware of all of them.
First, Iran is at least as big a threat to the US and its interests as to Israel. Yes, an atomic bomb is an existential threat against Israel. However, just imagine the impact of a single detonation of a terrorist atom bomb in any major city in the United States. Such a strike would cripple our nation, result in the immediate rollback of liberty, and dramatically alter how we go about life. It would not kill us all, but the world would change fundamentally. Let's not pretend that the United States is not concerned about even atomic weapons, even without ballistic capabilities, in the hands of those who might use them. Thus, the entire "It's Israel's concern" argument is false. It is OUR existential concern as Americans as well.
Second, we need Israel to do something for us. You see, while Iran may primarily hate Israel, but certainly also despises the US, the US has tremendous problems in Pakistan and with the Pakistani government. You see, the Pakistanis, despite the fact that they are fighting a civil war against the Taliban who are being helped by Al Qaida, are far more concerned with India than with their own insurgents. India is a close ally of Israel. The plot thickens. It is of the utmost importance for the US to secure the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and in the grander scheme of things to prevent Pakistan from going Taliban. If the Pakistanis could be convinced that India is not a threat or more to the point, if India would agree not to be an immediate threat to Pakistan, the Pakistanis could take the fight to the Taliban far more than they are today. The key to getting India to agree just may be Israel.
This leads me to envision an intriguing situation. Netanyahu shows up in Washington with the press buzzing about whether or not he will agree to a two state solution when pressured by Obama. Meanwhile, Obama may well need to ask a favor rather than put forth pressure. The US needs Israel's influence. Take a look at recent news.
Just as an example, the US is asking Israel to warn it before it attacks Iran. Excuse me? I thought the US could pressure Israel to avoid doing that? In fact, I thought that the US told Israel not to attack already.
Rumors are already circulating that pressure is OFF Israel to concede a two state solution. Why? Because that is not currently the primary need of the US. If Israel seeks an exchange for US efforts against Iran, the US has greater priorities than a Palestinian state. Israeli influence with India is more important now than restarting fruitless peace talks with the Palestinians, even if it would make the Arab world happy. Moreover, the US is now the one doing the seeking. Israel likely feels that the only workable solutions with Iran involve sanctions that are only short term solutions and not immediately effective anyway. Hence, the US is holding WEAK CARDS. Israel is holding a royal flush.
Take a look at the two major problems:
1. Problem: Taliban control over Pakistan is an existential threat against the US since Al Qaida would be welcomed and the Taliban would be in control of vastly superior weapons technologies than they currently possess. Imagine Al Qaida roaming the world with several suitcase sized atomic weapons. The Taliban would also destabilize Afghanistan and force the US to redirect resources away from Iraq, allowing Iran to assert itself there. Answer: Pakistani forces need to be diverted from paying attention to India to fighting the insurgency. Solution: Israel can intercede with India, while the US allies itself with India's arch enemy, Pakistan.
2. Problem: Iran's pursuit of nuclear weaponry threatens to destabilize the Middle East and to potentially bring WMDs into the hands of religious zealot terrorists who hate America and American values almost as much as Zionists and Israel. The reality of course is that much of the rest of the Arab world hates Iran also. Answer: The nuclear program must be stopped. Either dramatic sanctions are effective and the weapons program is halted OR military strikes must occur against both nuclear facilities and refined petroleum facilities in Iran. Solutions: Option 1- garner international support for sanctions so that they are effective; Option 2- a major about face regarding the use of US military force and not diplomacy in Washington; or Option 3- a reliance upon Israel's military to get the job done.
The assertion that somehow by forcing Israel to appear to make concessions to the PA, moderate Arab nations would side against Iran is false, because those nations who would be willing to do so are already allied against Iran. They are also allied against the Taliban and Al Qaida. Israel's concessions cannot possibly bring new allies. Worse in fact for those who want the US to pressure Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians, negotiations between Israel and the PA, which are destined to fail, will only damage the coalition against Iran by weakening any Arab leadership working with Israel as their citizenry revolts against cooperation with Israel. In other words, even Arab support against Iran is likely to WEAKEN if the peace process is restarted because it is likely to fail right now. Additionally, as it would be politically impossible for the Obama administration to launch attacks against Iran, US options are limited.
Avoiding military conflict with Iran at ALL COSTS is NOT necessarily in anyone's interests other than Iran's, especially if the sanctions regime is not ramped up to the point of strangling the Iranian economy short of war. The currently imposed sanctions are not stopping Iranian nuclear progress. If the US does not want Israel to strike Iran, IT, not Israel, may have make a concession to the other on this issue as well.
In essence, the two major foreign policy problems facing the United States right now have few solutions and they all involve supporting Israel as it solves the above problems for the United States. One can only hope that the scare tactics being used now, hinting at Israeli strikes against Iran, for example, will be good enough to deter Iran short of actually military conflict. The US may have to offer OTHER concessions to Israel either to avoid attacking Iran or to help with India or BOTH.
Just about all of the bargaining chips that were on the table for the Palestinians are now gone again. More problematic for the Palestinians is that there is a disincentive to reinstate them going forward. Palestinian suffering is diplomatically more beneficial than Palestinian uprising. The risk from failure in the peace process is so damaging at the moment that it is greater than the reward of success.
Obama will almost certainly speak out publicly about the need to create a Palestinian state in the near future, while privately pleading with Israel to help on other issues and conceding the impossible position that the US is in regarding both Pakistan and Iran with Israel being the sole source of help to resolve its problems in both areas. Netanyahu may even help the US diplomatically by talking about the possibility of two states in the future, IF.... Meanwhile, there are bigger fish to fry for both nations.
The Palestinian bargaining position worsens day by day and semi-state status for the foreseeable future, rather than full sovereignty, becomes more and more likely. It isn't just Netanyahu who fears a Hamastan in the West Bank and Gaza, so do Egypt and Jordan as well as anyone who ever wants to see peace in the Holy Land, much less visit its holy sites. What will truly restart the peace process are major concessions by the PA to Israel that allay its security fears, including SUPPORTING, much less recognizing, its status as a Jewish state, and that allow it to move forward diplomatically with its own population. I certainly would not want to be negotiating from that position, which is significantly worse than that faced by Arafat in 2000.
People have wondered what the impact of 9/11 would be on relations between the US and the Arab world. Here is the result. Pakistan and Iran are now far and away the biggest security concerns because they possess, or might possess in the case of Iran, weapons that would make 9/11 pale by comparison. Afghanistan remains a top tier concern as well because it is from there under the Taliban that Al Qaida operated and the Taliban threaten to retake power. Iraq was included with Pakistan and Iran prior to 2003 regardless of whether or not it actually had WMDs because it could easily have constructed them, had them in the past, and had belligerent leadership that was associating with known terrorist entities, Hamas in particular. Internal Arab and Muslim world conflicts including Lebanon, the Palestinians, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, women's rights issues, modernization and a whole host of others have been relegated to second class concerns since 2001 and my friends, that is not simply because George Bush was President.
The simple fact of the matter is that our security trumps others' suffering. Their prosperity and their liberty are dependent on our security. Threatening the United States will result in the United States securing the prosperity and liberty of its own citizenry at the expense of those of others.
This brings me to the final point: OIL. The free flow of oil is still our primary concern PERIOD. Just imagine a Middle East in which a nuclear armed Talibanistan operates from a territory spanning Afghanistan and Pakistan, threatening the entire Indian Ocean, not to mention India, another nuclear power. Imagine on the other side of Afghanistan an Iran possessing nuclear weapons of its own. Now, envision them looking greedily at the vast amounts of money flowing into the hands of abusive despots in the major oil producing nations of the Persian Gulf and looking north toward the Muslim states of the former Soviet Union. Why stop there? Let's put Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Gaza and the West Bank, operating major arms smuggling in the Sinai Peninsula, and threatening Egyptian sovereignty as well as the Suez Canal.
There could be real ugliness on the horizon and the key to all of it is the US-Israel relationship.
-David
Saturday, May 16, 2009
The Pope and The Separation Barrier
"One of the saddest sights for me during my visit to these lands was the wall."
-Pope Benedict XVI
Shalom All,
I certainly understand the Pope's sentiments concerning the Separation Barrier. The "Wall" is a sign of the hatred that exists and the fear that hatred evokes. It is a sign of the separation of peoples who cannot get along.
For the Palestinians, it may divide them from parts of their families, keep them from lands and businesses, make their journeys longer in many cases and make them feel like prisoners. It is also a tangible reminder that Israel exists and that there will not be a single Palestinian state over the entirety of the territory. For many THAT evokes sadness and hatred.
But there is another side to the "Wall." For Israelis, the Barrier is a symbol of security and freedom. It is a barrier against the shredding of flesh, the murder of women and children, and the use of fear as a weapon. It is a barrier to violence against innocents and it has been exceedingly effective.
I'm not going to tell you that the ROUTE of the barrier, which is a FENCE and not a wall for most of its length, is ideal. It encompasses settlements that it my mind are indeed barriers to peace and will have to be removed for there to be a two state solution. The Israeli Supreme Court has ordered it moved in certain places because security concerns do not require its path. The essential requirement of the barrier is not to put post-1967 land on the Israeli side, but to prevent the slaughter of innocents. That its route encompasses some of the land East of the Green Line is necessary. That it juts into the West Bank to encompass enclaves like Ariel is HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC and rightly results in condemnation. In making peace, such issues will obviously need to be resolved. This all said, let us not pretend that when there are two states, suddenly there will be no need for the barrier. The barrier SAVES LIVES and will continue to save lives for the foreseeable future.
All one needs to do is look at the list of terror attacks against Israelis since 2000 and you will note the dramatic decline in both the quantity and effectiveness of attacks since the bulk of the barrier was completed by 2006. Just compare pre-2006 with post-2006: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Suicide+and+Other+Bombing+Attacks+in+Israel+Since.htm
But also think of this: there have been no major Israel incursions into the West Bank for years now. Why? Because the threat from the West Bank is minimal. People there can go about their lives without fear of Israeli military operations. During Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, people in the West Bank watched the news on televisions in cafes without fear that suddenly dozens of tanks would pour through their villages. The barrier has provided real security for the Palestinians in the West Bank, not only for the Israelis, by allowing Israel and the Palestinians to avoid regular and increasing conflicts.
Now, I am not under the false pretense that "life is good" in the West Bank. Peace will make it far better. A Palestinian state in control of a large contiguous territory in the West Bank will make it overwhelmingly better. But right now, one of the things that has resulted in dramatically better lives for the people in the West Bank versus Gaza is that Israel has largely been able to leave the people of the West Bank alone. It has not had to send in forces to strike at would be slaughterers of innocents, while resulting in the collateral damage of civilian deaths and injuries, destroyed infrastructure, ruined economies,.... That is PRIMARILY the result of the effectiveness of the Security Barrier.
Shalom is not simply the absence of violence. Shalom is a sense of well-being that is achieved with the absence of the THREAT of violence.
It saddens me that the Pope did not acknowledge that the Separation Barrier is, for lack of a better term, a necessary evil. Taken in conjunction with the missed opportunity to connect with justified ONGOING, not only decades old, Jewish fears of genocide, the absence of acknowledgement of the Security Barrier as a RESULT of the real threats against the Jews and Jewish people from those who would continue the work of the NAZIs is in my mind glaring.
I think those ARE the Pope's sentiments. I simply wish that he had stated more explicitly in Bethlehem that there is a NEED for the barrier as long as there are threats of violence or even that he understood Israel's act in its construction as based upon its security fears. With many nations condemning Israel for defending its citizenry against those who would slaughter them, such a statement could have been greatly beneficial.
Immediately following the Pope's statement in Bethlehem, standing before the barrier, President Abbas' spoke. Abbas said that the “apartheid wall” was a bid by the Jewish state to drive Palestinian Christians and Muslims from the Holy Land. He spoke of “oppression, tyranny and land expropriation” and said Palestinians wanted a future with “no occupation, no checkpoints, no walls, no prisoners, no refugees”. Abbas gave the Pope's words CONTEXT that the Pope did not intend, because the Pope did not give them context that day.
If I were the speech writer for the Pope, I would have written the following words for him to have said in Bethlehem:
While I am saddened by the very existence of this wall and the conflict that has resulted in its construction, having just visited Yad Vashem, where I saw the results of the kind of libelous rhetoric about, murderous hatred against, and demonization of the Jewish people that are continually, even today, uttered against the Jews in the media, including on Palestinian television stations, by religious leaders, and on the streets in the Arab world and have been all too often put into action from THIS SIDE of the wall, I can understand WHY the wall behind me exists. For there to be a Palestinian state, the Jews must be allowed to live in peace and security in their own state on the OTHER SIDE of this wall. You must be allowed to live in peace and security on THIS SIDE of the wall in your own state. Someday, it is my fervent hope that the wall behind me will not separate enemies, but will divide friends and then it will be taken down. Let us pray for the coming of that day.
-David
-Pope Benedict XVI
Shalom All,
I certainly understand the Pope's sentiments concerning the Separation Barrier. The "Wall" is a sign of the hatred that exists and the fear that hatred evokes. It is a sign of the separation of peoples who cannot get along.
For the Palestinians, it may divide them from parts of their families, keep them from lands and businesses, make their journeys longer in many cases and make them feel like prisoners. It is also a tangible reminder that Israel exists and that there will not be a single Palestinian state over the entirety of the territory. For many THAT evokes sadness and hatred.
But there is another side to the "Wall." For Israelis, the Barrier is a symbol of security and freedom. It is a barrier against the shredding of flesh, the murder of women and children, and the use of fear as a weapon. It is a barrier to violence against innocents and it has been exceedingly effective.
I'm not going to tell you that the ROUTE of the barrier, which is a FENCE and not a wall for most of its length, is ideal. It encompasses settlements that it my mind are indeed barriers to peace and will have to be removed for there to be a two state solution. The Israeli Supreme Court has ordered it moved in certain places because security concerns do not require its path. The essential requirement of the barrier is not to put post-1967 land on the Israeli side, but to prevent the slaughter of innocents. That its route encompasses some of the land East of the Green Line is necessary. That it juts into the West Bank to encompass enclaves like Ariel is HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC and rightly results in condemnation. In making peace, such issues will obviously need to be resolved. This all said, let us not pretend that when there are two states, suddenly there will be no need for the barrier. The barrier SAVES LIVES and will continue to save lives for the foreseeable future.
All one needs to do is look at the list of terror attacks against Israelis since 2000 and you will note the dramatic decline in both the quantity and effectiveness of attacks since the bulk of the barrier was completed by 2006. Just compare pre-2006 with post-2006: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Suicide+and+Other+Bombing+Attacks+in+Israel+Since.htm
But also think of this: there have been no major Israel incursions into the West Bank for years now. Why? Because the threat from the West Bank is minimal. People there can go about their lives without fear of Israeli military operations. During Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, people in the West Bank watched the news on televisions in cafes without fear that suddenly dozens of tanks would pour through their villages. The barrier has provided real security for the Palestinians in the West Bank, not only for the Israelis, by allowing Israel and the Palestinians to avoid regular and increasing conflicts.
Now, I am not under the false pretense that "life is good" in the West Bank. Peace will make it far better. A Palestinian state in control of a large contiguous territory in the West Bank will make it overwhelmingly better. But right now, one of the things that has resulted in dramatically better lives for the people in the West Bank versus Gaza is that Israel has largely been able to leave the people of the West Bank alone. It has not had to send in forces to strike at would be slaughterers of innocents, while resulting in the collateral damage of civilian deaths and injuries, destroyed infrastructure, ruined economies,.... That is PRIMARILY the result of the effectiveness of the Security Barrier.
Shalom is not simply the absence of violence. Shalom is a sense of well-being that is achieved with the absence of the THREAT of violence.
It saddens me that the Pope did not acknowledge that the Separation Barrier is, for lack of a better term, a necessary evil. Taken in conjunction with the missed opportunity to connect with justified ONGOING, not only decades old, Jewish fears of genocide, the absence of acknowledgement of the Security Barrier as a RESULT of the real threats against the Jews and Jewish people from those who would continue the work of the NAZIs is in my mind glaring.
I think those ARE the Pope's sentiments. I simply wish that he had stated more explicitly in Bethlehem that there is a NEED for the barrier as long as there are threats of violence or even that he understood Israel's act in its construction as based upon its security fears. With many nations condemning Israel for defending its citizenry against those who would slaughter them, such a statement could have been greatly beneficial.
Immediately following the Pope's statement in Bethlehem, standing before the barrier, President Abbas' spoke. Abbas said that the “apartheid wall” was a bid by the Jewish state to drive Palestinian Christians and Muslims from the Holy Land. He spoke of “oppression, tyranny and land expropriation” and said Palestinians wanted a future with “no occupation, no checkpoints, no walls, no prisoners, no refugees”. Abbas gave the Pope's words CONTEXT that the Pope did not intend, because the Pope did not give them context that day.
If I were the speech writer for the Pope, I would have written the following words for him to have said in Bethlehem:
While I am saddened by the very existence of this wall and the conflict that has resulted in its construction, having just visited Yad Vashem, where I saw the results of the kind of libelous rhetoric about, murderous hatred against, and demonization of the Jewish people that are continually, even today, uttered against the Jews in the media, including on Palestinian television stations, by religious leaders, and on the streets in the Arab world and have been all too often put into action from THIS SIDE of the wall, I can understand WHY the wall behind me exists. For there to be a Palestinian state, the Jews must be allowed to live in peace and security in their own state on the OTHER SIDE of this wall. You must be allowed to live in peace and security on THIS SIDE of the wall in your own state. Someday, it is my fervent hope that the wall behind me will not separate enemies, but will divide friends and then it will be taken down. Let us pray for the coming of that day.
-David
Friday, May 15, 2009
The Pope's Words
Shalom All,
I have noticed a trend recently that is exemplified by the article from YNET http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3707501,00.html. Arab leaders are now calling for a two state solution, while OPPOSING one of them being a Jewish state. Rather than calling for a single Palestinian state, Arab leaders advocating for the Palestinian side are PRETENDING to be supporters of "two states for two peoples" by agreeing to "two states." However, their intent is that BOTH states will become Palestinian states. They drop the "for two peoples" part of the statement. This is to be accomplished by insisting on the Right of Return of Palestinians to what is now Israel. As the Palestinians would then only be slightly less than a majority and have a much higher birthrate than the Jewish population, in a manner of short period of time, Israel will end up with a Palestinian majority. Thus, BOTH states would become Palestinian dominated states. Recent statements by President Abbas are strong indications that he is NOT as moderate as many on the world stage would like him to be.
The biggest problem that those desiring peace now face is that Israel seems to have a choice between maintaining a single state in which Jews dominate Palestinians, many of whom live in occupied territories, or agreeing to peace terms under which there will not be a Jewish state into the future. Even the political left is beginning to see this problem. The issue is not simply a question of a one or two state solution, but of "two states FOR TWO PEOPLES" meaning that one of those states would be a Jewish state. Even Ahmadinejad supports Abbas' version of two states in which in essence both would become Palestinian in short order.
Simply put, what is going on now is that leaders who seek the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state are SUPPORTING a TWO state solution, only doing so in such a way that ultimately NEITHER of those states will be JEWISH. Their support for "two states" allows them to APPEAR to be moderate, when they are very much not and continue to seek the end of the Jewish state.
They really want two states for ONE people.
For this reason, I was particularly appreciative of Pope Benedict's comments during his visit to Israel. There were those who eagerly jumped on his statements and said, "The Pope advocates for the creation of a Palestinian state!" No, my friends. The Pope's statement said much more than that. He said, "In union with people of good will everywhere, I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace IN A HOMELAND OF THEIR OWN, within secure and internationally recognized borders."
Taking a close look at what he actually said, the Pope essentially called for two states for TWO PEOPLES, meaning that one is a JEWISH state and one is a Palestinian state. Second, the Pope called for "secure" borders.
While many will pounce on this statement as advocating for the establishment of a Palestinian state plain and simple, it is definitely not. It is in fact much in line with the understanding of the Israeli government. If anything, the Pope's statement favors the ISRAELI position that at the end of negotiations there must be a JEWISH state, not just one of two states that happens to be within the boundaries of Israel's recognized borders, and that the states must have SECURE borders, the very phrase which is used to mean that the pre-1967 border is NOT necessarily what that border SHOULD be.
I found and find the Pope's words supportive of the nation of Israel and the Jewish people's desire for their homeland to remain a place of security for Jews.
-David
I have noticed a trend recently that is exemplified by the article from YNET http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3707501,00.html. Arab leaders are now calling for a two state solution, while OPPOSING one of them being a Jewish state. Rather than calling for a single Palestinian state, Arab leaders advocating for the Palestinian side are PRETENDING to be supporters of "two states for two peoples" by agreeing to "two states." However, their intent is that BOTH states will become Palestinian states. They drop the "for two peoples" part of the statement. This is to be accomplished by insisting on the Right of Return of Palestinians to what is now Israel. As the Palestinians would then only be slightly less than a majority and have a much higher birthrate than the Jewish population, in a manner of short period of time, Israel will end up with a Palestinian majority. Thus, BOTH states would become Palestinian dominated states. Recent statements by President Abbas are strong indications that he is NOT as moderate as many on the world stage would like him to be.
The biggest problem that those desiring peace now face is that Israel seems to have a choice between maintaining a single state in which Jews dominate Palestinians, many of whom live in occupied territories, or agreeing to peace terms under which there will not be a Jewish state into the future. Even the political left is beginning to see this problem. The issue is not simply a question of a one or two state solution, but of "two states FOR TWO PEOPLES" meaning that one of those states would be a Jewish state. Even Ahmadinejad supports Abbas' version of two states in which in essence both would become Palestinian in short order.
Simply put, what is going on now is that leaders who seek the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state are SUPPORTING a TWO state solution, only doing so in such a way that ultimately NEITHER of those states will be JEWISH. Their support for "two states" allows them to APPEAR to be moderate, when they are very much not and continue to seek the end of the Jewish state.
They really want two states for ONE people.
For this reason, I was particularly appreciative of Pope Benedict's comments during his visit to Israel. There were those who eagerly jumped on his statements and said, "The Pope advocates for the creation of a Palestinian state!" No, my friends. The Pope's statement said much more than that. He said, "In union with people of good will everywhere, I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace IN A HOMELAND OF THEIR OWN, within secure and internationally recognized borders."
Taking a close look at what he actually said, the Pope essentially called for two states for TWO PEOPLES, meaning that one is a JEWISH state and one is a Palestinian state. Second, the Pope called for "secure" borders.
While many will pounce on this statement as advocating for the establishment of a Palestinian state plain and simple, it is definitely not. It is in fact much in line with the understanding of the Israeli government. If anything, the Pope's statement favors the ISRAELI position that at the end of negotiations there must be a JEWISH state, not just one of two states that happens to be within the boundaries of Israel's recognized borders, and that the states must have SECURE borders, the very phrase which is used to mean that the pre-1967 border is NOT necessarily what that border SHOULD be.
I found and find the Pope's words supportive of the nation of Israel and the Jewish people's desire for their homeland to remain a place of security for Jews.
-David
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)