Yourish.com

11/02/2009

Taking the smart out of smart diplomacy

Filed under: American Scene, Politics — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

Washington Post reporter Scott Wilson writes of President Obama’s new approach to diplomacy “Shared interests define Obama’s world. Wilson starts:

President Obama is applying the same tools to international diplomacy that he once used as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side, constructing appeals to shared interests and attempting to bring the government’s conduct in line with its ideals.

Obama’s approach to the world as a community of nations, more alike than different in outlook and interest, has elevated America’s standing abroad and won him the Nobel Peace Prize. But on the farthest-reaching U.S. foreign policy challenges, he is struggling to translate his own popularity into American influence, even with allies that have celebrated his break from the Bush administration’s emphasis on military strength, unilateral action and personal chemistry.

Of course as a community organizer he could claim that all sides shared the same goals, but if he was organzing against a business, the business likely had self interest involved. Its goals would not have been shared with those Obama was representing, but the business likely would have preferred to cede some of its own interests rather than getting labeled as insensitive or uncaring.

We actually get some wisdom from Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch:

“There’s an appropriate reaction to the crusading moralism of the Bush administration, but it sometimes goes too far in the direction of hoping that reasoned and quiet persuasion will convince cynical and self-interested authoritarian governments to change their ways,” Malinowski said.

Thought I don’t agree the first part, he has the second part exactly right..

In September, taking a tangible step to improve relations with Russia, Obama abandoned Bush-era plans to station a ballistic-missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland designed to protect the United States from Iran’s arsenal. The Russian government had for years complained that the system posed a security threat to the country, already squeezed by NATO’s expansion, in a region it has long considered part of its sphere of influence.

Obama announced a scaled-back system that he said would better protect Eastern Europe from attack. The Czech and Polish governments accepted the new plans last month, but conservatives argue that the shift only rewarded an aggressive Russian government to win its help with Iran.

“This was a clear signal that Washington is more interested in currying favor with its strategic competitors than in building or even maintaining its alliances with its traditional allies,” said Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “There is no evidence the Obama doctrine is reaping benefits. On the contrary, the United States is increasingly viewed as weak and unreliable by some of its traditional allies.”

U.S. and Iranian officials held the highest-level talks in three decades in early October, and later that month they agreed to a plan that appeared to mark a victory for Obama’s approach.

Under the draft agreement, Iran would ship most of its low-grade nuclear fuel to Russia for further enrichment so it could be sent back to Iran later for use as medical isotopes. The deal, conceived by the Obama administration, would leave too little uranium inside Iran to produce a nuclear weapon in the short term.

But last week Iran’s government reversed course in a sign that its own domestic calculations are still exerting more influence than Obama’s brand of international diplomacy.

In other words it didn’t work.

Towards the end of an article Wilson writes:

Obama also has spoken candidly to Israel’s government, calling its West Bank settlements “illegitimate” while asking Arab nations to make a series of diplomatic and economic gestures toward the Jewish state. His call for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to freeze settlement construction — a Palestinian condition for opening peace talks — has so far been ignored.

This inaccurate. Barry Rubin writes:

In fact, at the time it signed the original peace process agreement–often called the Oslo accord–in 1993, that’s 16 years ago–Israel put forward its interpretation of the agreement. It said that there would be no new Jewish settlements and no geographical expansion of existing settlements. But Israel made it clear that it would continue to build apartments on existing settlements. That position was not challenged by the Palestinians at the time and it has never held up talks before now.

It only became a condition because President Obama made it one. Barry Rubin again:

Indeed, another Washington Post article of November 1, this one by Howard Schneider, pointed out–though only indirectly–why things got even worse:

“However, Obama’s election raised expectations among Palestinians and throughout the Arab states that the peace process would yield quicker results from an administration willing to openly criticize Israel and, it seemed, elevate Palestinian interests.”

More than that, it was the Obama Administration which called for a total freeze, distances itself from Israel, and took other steps leading the PA and Arab states to believe that by being intransigent they could get Washington to deliver Israel on their own terms. In other words, while everyone is being too polite to say so, the Obama Administration was responsible for the situation deteriorating.

Similarly, Meryl wrote:

But if you look at those words, and the words of Obama’s Cairo speech, there is a cognitive dissonance that explains why the Palestinians continue to use the lack of a freeze as a reason to halt negotiations. Because the Obama administration opened the door for it use. And the Palestinians have never, ever not used an excuse to refuse to negotiate with Israel.

Later on Barry Rubin observes in regard to events in the Middle East:

And so we have come to the point where it is becoming clear even to those who have been ruled by wishful thinking that there is not going to be any peace and that the Palestinian-Arab side is responsible for this situation.

It is quite probable–and this is extremely important to understand–that there is nothing the Obama Administration can say or do in order to make them change their mind. After all, this is the ideal position from the standpoint of the PA, Egypt, Jordan, and others. Refuse to support talks, reap benefits by showing their militancy, and be able to blame it on Israel.

After all his efforts and alleged popularity, Obama has absolutely zero credit and no leverage in the Arabic-speaking world.

How is this going to affect Obama Administration policy and thinking?

If the conclusion of Wilson’s article is any indication, not at all.

“Our interests are the same with our allies and our adversaries,” Rhodes said. “We’re saying the same thing to everybody. Our interests are the same no matter what country we’re talking to.”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

09/23/2009

The shoals of Middle East peacemaking

Filed under: Israel — Tags: , , — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

The Washington Post, today, faults the Obama administration for its early forays into Middle East peacemaking.

The administration also concluded, wrongly, that obtaining an unconditional Israeli settlement freeze was an essential first step. In fact settlements are no longer a strategic obstacle to peace; as a practical matter, most of the construction is in areas that will not be part of a Palestinian state. The administration’s inflexible stance, unwisely spelled out in public by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, led to an unwinnable confrontation with Mr. Netanyahu, turned Israeli public opinion against Mr. Obama and prompted Palestinians to harden their own position. The compromise now being discussed between Washington and Jerusalem will differ little from past deals.

While I don’t agree with everything in the editorial it’s a far cry from what I’m used to.

Related: check out Steven Rosen’s take, by itself or with commentary by Barry Rubin and Meryl.

Israel Matzav adds (via memeorandum):

It should be obvious to anyone with a passing awareness of the history of the last 16 years that Netanyahu is highly unlikely to offer Abu Mazen any more than Olmert offered Abu Mazen or than Ehud Barak offered Arafat.

And even if he did, there’s little chance that Abu Mazen would accept either. It’s easier to be the wronged party than it is to govern.

UPDATE: The end of the editorial annoyed me.

Officials say the president pressed the Israeli and Palestinian leaders hard to move forward during bilateral meetings Tuesday. That’s good, but Mr. Obama must also do more to convince average Israelis as well as Arab leaders that his diplomacy is worth investing in. We’re told the president reminded Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas Tuesday of an old diplomatic verity: that the United States cannot want peace more than the parties themselves. That’s a reality that this president, like a few before him, will have to live by.

Israel has to show that it wants peace? What’s been happening for the past 16 years as Israel has ceded territory and received terror in return. I think that Yaacov Lozowick is on target here:

On the contrary: us locals, we’ve long since covered all the options that seem so obvious to the novices, and we understand fully why they’re not real. It’s our lives, and we’re not novices.

The cliche about how we’ve forgotten more about the matter than the newcomers may ever know is reality, not platitude.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

07/31/2009

The President’s teachable Mideast moment – the Washington Post vs. the New York Times

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: , , — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

The Washington Post surprised yesterday with an editorial Tough on Israel:

But the administration also is guilty of missteps. Rather than pocketing Mr. Netanyahu’s initial concessions — he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous U.S. administrations — Mr. Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement “freeze.” Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the “confidence-building” concessions to Israel that the administration seeks. Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu. And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration’s final year, have yet to resume.

Naturally J-Street’s MJ Rosenberg (via memeorandum) started name calling:

Of course, the Washington Post is not an Israeli paper so its defense of even the most indefensible Israeli policy — the refusal to freeze settlements — is just weird. Fred Hiatt (the editorial page editor), neocon hero Charles Krauthammer and columnist Bill Kristol consistently defend Israeli policies with a zealousness they last demonstrated when pushing for war with Iraq.

Where was Rosenberg six months ago when the same Hiatt was questioning whether Israel ought to be fighting a war of self defense or giving op-ed space to Hamas apologists? I realize that Rosenberg considers anyone who isn’t as reflexively anti-Israel as he is to be pro-Israel and out of the mainstream. However the Post’s measured criticism of the President can hardly be considered a sign of it’s being pro-Israel.

If the Post’s editors are taking this stand, I think that a lot of it has goes back to their meeting Mahmoud Abbas two months ago. AS Jonathan Tobin recalls:

As Mahmoud Abbas, the supposedly moderate head of the Palestinian Authority, recently told the Washington Post, he has no intention of dealing with Israel. Instead, he will sit back and wait for Obama to keep applying the screws to America’s only democratic ally in the region.

Jennifer Rubin extrapolates:

Well, that wasn’t so hard, was it? Perhaps others in Congress and those still spinning so furiously for Obama (Alan Dershowitz included) can at least concede that whatever Obama thought he might be able to achieve by alienating our ally has proven to be counterproductive. He has lost the trust of the Israelis and encouraged intransigence among Palestinians and Arab states.

Israel Matzav adds that the President has lived down to expectations.

The editors of the New York Times, though, are all in favor of President Obama’s approach. Though initially concerned with Abbas’s performance, they seem to have gotten over it. Today they applaud the President’s pressure and beg him to keep it up in The Settlements Issue.

Mr. Obama and his negotiator, George Mitchell, have focused on settlements after prying loose a commitment — highly caveated — from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a two-state solution. The Palestinians insist they won’t return to talks until all construction halts. The Americans have decided that a freeze is needed to show Palestinians and other Arabs that Israel’s conservative government is serious about peace.

Given the makeup of the “moderate” Fatah party that Israel is supposed to make peace with, focusing on whether PM Netanyahu said the magic words seems to be a bit of misdirection. The following paragraph lets us know how dishonest the editors of the Times are:

Less visibly, but we hope just as assertively, the administration is pressing the Palestinians and other Arab leaders to take concrete steps to demonstrate their commitment to a peace deal. Those must clearly contribute to Israel’s sense of security.

“[W]e hope just as assertively…” If the pressure was “visible,” it could be just as assertive. The fact that it’s being applied privately (if at all) shows that it is clearly not as assertive. And as the editorial itself acknowledges towards the end, it hasn’t been effective at all.

President Obama and Mr. Mitchell claim they are making progress, but so far there is little sign of it. Saudi Arabia, which has pushed Washington hard to revive negotiations, has been especially resistant. Mr. Mitchell would do well to remind them that a prolonged stalemate will only feed extremism across the region.

So the Times supports the President’s “visible” pressure on Israel even though it acknowledges that the policy is yielding no diplomatic benefits. The editorial conclude:

Israeli leaders do not often risk being at odds with an American president, but polls show broad support for Mr. Netanyahu’s resistance. President Obama, a skilled communicator, has started a constructive dialogue with the Islamic world. Now he needs to explain to Israelis why freezing settlements and reviving peace talks is clearly in their interest.

The broad support is for PM Netanyahu’s policies so far which represent the views of the majority of the Israeli electorate.

Obama is a skilled (if overrated) orator. He is not a skilled communicator as he often does not listen to others. He hasn’t started a “constructive dialogue with the Islamic world,” as much as he as assured them and demonstrated to them that he intends to pressure Israel to accommodate their demands, while paying only lip service to the demands he makes on them. Naturally that has led to a hardening of their positions.

President Obama doesn’t need to explain to Israel why “freezing settlements and reviving peace talks is to Israel’s benefit. Plenty of diplomats, politicians, journalists and academics have been explaining things to Israel for the past 40 years. Since 1993 has heeded most of this advice only to see its security undermined and its diplomatic position in no way enhanced.

Perhaps what the President needs to do is to use his vaunted communication skills to convince the Arabs that they have more to gain by making peace with Israel even if Israel doesn’t accede to every demand of the Palestinians.

We’ve just seen a “teachable moment” in the history of Middle East diplomacy. The editors of the Washington Post seem to have learned something; the editors of the New York Times and the President seem not to.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

07/23/2009

The cost of confrontation

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 11:00 am

Yesterday I blogged about the consequences of President Obama’s pressure on Israel. Daniel Pipes sees it as a sign that the administration is prepared to precipitate a diplomatic crisis with Israel. However Barry Rubin was less concerned. He observed that despite the American pressure, there has been no consequence to Israel’s defiance of the United States and sees the pressure mostly as posturing.

There are, however, consequences to the administration’s stance. There are those who will use it to further their own agendas. For example Democratic activist, Debra Delee sees the President’s efforts as a validation of her organization’s, Americans for Peace Now, efforts.

Obama is leading. He is doing so boldly and transparently, with the kind of credibility and charisma–both domestically and internationally–that many of his predecessors lacked. I believe that if regional and international leaders rise to the challenge and the promise of President Obama, they may find in him the one who will finally broker lasting peace between Jews and Arabs.

If Netanyahu and his team seriously consider the president’s agenda, they may realize–as well they should–that it constitutes a rare opportunity for ending, once and for all, the Arab-Israel conflict, including Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians. President Obama clearly stated why a freeze on settlements is imperative. He is seeking meaningful negotiations toward a final resolution of the conflict. For such negotiations to be held in earnest, Israel cannot take measures that prejudge their outcome and should not engage in actions that Palestinians and their Arab brethren throughout the Middle East view as provocative and aggressive.

And Tony Karon, the Jewish anti-Zionist who “reports” for Time Magazine has his own spin, Jerusalem Standoff Threatens Middle East Peace Plans:

Although the U.S. has routinely opposed Israeli construction in East Jerusalem – President

Bush’s Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called it “unhelpful” – Netanyahu appears to be betting that by very publicly challenging Obama on Jerusalem, he can rally support from those Jewish leaders in the U.S. who have lately expressed disquiet over the President’s Middle East policies, and also from Christian conservative supporters of Israel. And the Israelis are plainly looking to make a campaign of it, with the mayor of Jerusalem being dispatched to the U.S. to rally opposition to the Administration’s position on the city. (Read “Despite Jewish Concerns, Obama Keeps Up Pressure on Israel.”)

But finding a formula for sharing Jerusalem, the eastern part of which the Palestinians claim as their future capital, is fundamental to the peace process that Obama has sought to revive; there will be no Palestinian or Arab takers for any deal that leaves all of Jerusalem under Israeli control. So by picking the Holy City as the battleground for a test of wills with Obama, Netanyahu is mounting a broader challenge to the President’s peace agenda.

Israel seized control of the eastern portion of the Holy City during the war of 1967, but its claim to sovereignty over the occupied portion of Jerusalem has never been internationally recognized. Under the Oslo peace process launched in 1993, Jerusalem was defined as one of the “final status” issues to be negotiated in a peace agreement, but finding a solution for sharing the city has been one of the thorniest matters.

There is nothing outright false in the above three paragraphs as it is mostly spin or Karon’s opinion. First of all, like Delee he assumes that the President’s vision will lead to peace. That’s hardly assured. As even Karon notes later, as Prime Minister, Ehud Barak offered to divide Jerusalem. But Karon leaves out a key piece of information: his offer was rejected by Arafat.

And it’s true that Israel’s claim to “East” Jerusalem has not been recognized, he won’t provide the rest of the story. However Jeff Jacoby does:

There was a time not so long ago when Jerusalem was anything but an open city. During Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, the Jordanian Arab Legion invaded eastern Jerusalem, occupied the Old City, and expelled all its Jews – many from families that had lived in the city for centuries. “As they left,” the historian Sir Martin Gilbert later wrote, “they could see columns of smoke rising from the quarter behind them. The Hadassah welfare station had been set on fire and . . . the looting and burning of Jewish property was in full swing.”

For the next 19 years, eastern Jerusalem was barred to Jews, brutally divided from the western part of the city with barbed-wire and military fortifications. Dozens of Jewish holy places, including synagogues hundreds of years old, were desecrated or destroyed. Jerusalem’s most sacred Jewish shrine, the Western Wall, became a slum. It wasn’t until 1967, after Jordan was routed in the Six-Day War, that Jerusalem was reunited under Israeli sovereignty and religious freedom restored to all. Israelis have vowed ever since that Jerusalem would never again be divided.

And not only Israelis. US policy, laid out in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, recognizes Jerusalem as “a united city administered by Israel” and formally declares that “Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.”

But the point of Karon’s articles wasn’t to present the history of the Middle East as a reporter; it was to cast Netanyahu as an obstacle to peace.

But as Jeff Jacoby concludes (h/t Rubicon3) the real obstacle to peace is:

The great obstacle to Middle East peace is not that Jews insist on living among Arabs. It is that Arabs insist that Jews not live among them. If Obama doesn’t grasp that, he has a lot to learn.

The problem with President Obama’s approach of singling out Israel for pressure is that he emboldens those who wish to blame Israel for the Arab refusal to accept it. They will use his approach as an excuse to further discredit Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

07/21/2009

The pressure Israel only foreign policy isn’t working

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

President Obama has apparently decided to make a showdown with Israel over settlements his primary foreign policy initiative. Sure he offered an open hand to the Muslim world, but that was just words. The main action he has taken is to reverse his promise to AIPAC last year and effectively push to divide Jerusalem.

It hasn’t worked, so far, because, for one thing the consensus in Israel has changed.

The year 2000, the Camp David failure, the Syrian and Palestinian rejection of generous offers, and Second Intifada destroyed illusions in Israel.

Since then, Israel has groped for a new paradigm. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon offered unilateralism; Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni constantly offered more in exchange for nothing. But the more they did so, the more international abuse Israel received.

Now a new approach has finally emerged capable of reversing this situation. It goes like this: Israel wants peace but doesn’t hesitate to express not only what it wants and needs but also what’s required to create a stable and better situation.

(Even the terrorist supporting, viciously anti-Israel activist Helena Cobban recognizes this.Though she describes it as the decline of Israel’s peace movement and sees it as a flaw in the movement, rather than a recognition that their formula for peace has been shown to be obsolete.)

Even if one considers PM Netanyahu, President Obama has failed to engage Israel’s political middle or even its Left, as Michael Doran observes:

If Obama found Netanyahu difficult to coerce, he failed to charm the Israeli Left. Israeli pundits have noted the conspicuous absence of a pro-Obama coalition on the Israeli political scene–this, despite the fact that the Israeli Left detests the settlements as much as or more than Obama himself. Many Israelis simply do not understand how the country’s security dilemmas fit into Obama’s larger scheme. With respect to the issue of gravest concern, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Obama’s strategy remains worryingly opaque. And with respect to the Palestinian question, many Israelis are skeptical about the power of any American president to overcome the Hamas-Fatah split, and to create conditions on the Palestinian side that will achieve a two-state solution capable of guaranteeing Israeli security. In a context fraught with uncertainty, Obama is inviting the Israeli Left to join with him in a fight against Netanyahu in order to achieve… well, what precisely?

In addition to the vagueness of his goals, Obama’s body language has dealt the Israeli Left a weak hand. The Cairo speech cast Israel as a bit player in a U.S.-Muslim drama. The President, stressing his Muslim ancestry, did not take the time to fly to Jerusalem, where he might have reasoned with the Israeli public about the value to it of abandoning the Bush-Sharon agreement. Instead, his advisers denied flatly (and falsely) that such an agreement had ever existed. As a consequence of this disingenuousness, many Israelis fear that the administration aims to buy goodwill from the Muslim world by distancing itself from Israel, and they wonder whether settlements are not simply the first of many concessions that will be demanded. With such doubts swirling in the air, it is difficult for the Israeli Left to trumpet the Obama agenda.

And the President outreach hasn’t gotten much response from the Arab world either.

So Obama gets nowhere with the Saudis and squeezes the Israelis instead, hoping that in doing so he will, at some point, earn enough cred with the Arab street to allow Arab governments the “political space” to make real concessions to the peace process.

Even the Palestinians would rather not be forced to make any concessions to Israel.

Which is why the actual Palestinian position is to pray for Mitchell to fail. If he fails and there is no compromise deal, they are sitting pretty. Washington denounces Jerusalem, bad feeling between them continues, and Obama effectively demands nothing of the Palestinians. Of course, settlement construction continues as well, but the Palestinian leaders aren’t stupid; they know it’s a made-up issue. They know that life in the West Bank is getting better, the economy is improving, the Israelis are removing roadblocks and obstacles to movement — and they know that settlement construction provides badly needed employment for Palestinian construction workers. So, Mitchell’s failure would be sheer heaven for them, while a compromise — well, Erekat said it. Bad news.

In the end, the President has picked unnecessary fights with an ally that has benefited American foreign policy nothing.

But this leads to questions that Jonathan Tobin asks:

This is yet another moment to ask not just the ubiquitous Alan Dershowitz but also the legion of Jews who raised money for Obama, vouched for his pro-Israel bona fides, and then gave him three quarters of the Jewish vote last November: Is this what you wanted? Did the majority of Jewish Democrats who are devoted friends of Israel expect that Obama would seek to create a rift between the U.S. and Israel — not about remote West Bank settlements but over Jewish rights in Jerusalem?

For some, like J-Street, Israel Policy Forum and Americans for Peace Now, this is exactly what they hoped for. They wanted the United States to impose its will on a recalcitrant Israeli government. But for others, who are not as far from the mainstream, I suspect this isn’t what they wanted.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

07/15/2009

The president’s ear

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Politics — Tags: , , — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

Jeremy Ben Ami of J-Street who was at the meeting between Jewish leaders and President Obama, thought that the President was amazing. In an extremely soft interview Ben Ami recounts:

One is Malcolm Hoenlein’s, and he’s said this publicly, that he feels that history shows us that progress is made on the peace front when Israel and the U.S. are in lockstep and there’s no daylight between them on their position publicly. And the president said ‘With all due respect, I would disagree. For eight years under the prior administration, there was no daylight between the two sides and there was no progress on the peace front, and no hard decisions were confronted, no progress was made.’ He very politely, but very clearly, disagrees with the notion that there shouldn’t be a public space between the Israeli government’s and the U.S. government’s position. I think that’s a very important point.

And the second example would be a question of tone, where there are those in the room who would say that the president has been one-sided in his demands. And that he is only asking things of Israel, and the president really again pushed back, very calmly but firmly, and said no, that he has on every occasion, where he has spoken out publicly, and where the [U.S.] government has taken a position, made it clear that there are obligations and steps that must be taken by Israel, and obligations and steps that must be taken by Palestinians and the broader Arab community. If we’re going to make progress, both sides have to live up to commitments and both sides have to take some steps.

Except that President Obama has been very clear and specific about what he demands of Israel – plus he has reversed American policy regarding the Middle East. He has been rather general about what he asks of the Palestinians and the Arab world. And he hasn’t pushed those requests very hard either.

Martin Peretz, an Obama supporter on most other matters dissents (via memeorandum):

Frankly, I am sick and tired of President Obama’s eldering–more accurately, hectoring–Israel’s leaders. It is, after all, they whose country is the target of an armed and ideological cyclone that Obama has done precious little to ease. He brought nothing back from Riyadh and Cairo, absolutely nothing except the conviction of the Arab leaders that they need do nothing but sit and wait until the president squeezes one concession after another out of Jerusalem. Oops, I apologize. Maybe I should still say Tel Aviv. In any case, waiting is exactly what they are doing. Palestinian President Abbas has prided himself in doing just that.

In a similar vein Bill Kristol writes:

According to the article, Obama told Jewish leaders at the White House yesterday that Israel would need “to engage in serious self-reflection.”

“Serious self-reflection!” It’s really good that Barack Obama is reminding the leaders and people of Israel to engage in that. I hope they’re up to it. After all, what do Israelis know about reflecting on, and living with, the life and death consequences of political decisions? What do Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak and Moshe Ya’alon — either as individuals or as leaders — know about war and peace? These are guys — and the Israelis are a people — who just coast along, taking an easy path, never debating, never thinking, never questioning, never second-guessing…and never making or asking their fellow citizens to make sacrifices.

It’s kind of odd that President Obama would on the one hand claim that it’s a misperception that he is exerting undue pressure on Israel and on the other claim that it’s good that there are differences (or “daylight”) between Israel and the United States. And this is a point that the Orthodox Union made in its statement about the meeting.

However, while the President’s acknowledgment of this perception gap is encouraging, the Orthodox Union remains deeply troubled by the President’s underlying approach – which is to have the U.S. play an “evenhanded” role. The Orthodox Union asks our President to recognize that there are no moral equivalencies between Israel, which has acted time and again to defend itself while actively seeking peace, and those who reject Israel’s legitimacy and make war against her. We look to the United States to be Israel’s friend in a world of enemies and we support the view, expressed to the President in our meeting, that while allies may of course disagree on specifics, there ought not be significant “daylight” between the United States and Israel that would give the nations’ mutual enemies comfort and encouragement.


Jennifer Rubin summarizes:

It is a shame more groups didn’t express these sentiments to the president; it would have served to educate and persuade him of the misguided and unwise course he has chosen to pursue. The president is trying to pass this all off as a “perception” problem, which is odd for a man who prides himself on his communication skills. To be understood so badly and to have so many take away an unintended message is indeed a failure of public diplomacy.

But let’s be honest here. It is more than perception. The president told those in attendance that he doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel. In fact, he thinks the failure of the Bush administration consisted of, in essence, providing too much support to our ally Israel. Obama is in the “even-handed” business — as he is with so many international questions.

However Rubin is wrong to wonder why more groups at the meeting didn’t object. President Obama wasn’t reaching out to the Jewish community, he was dictating to it. Malcolm Hoenlein, Steven Savitsky and Abraham Foxman were exceptions at the meeting. Remember three of the groups represented ( J-Street, NJDC and APN) are headed by Democratic party activists. J-Street is an adjunct of the Obama campaign as one of its founders (and funders) is Alan Solomont, who was a major contributor to Obama’s presidential bid.

Peretz and Michael Totten, for example, think that there is growing dissatisfaction among Jews about President Obama’s positions on the Middle East. I hope so. And I hope, that if it’s so, more Jews (and pro-israel Christians) will make that dissatisfaction public. I don’t need Jeremy Ben Ami – someone whose constituency is not much larger than the President’s ear claiming the he speaks for me.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

07/14/2009

A masterful assuaging

Filed under: American Scene, Iran, Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Jews, Politics — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

Last year those of us Jews who didn’t support President Obama in his bid to be elected president were subjected to ridicule. If we didn’t support him it was because we were prejudiced or misinformed. This mocking didn’t just come from his partisans, but also from the media. In a particularly blatant bit of electioneering, the New York Times’s Jodi Kantor reported from Florida that Jews who supported Obama were generous and wonderful but that those who opposed him were narrow minded bigots. In it we got this lecture:

Mr. Obama is Arab, Jack Stern’s friends told him in Aventura. (He’s not.)

He is a part of Chicago’s large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.)

Mr. Wright is the godfather of Mr. Obama’s children, asserted Violet Darling in Boca Raton. (No, he’s not.)

Al Qaeda is backing him, said Helena Lefkowicz of Fort Lauderdale (Incorrect.)

Michelle Obama has proven so hostile and argumentative that the campaign is keeping her silent, said Joyce Rozen of Pompano Beach. (Mrs. Obama campaigns frequently, drawing crowds in her own right.)

Mr. Obama might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan, worried Sherry Ziegler. (Extremely unlikely, given his denunciation of Mr. Farrakhan.)

No substantive reason for doubting the candidate’s concern for Jewish issues was raised. After all candidate Obama sat in church where the pastor expressed antisemitic sentiments for twenty years. Instead the Times manufactured a false “factoid” that it could dismiss. A politician who was praised by Rolling Stone for being a radical is not one who is going to be sympathetic to Israel.

Since the election we’ve been subjected to slightly more honest reporting. Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post has written admiringly of the President’s Jewish influences. One of them was Rabbi Arnold Wolf who advocated for a Palestinian state back in 1973, which was way out of the Jewish mainstream.

When he prepared for his speech to the Muslim world, the President seemed to gather a pretty wide range of Muslims in order to ensure that he didn’t offend his target audience. But yesterday when the President gathered Jewish leaders, giving offense wasn’t really a concern. The President convened a mostly receptive audience. While there were certainly mainstream Jewish organizations represented, the President made sure that partisan organizations such as the NJDC, J-Street and APN – all headed by Democratic Party activists – were there. Even AIPAC is now headed by individuals who are allied with the President..

So yesterday’s gathering was less a matter of assuaging Jewish leaders as the blog entry at the New York Times is headlined, but rather to declare to American Jews that he knows best how to bring peace to the Middle East. And his mostly worshipful audience complied.

The only reported sour note was that Malcolm Honlein questioned the President’s commitment to put Israel on the spot.

Participants said some of the toughest questioning of Mr. Obama came from Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Two said that Mr. Hoenlein told the president that diplomatic progress in the Middle East has traditionally occurred when there is “no light” between the positions of the United States and Israel. But Mr. Obama pushed back, citing the administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

“He said, ‘I disagree,’ ” said Marla Gilson, director of the Washington action office of Hadassah, the women’s Zionist organization. “He said, ‘For eight years, there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished.’

The proper response to such glib obfuscation is that during the Clinton administration, when there were clear disagreements between Israel and the United States ended up in the violence of the so-called “Aqsa intifada.” Even if President Obama denies that Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza even happened during President Bush’s term in office – given the President’s commitment to end all settlements, one wonders why he ignored this – is open warfare really a better result than nothing?

Additionally Yaacov Lozowick points out:

Nothing got accomplished? Let’s see. The Palestinians launched the worst wave of suicide murders anyone had ever seen (the various factions in Iraq later outdid them). Israel figured out how to beat them, in spite of the 100% of contemporary observers worldwide who said this couldn’t be done and Israel must cave in. Later on, Israel unilaterally left Gaza, disbanding all its settlements on the way out. The Palestinians responded by democratically electing Hamas to govern them, and cheered as Hamas and it allies (including some Fatah elements) escalated the rocket attacks on Israel.

Of course that would confirm something the President would never acknowledge: that there is a military solution to terrorism.

While Ira Forman of the NJDC and Jeremy Ben Ami of J-Street both described the President’s performance as “masterful,” Jennifer Rubin points out that his commitment to engagement with Iran was hardly reassuring.

On that front, representatives of two groups in attendance related to me that there was little resistance to the plan of the president looking for positive signals by September from Iran before looking at sanctions. One explained that “if the Iranians will demonstrate seriousness on the nuclear issue, we have a package for engagement.” (Does a single one of the sixteen not understand that the mullahs are expert at giving positive and entirely meaningless signals, thereby indefinitely stringing us all along?)

While the President complained that it’s a “misperception” that he’s unduly pressuring Israel, the fact that he stacked his meeting with organizations that are sympathetic to his policies and excluded two organizations that were likely to be critical shows that the President’s idea of outreach to Jews is to dictate to them. That’s what happens when the President knows he can take your support for granted.

The question those American Jewish organizations who uncritically support President Obama’s Middle East policy now have to answer is this: given that the President has decided to reset America’s relationship with Israel in a way that a vast majority of Israelis – including leftists – object to, how can still describe yourself as pro-Israel?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

07/10/2009

They think he still cares

Filed under: Israel, Politics — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 10:30 am

While Alan Dershowitz focuses on those American Jews who are critical of President Obama’s forays into Middle East peacemaking, he fails to acknowledge a different group that’s also unimpressed with his efforts so far: Israeli Jews. As Aluf Benn writes:

Obama did not try to communicate with the Israeli public and convince them that freezing settlements will be an important and positive step to contribute to peace and a better future. Obama addressed the Arabs and Muslims, but not the Israelis. His neglect increased concerns among Israelis that they do not have a friend in the White House. When the president is “Hussein,” he is perceived as being pro-Arab and picking on Netanyahu. The administration’s pathetic attempt to deny the existence of understandings with Israel on construction in the settlements only bolstered this impression. It was possible to blame Israel for violating its promises, or to say that the policy had changed and to explain why, but not to lie.

Smuel Rosner adds:

Bottom line: We have to assume one of two things.

1. The Obama administration doesn’t understand Israeli politics, and doesn’t recognize that its public policies – while possibly helpful with the Arab world – can hardly make Israelis feel secure and ready to cooperate with the President, no matter how often he says that his commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable.

2. The Obama administration doesn’t care about Israeli politics and Israeli public opinion, and is ready to sacrifice the good will of Israelis in exchange for (presumed) better relations with the Arab world.

My feeling is that it’s the second, which probably explains PM Netanyahu’s (reported) frustration with Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. (via memeorandum)

If President Obama cared, he wouldn’t have alienated the moderate Left in Israel as Barry Rubin observes.

Many Israelis on the moderate left–which are the overwhelming majority of those in the “left” category–support a two-state solution with some border shifts. In this concept, which is what Labor party leader and then prime minister Ehud Barak took to Camp David in 2000, Israel would retain some small areas with high Jewish (settlement) populations like Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion.

This concept was called the idea of the “settlement blocs.” Israel believed that the last two U.S. presidents accepted this idea and thus agreed that Israel could continue building in these specific places. The Obama administration says that never happened.

So many Israelis on the left not only doubt the prospect of peace and blame the Palestinians for the situation and also favor the settlement blocs approach and are also made very nervous about a U.S. government that forgets past pledges to Israel and doubt Obama’s willingness to be tough in opposing Iranian nuclear weapons.

It’s one thing – and it wasn’t good – for a candidate to say that he opposes a particular political party, like when candidate Obama expressed his disagreement with the Likud party. However since becoming President he has taken positions and actions that put him at odds with the general Israeli electorate. It’s safe to say that President Obama doesn’t much care about Israeli politics – or Israelis.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

06/14/2009

Shaping Obama

Filed under: Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 1:00 pm

There are two points about the recent Washington Post report, Obama’s aides, friends shaped his views on settlements:

The first is the omission of any mention of President Obama’s friendship with Rashid Khalidi or Ali Abuminah. This allows the reporters to emphasize misleadingly that he is only opposed to the Likud, not necessarily anti-Israel.

Early evidence of that view was captured on tape during a private gathering in Cleveland in 2008. Obama challenged Jewish groups to allow for greater debate on Israeli actions and not demand what he called a “pro-Likud approach,” referring to Netanyahu’s party.

“This is where I get to be honest, and I hope I’m not out of school here,” he said in a transcript published by JTA, a news service on Jewish issues. “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel. . . . If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress.”

In a sense Netanyahu is the perfect prime minister for President Obama. He could have had this argument with Tzipi Livni too, but then he wouldn’t have been able to hide behind his anti-Likud posture.

The other important aspect of the article is this:

One of the president’s close friends in Chicago, the late Rabbi Arnold Wolf, wrote last year of his disappointment that Obama had often publicly softened his private positions.

“For my part, I’ve sometimes found Obama too cautious on Israel,” said Wolf, who in 1973 co-founded an organization that advocated creating a Palestinian state. “He, like all our politicians, knows he mustn’t stray too far from the conventional line, and that can be disappointing. But unlike anyone else on the stump, Obama has also made it clear that he’ll broaden the dialogue.”

President Obama (as he reportedly confided to Ali Abuminah) understood how pro-Israel the American electorate is and played down his views of Israel. Now that he’s in power he’s showing how he really feels. And his policies regarding the Middle East are and will be anti-Israel, not just anti-Likud.

UPDATE: I would also emphasize, though the Post article does not, that someone who supported a Palestinian state in 1973 was way out of the mainstream of Jewish politics. So the Post may emphasize President Obama’s Jewish connections as if to say, well he has Jews who approve of his views, but that hardly means that they are or were part of the Jewish mainstream. And given the general American support for Israel, they were way out of the mainstream of the American political consensus on Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

06/12/2009

The campaign’s the thing

Filed under: Israel, palestinian politics — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

During the campaign last year, we kept on hearing stories about how supportive President Obama would be of Israel. Those of us who looked at his associations and wondered how someone with his background would be pro-Israel were mocked for our failure to accept “hope and change” and charged with being uninformed, if not prejudiced. But it appears that Ali Abuminah’s boast was accurate.

Well it seems that whatever positions President Obama took during the campaign regarding Israel were mostly for show. Pro-Palestinian groups are very encouraged by the administration’s approach so far. The Forward reports:

Activists for the Palestinian cause, who are now describing President Obama’s outreach speech to the Muslim world as “brilliant” and “brave,” are feeling emboldened by a new sense of openness within the administration. Some even have the satisfaction of having had input in the process of preparing the speech itself. A pro-Palestinian organization was among those invited to take part in a group meeting with White House staff to prepare the June 4 speech. Other activists spoke of their feeling that Washington is taking a real interest in them for the first time in years.

So if the Cairo speech seemed somewhat one sided regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict generally and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict specifically, well it wasn’t exactly an accident.

Obama’s Cairo speech, in which he spoke emphatically about the Palestinian right for statehood, as well as his insistence on an Israeli settlement freeze, has made pro-Palestinian activists believe that change is in the air.

Yet, surprisingly, the sudden success in getting the Palestinian message through has many in the pro-Palestinian advocacy community concerned.

“The Palestinians should not sour U.S.-Israeli relations. That will not help anyone,” said Ghaith Al-Omari, advocacy director for the American Task Force on Palestine, a group now seen as the leading pro-Palestinian voice in Washington. He warned against Arab groups “gloating,” and expressed concern that one-sided pressure could lead to an “adversarial approach.” Al-Omari, a former Palestinian peace negotiator, recently participated in White House discussions in preparation of the Cairo speech.

I do find that last approach somewhat unexpected. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it were a minority opinion.

And if Palestinian advocates are encouraged by the approach of the Obama administration, a companion article at the Forward shows one reason that pro-Israel advocates were disappointed with the President’s speech.

As the Obama administration deepens its outreach to the Muslim and Arab world, it faces the difficult task of countering Holocaust denial without reinforcing an increasingly popular anti-Zionist narrative that ties the legitimacy of the State of Israel to Jewish suffering in Europe.

And as discussion of the Holocaust becomes more widespread, so does the argument heard from Tehran to Gaza that while Europeans were responsible for atrocities against Jews, it is the Palestinians who are paying the price.

“Discussing the Holocaust and learning its lessons have become an integral part of global culture, and therefore, to a certain extent, the Arabs feel they are on the defensive,” said Esther Webman, research fellow of the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, at Tel Aviv University. “That’s why we see in recent years an increase in Arab rhetoric tying the Holocaust to the Palestinian hardship.”

Unfortunately the article emphasizes that it’s a “right wing” concern rather than a universal one.

Activists on the right also point frequently to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas as one of those responsible for spreading Holocaust denial in the Arab world. Abbas, in a 1984 research paper written at the Moscow Oriental College, questioned the existence of gas chambers and suggested that the number of Jews murdered was not more than 1 million. After Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization engaged in negotiations, however, Abbas said, “Today I would not have made such remarks.” In a 2003 interview with the Israeli daily Haaretz, he added, “The Holocaust was a terrible thing and nobody can claim I denied it.”

It wasn’t just a research paper, it was his PhD thesis. Does he repudiate his PhD? And why doesn’t this bother activists on the Left? If he were European – instead of a “peace partner – the thesis would have rendered him beyond the pale.

But of course the Palestinian don’t just deny the Holocaust (and contradictorily use it for their own purposes) they deny two thousand years of Jewish history.

Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

This is a tenet of Palestinian nationalism. That even “moderates” such as Abbas or Fayyad refuse to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state, testifies to the degree that this belief is still accepted.

Unfortunately when President Obama spoke in Cairo his main focus of “honest” talk was about settlements. And when he made the case for Israel’s legitimacy, he failed to emphasize the historical case, instead making the case that it was the result of the Holocaust. Given his audience that was problematic. But it also reflected the advice he received and, I think, where his sympathies lie.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

06/09/2009

Mending fences, Middle East style

Filed under: Israel — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 8:00 am

When (then-)Crown Prince Abdullah wished to repair the image of Saudi Arabia – 15 of whose nationals had been involved in the worst terrorist act on American soil – in American eyes, he invited Thomas Friedman to Riyadh (Friedman, a Jew, could not go to Mecca) and offered “a peace plan.” Friedman wrote:

Earlier this month, I wrote a column suggesting that the 22 members of the Arab League, at their summit in Beirut on March 27 and 28, make a simple, clear-cut proposal to Israel to break the Israeli-Palestinian impasse: In return for a total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967, lines, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the 22 members of the Arab League would offer Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full withdrawal, in accord with U.N. Resolution 242, for full peace between Israel and the entire Arab world. Why not?

I am currently in Saudi Arabia on a visit — part of the Saudi opening to try to explain themselves better to the world in light of the fact that 15 Saudis were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. So I took the opportunity of a dinner with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, and de facto ruler, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, to try out the idea of this Arab League proposal. I knew that Jordan, Morocco and some key Arab League officials had been talking about this idea in private but had not dared to broach it publicly until one of the ”big boys” — Saudi Arabia or Egypt — took the lead.

Abdullah responded with “you took the words right of my desk,” and the Saudi peace plan ultimatum was born.

And so in March, 2002, in Syrian occupied Beirut, Abdullah said:

The peace process is based on a clear principle: land for peace. This principle is accepted by the international community as a whole, and is embodied in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and was adopted by the Madrid Conference in 1991. It was confirmed by the resolutions of the European Community and other regional organizations, and re-emphasized once more this month by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1397.

My esteemed brethren, it is clear in our minds, and in the minds of our brethren in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, that the only acceptable objective of the peace process is the full Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Al Quds Al Sharif (East Jerusalem) as its capital, and the return of refugees.

So in order to mend fences with the United States, Abdullah called on Israel to end the occupation in exchange for nebulous promises of normalization.

Last week in his landmark address to the Arab World, President Obama said:

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they’ve endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

And in order to repair America’s image in the Arab world, he, too argues that Israel must end the occupation. To be fair, the President was a little more specific about Arab responsibilities towards Israel than Abdullah was, but not by much.

In the end to both Abdullah and President Obama, it seems, the way to improve the Arab image in American eyes and the American image in Arab eyes is to put pressure on Israel. But the Arab or Muslim conflict with the West did not start or end with 9/11. And while the President feels that he was very clear that there are obligations on both sides despite the media’s emphasis, I believe it’s reasonable clear (see where the applause lines are in the speech) that his audience – across the Arab and Muslim worlds – only heard “settlements” and “occupation.” The calls for tolerance and reform, I believe, went largely unheeded.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

06/05/2009

The Cairo context

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 10:30 am

To some degree, I understand the argument that President Obama’s speech in Cairo yesterday wasn’t much different from a speech that President Bush would have given.

And if you read some of the more detailed analyses of the speech (like Bookworm’s or the Provocateur’s) you can clearly see the good points and the bad points. And yet when I wrote my first post on the speech it was negative.

Content, though, is one thing. Context is another matter entirely.

Consider my initial post on the speech. I’ll admit, I hadn’t read the whole speech at that point. I was relying on a Washington Post report. What was the emphasis of the Post’s report?

At the same time, he said, “it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland . . . They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

The audience, which had stayed silent while Obama described the U.S.-Israel relationship, anti-Semitism and the legacy of the Holocaust, broke into warm applause.

Obama sharply criticized Israel’s policy of settlement construction in lands occupied in the 1967 Middle East War, parts of which the Palestinians envision as their future state. He said “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

The media acts as a filter and a magnifier. Sure later on, President Obama talked about how the Arab states ought not to let the Palestinian issue stop them from political reform, but this was early in the speech. President Obama had to know two things. One is that his audience would love his evocation of the Israeli occupation and the other is that most major news organizations. well aware of the diplomatic maneuvering with Prime Minister Netanyahu would emphasize the rebuke he was directing towards Israel.

Another thing the President could count on, is that the major media reporting would gloss over the fact that his demands on Israel represented a sharp break from previous administrations. Even the administration of Bill Clinton.

Still one could argue that the President first rebuked the Arab world for its Holocaust denial, so the rebuke of Israel was part of a balancing act. The Wall Street Journal doesn’t buy the balancing act but still its editors wrote:

The President even went one better than his predecessor, with a series of implicit rebukes to much of the Muslim world. There would have been no need for him to specify that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis if Holocaust denial weren’t rampant in the Middle East, including Egypt, …

But think about that for a moment. Egypt, which made peace with Israel over 30 years ago, still propagates some of the most vile antisemitism in the region. And go back to the Washington Post report. The President’s comments on the Holocaust elicited no response from the audience. And this is in a country that’s been paid $2 billion a year for its ostensible peace with Israel!

The President’s remarks about Holocaust denial weren’t part of any larger campaign. They were uttered in a vacuum. Has the President pursued this issue as actively and publicly as he’s pursued the “settlement” issue?

A similar analysis applies to the President’s exhortation to the Arab world not to use the Palestinian issue as an excuse for blocking political reform. This isn’t an issue he’s promoted elsewhere. So in effect the good statements the President made, appear to be lip service to moderation, while he pursues a path of trying to pressure the one target he believes is susceptible to pressure. He does not care if his exhortations to the Arab world are heeded. He can say the America’s bond with Israel is “unbreakable” but if his actions demonstrate that he’s only interested in getting to a Palestinian “yes” regardless of the cost to Israel, then his assurance is meaningless.

The editors of the Washington Post fear that there’s only one message that the Arab world will hear from the speech. They recommend that the President continue to push these issues. An AP writer took the same message from the speech and wrote a news “analysis” that puts the onus of peacemaking on Israel.

There are other contexts that were missing from his speech. JoshuaPundit criticizes the President for failing to recognize how mainstream extremism is in Islam. Wolf Howling shows that the President rewrote history.

Rather it appears that what’s driving the President is to make new friends even if they’re enemies, at the expense of an old friend. And I don’t think h’es stupid or naive. I think he is very smart and very driven ideologically. More and more Ali Abunimah looks vindicated.

UPDATE: One other point that has to be made is that President Obama sought a “peace gesture” from the Arab world and was rebuffed.

But when he meets in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, with King Abdullah, he should be prepared for a polite but firm refusal, Saudi officials and political experts say. The Arab countries, they say, believe they have already made their best offer and that it is now up to Israel to make a gesture, perhaps by dismantling settlements in the West Bank or committing to a two-state solution.

“What do you expect the Arabs to give without getting anything in advance, if Israel is still hesitating to accept the idea of two states in itself?” said Mohammad Abdullah al-Zulfa, a historian and member of the Saudi Shura Council, which serves as an advisory panel in place of a parliament.

Unlike in the case of settlements where President Obama issued an unqualified disagreement with Israel, the President stepped very gingerly around this rebuff.

The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems.
…
We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away.

If he were being balanced, he would have specifically mentioned that Arab states ought to treat Israel as a legitimate state. He didn’t even ask them to do that publicly.

Instead the President took a diplomatic dispute with Israel and amplified it. And he failed to address the Saudi refusal to offer even a symbolic gesture to Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

06/04/2009

Strong bond? More like bound and gagged

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, Politics — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

From the Washington Post:

Obama used far stronger and more specific language than his previous remarks on some of the most contested issues in the Muslim world, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although he urged Arab nations to do more to achieve peace with Israel, Obama also spoke passionately about what he called the Palestinian right to a state.

“America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable,” Obama said. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.”

Citing the destruction of six million Jews in the Nazi Holocaust, Obama said that “threatening Israeli with destruction, or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews, is deeply wrong.”

At the same time, he said, “it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland . . . They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

The audience, which had stayed silent while Obama described the U.S.-Israel relationship, anti-Semitism and the legacy of the Holocaust, broke into warm applause.

Obama sharply criticized Israel’s policy of settlement construction in lands occupied in the 1967 Middle East War, parts of which the Palestinians envision as their future state. He said “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

Note where the applause was. Not after mentioning the bond with Israel. Not after castigating the Arab world for Holocaust denial. But after he demanded that the Palestinians have more freedom than the Egyptians gathered before him. It will be tough to do if the Palestinians are more interested in prolonging their statelessness and keeping their grievance alive.

In a transcript of the speech, the President doesn’t mention the word “terrorism” at all. Israelly Cool observes that when it comes to the Palestinians he eschews “terrorism” for “resistance through killing.” Apparently he believes that there’s something unique about “occupation” that it deserves a special denunciation.

So it appears that the bond President Obama refers to is his effort to constrain Israel’s actions regarding its own citizens.

The New York Times reports:

But he sought to explain that he represented the new face of American leadership. He did not mention the name of George W. Bush, who preceded him in office, and whose policies contributed to the mistrust.

Funny, millions of Iraqis get to vote for their own government. And that’s a reason for mistrust. Of course it is, if you’re an autocrat and wish to preserve your own power and position.

Also please see Israel Matzav, Gateway Pundit and especially Elder of Ziyon. Who’s next?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

05/10/2009

The purple prose of Cairo

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , — Soccerdad @ 11:59 am

So President Obama has finally decided which capital he will address the Muslim world from. Cairo. The New York Time reports:

Mr. Obama promised during the campaign that he would make a speech from a Muslim capital in the first 100 days in office, so the speech would fall slightly outside that time frame. However, White House officials would not confirm on Friday that the speech would be in Cairo.

In making such a high-profile address to the Muslim world from Egypt, Mr. Obama is wading straight into the center of the storm of the United States’ turbulent relations with the Muslim world.

Egypt, under President Hosni Mubarak, has a fractured democratic process; opponents of Mr. Mubarak have been imprisoned, and some democracy advocates have been harassed. But the country is also the traditional intellectual center of the Arab world, as well as an important barometer of Arab street sentiment. Because of the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned but tolerated social and political movement that has been embraced by much of the Islamic world, Egypt is also a place where Mr. Obama can try to woo disenfranchised and disaffected young Arabs.

The Times suggests the problem with Cairo, but Eric Trager points out:

If so, the irony is astounding. After all, showing respect for Islam and embracing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak are mutually exclusive activities. Indeed, how does one show respect to Muslims while cozying up to a dictator who represses nearly 70 million of them? Alternatively, how does one reassure a secular Arab dictator of his relationship with Washington while also telling his citizens that the U.S. has a “stake” in their well being?

And Abe Greenwald points out that the choice of Cairo is part a more general problem with the adminstration:

In President Obama’s very first interview (on Al Arabiya television) he was deferential toward the theocratic regime in Iran and effusive about the bravery of the oppressive Saudi king. He offered not a word of encouragement or solidarity for the Muslim world’s reform movements. Then came Hillary Clinton’s dismissal of human rights concerns in China, silence on human rights in North Korea, hints of easing sanctions on Burma and Sudan, and a loosened trade relationship with the Castro dictatorship. People focused on the Venezuelan handshake, but Obama’s biggest shame in Latin America was his failure to criticize Hugo Chavez’s bullying domestic policies. A rebuff of Hosni Mubarak now would look bizarrely inconsistent.

Actually, the Washingto Post does point out the Cairo problem pretty explicitly.

By selecting Egypt, Obama could expose himself to criticism in the Arab Middle East for showing tacit support for President Hosni Mubarak, who has governed the country for nearly three decades with scant tolerance for political opposition. The 81-year-old Mubarak, who is scheduled to meet with Obama in Washington this month, has used his security services to harass and detain political rivals and is preparing for his son to succeed him.

U.S. support for Mubarak and other unelected Arab leaders has been interpreted across the Middle East as a hypocritical element of American foreign policy, particularly in the past eight years, during which the Bush administration made promoting democracy the centerpiece of its diplomacy in the region.

The Muslim Brotherhood, in particular, has used the U.S. support for Mubarak, who has jailed members of the Islamist opposition for years, to whip up anti-American sentiment in Egypt and beyond.

(This is consistent with the Post’s editorial position on Mubarak.)

However the Post then goes into the reasons why President Obama feels the need to reach out the Muslim world:

Obama arrived in office eager to remake U.S. relations with the Muslim world.

Three key factors have contributed to millions of Muslims’ bitterness toward the United States: the Bush administration’s war in Iraq; detention and interrogation policies — embodied by the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib; and a tilt toward Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians.

Obama, who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, the most-populous Muslim country, took some immediate steps to change the U.S. image among Muslims. He ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay brig within a year, banned interrogation techniques he has called torture, and granted his first interview as president to the al-Arabiya satellite channel.

During a visit to Turkey last month, Obama told that predominantly Muslim nation’s Grand National Assembly that the United States “is not and never will be at war with Islam.”

Now we all know about the protests in Muslim countries against the American invasion of Iraq or the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, but remarkably these are about the only things that people in Muslim countries protest, because these serve the purposes of the authorities in those countries. The depredations suffered by the populations of these countries at the hands of their own rulers are never protested.

Are Syrians really complaining that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded when they know if they run afoul of Assad they could have their fingernails pulled out?

(Furthermore, that paragraph could have been written: “According to Democrats many reporters and foreign policy professionals, the reason that Muslims resent the United States is because of the Bush administration policies of invading Iraq, employing harsh interrogation techniques and siding with Israel.”

And while the President Obama has promised to change many of the policies of the Bush administration that supposedly so offend the Muslim world, he’s nonetheless practicing those very same policies now that he’s in power.)

But the question is, even if Cairo is a bad choice to bridge the gap with the Muslim world, what could President Obama say that would assuage the “Arab street?”

He could, of course, say that he differed sharply with the previous administration on the subject of Iraq and would have sought a solution that would have concluded an agreement leaving Iraq’s honor intact and without invading. (Whether or not that would have been possible is irrelevant. And of course that would be a slap at the current government of Iraq.) And he could say that he would have dealt with the abuses at Abu Ghraib more swiftly than President Bush did. Finally he could say that he would push for a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by taking steps to ensure the creation of a Palestinian state during his term in office.

What he really should say is that he looks forward to the day when a Muslim living in Baghdad or Cairo could have the same opportunities as one living in Haifa or that a Jew could tour Mecca as freely as he tours New York. I just wouldn’t count on that happening.

The President’s speech to the Islamic world will be another unnecessary apology and some level of non-threatening rhetoric intended to smooth ruffled feathers. It won’t, of course. And we’ll have reporters out in the streets of Damascus or Amman faithfully recording statements from “people in the street” to the effect of “his words are nice but we will wait to see if his actions match his words,” but not a word of skepticism towards their own rulers.

In other words for all of the President’s flowery language, it will be an empty exercise. Like his interview on Al Arabiya or his Norwuz message. It won’t change anything diplomatically, though it may improve his poll numbers in lands where the people are not allowed to express their preferences for their own leaders.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

What to look for

Filed under: Israel, Syria — Tags: , — Soccerdad @ 8:00 am

Like I did the other day, Jennifer Rubin wonders about the administration’s welcome realism about Syria contrasted with its apparent disregard for Israel. Regarding Israel she writes:

There are, it seems, two possible ways to read this. The first is that we may be seeing the lack of co-ordination and gaffe-proclivity that has popped up on everything from the Russian reset button to the chintzy gifts for Gordon Brown. The new U.S. team simply hasn’t gotten its act together and has committed a series of oversights.

The alternative, more troubling explanation is that the U.S. is already signaling a less warm relationship with Israel in an effort to cozy up to the Arab states and begin a process of cajoling and pressuring Israel to offer up concessions. If Netanyahu is to be given an ultimatum on settlements, Israel will have the unlucky distinction as the only country exempt from the “listen, don’t dictate” Obama diplomacy. Perhaps if Israeli leaders threaten or insult the president rather than sing his praises in public they might get the kid glove treatment currently reserved for the likes of Iran and China.

We will have to see. But the ”incompetent” explanation does not engender confidence and the fact that the “chilling” explanation seems plausible should worry those who believe that a rift in the U.S.-Israeli relationship benefits neither country.

There is, I think, a third explanation. That is that the diplomatic differences between the United States and Israel have largely been blown out of proportion. There are those who wish to portray Netanyahu as a an extreme right winger. And there are those (like me) who feel that President Obama is unsympathetic to Israel. Each group wishes to play up differences which may or may not have been manifest yet. While I think that the signs certainly point to the latter possibility, it’s also possible that we won’t know anything until President Obama and PM Netanyahu meet next week. I still think it’s possible that there will be less friction at that meeting than advertised.

The most important thing to look out for will be whether there will be anonymous “senior administration officials” talking to reporters and denigrating Netanyahu. If that happens we’re likely to see a replay of Netanyahu’s first term with the administration seeking to undercut him at every opportunity.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

03/20/2009

Put down that wad of cash, step back and no one’s going to get hurt

Filed under: Bidenisms, Politics — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 7:00 am

From Jack Tapper (via Don Surber)

“Here’s the problem,” Mr. Obama said, “It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up. But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.”

He makes it sound so distasteful, but I thought that this administration had no problem sending millions of dollars to suicide bombers.

Now, $900 million is a lot of money for Gaza to absorb. But first there will be the usual rake-off to the slimy middle men in the bazaar and among the sanctimonious relief NGOs. The bigger the appropriation the bigger the take.

The real issue is: where will the cash go? The administration is assuring us that it will not go to Hamas, as if anyone can assure that materiel and money can be siphoned off just to the desired parties. This, frankly, is a joke…and Mrs. Clinton knows it. So should President Obama.

But the promise that putting our donation through the Palestinian Authority–which is to say, Fatah–will guarantee that it will arrive where it is addressed may be even a bigger joke.

Jake Tapper has strike two (via memeorandum):

He bowled a 129, the president said.

“That’s very good, Mr. President,” Leno said sarcastically.

It’s “like the Special Olympics or something,” the president said.

Wow, two tasteless comments in as many days. Has he been spending too much time with the Vice President?

Maybe he should take Surber’s advice.

Crossposted on Yourish.

02/24/2009

The terror stimulus package

Filed under: Hamas, Israel — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

The New York Time reports that the Obama administration is poised to give $900 million to Gaza to rebuild. (via memeorandum)

The Obama administration intends to provide some $900 million to help rebuild Gaza after the Israeli incursion that ended last month, administration officials said Monday.

In an early sign of how the administration plans to deal with Hamas, the militant Islamist group that controls Gaza, an official said that the aid would not go to Hamas but that it would be funneled through nongovernmental organizations.

By seeking to aid Gazans but not Hamas, the administration is following the lead of the Bush administration, which sent money to Gaza through nongovernmental organizations. In December, it said it would give $85 million to the United Nations agency that provides aid to Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

LGF nicely sums up the likely effect of this aid:

It will be used for humanitarian purposes, of course, so that the Hamas “government” can spend all their money on bombs, weapons, and ammunition, instead of building a decent society for their children.

JoshuaPundit raises a political question about this:

In view of this and what else is going on, it’s obvious that the Obama Administration is no longer a reliable ally of Israel. I hope the American Jews who voted for him fully understand this.

As noted yesterday, Martin Peretz one of Barack Obama’s most prominent pro-Israel supporters is starting to express doubts about the administration’s stand towards Israel. Peretz’s good feelings have been hurt again. He also points out that the accountability that the NY Times assumes doesn’t exist.

The real issue is: where will the cash go? The administration is assuring us that it will not go to Hamas, as if anyone can assure that materiel and money can be siphoned off just to the desired parties. This, frankly, is a joke…and Mrs. Clinton knows it. So should President Obama.

But the promise that putting our donation through the Palestinian Authority–which is to say, Fatah–will guarantee that it will arrive where it is addressed may be even a bigger joke. It’s hard to judge these matters in the Arab world. Who can tell which ruling group is more corrupt than another? Still, Fatah is widely held to be the most depraved and debauched among its fraternity. That’s one of the reason’s that Fatah lost the last parliamentary elections. It’s another reason that Hamas won the bloody civil war with Fatah in Gaza.

An unnamed State Department official said that other “existing, trusted mechanisms” would be used to distribute American help. This certainly means United Nations Relief and Works Agency which has done more to keep the refugee problem alive for six decades than any agency or government in the area. And that’s what U.N.R.W.A will want to do deep into eternity.

Peretz point out that this infusion of aid to Hamas still needs to be approved by Congress. Maybe it pays to contact your congresspeople and senators and ask them to oppose this terror stimulus plan.

A Washngton Post article reports that Amnesty International is urging the United States to withhold aid from Israel. At the every end the article observes:

The Amnesty statement also criticized Hamas for constant rocket fire on southern Israel.

Will Amnesty also promote withholding aid to Gaza because of that?

Just asking.

Related Elder of Ziyon, Israel Matzav, Mere Rhetoric.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Powered by WordPress