This political blunder comes on the heels of what amounts to disgraceful incompetence in the foreign intelligence arena, with the DNI arguing that the Muslim Brotherhood is “a largely secular organization!” And of course, that after this administration appears to have been completely blindsided by the events in Tunisia and Egypt. Let’s not forget whole host of issues related to Iran. There are certainly many more issues that could be raised.

Why does this administration seem to be blindly blundering in the Middle East?

My own answer to this question is that this administration is full of people who feel that a certain type of foreign policy had never been given a real chance, namely reaching out to the Arab world as a friend instead of as a power. Further, that in spite of the dismal failure of this policy thus far, the administration is being urged to go “all in” by its proponents.

To answer my question specifically, people in this administration understand that traditional foreign policy has not brought them what they wish for, which is peaceful coexistence (something they actually deeply down believe is possible). In their minds, traditional foreign policy has promoted hatred of the United States as exceptional (which of course it is).

Their goal with what I would call “Naive Foreign Policy” (literally a foreign policy lacking in experience) is to experiment with alternatives to the tried and true. This is a generation whose actions throughout life have been sheltered by parents and by society. They’ve been able to experiment with drugs. They went through the sexual revolution. They treat religions like they do their cars, trading them in for new ones when they go out of style. And for all of their experiments, they have suffered very little that they can see. Thus, they see no real problem in experimenting with new foreign policies. What real harm can be done? We can always trade it in for a new model later. Worse, they believe not only in microwaving food, but in microwaving societal transformations and even global ones. They actually believe that peace is possible tomorrow, if only the necessary actions were done today.

Reason and rationality are not the basis of this foreign policy. Hope in the common humanity of their fellow men and women is the basis.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one in which both sides violate this utopian ideal. Historical fact violates this ideal and we therefore cannot use history as the basis of our actions now. The President has not used those exact words, but he might as well have. Remember what President Obama said in his speech to the UNGA in September of 2009? I will never forget it:

The time has come to realize that the old habits, the old arguments are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people. They lead nations to act in opposition to the very goals that they claim to pursue and to vote, often in this body, against the interests of their own people.

They build up walls between us and the future that our people seek. And the time has come for those walls to come down. Together, we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides, coalitions of different faiths and creeds, of northern and south, east, west, black, white, and brown.

The choice is ours. We can be remembered as a generation that chose to drag the arguments of 20th century into the 21st, that put off hard choices, refused to look ahead, failed to keep pace because we defined ourselves by what we were against instead of what we were for. Or we can be a generation that chooses to see the shoreline beyond the rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve the common interests of human beings and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in the nation given to this institution, the United Nations.

That is the future America wants; a future of peace and prosperity that we can only reach if we recognize that all nations have rights but all nations have responsibilities as well. That is the bargain that makes this work. That must be the guiding principle of international cooperation.

We have a foreign policy in which history is irrelevant. Anyone find that frightening?

Mr. President — You have inspired me with your commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I urge you to take the next step toward realizing that goal by focusing on a “Borders and Security First” approach to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that moves beyond just talk towards tangible progress in defining and implementing a two-state solution.

My good friend, Rabbi Micky Boyden from Hod Hasharon, Israel, gave an excellent response to the petition on the We Are For Israel website here. However, he did not comment on J Street’s full policy position upon which this petition is based. This plea to the President is based upon J Street’s misguided policy, found here, in which J Street calls for the United States to impose a solution on borders and security!!! The J Street policy document argues that the two sides must meet their “internationally recognized obligations,” a term by which they seem to mean all prior negotiations and potentially include UN resolutions (they do not explicitly exclude them for certain):

However, the time has come for the United States to put forward a proposal to establish a border and security arrangements.  With a border established, there will be no further need to negotiate over settlement construction. Both Israel and the Palestinians will be able to build where they please within their borders and not beyond.

This is both naive and harmful. It is irresponsible for those who desire peace to go in this direction. In essence, the US would have to

1. Insist on the 1967 lines with some minor territorial changes,
2. Create an international zone in Jerusalem that only the US could possibly police for the indefinite future and could not possibly wish to do so,
3. Ratify Israeli control over territory that the UN doesn’t recognize and the Arab world would vehemently, if not violently, oppose, or
4. Do all three of the the above.

J Street’s position here would result in the complete collapse of the peace process and potentially the Palestinian Authority itself. Functionally, J Street calling for an end to Oslo. Some of us might not like Oslo. Some among us may say that bringing the PLO back was a bad idea. However, I cannot imagine that J Street itself would wish to end Oslo and collapse the Palestinian Authority. They keep arguing how wonderful Abbas is? See here. Yet J Street’s policy would bring about just that end:

• The end of the Oslo process,
• Potentially the collapse of the Palestinian Authority,
• A new intifada, this time against the United States as well as Israel (the US would have sided with Israel in granting Israel more than the 1967 border as such and in not granting all of pre-1967 Jerusalem to the Palestinians), and
• No gains on the peace front either between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel and the Arab world, or the US and the Arab world. Things might even significantly worsen because the United States would take a position opposed by the Arab world and even by the broader Muslim world.

What would the Palestinians and broader Arab world say if the United States proposed to allow Israel to control the Old City? What would the Arab world say if the United States proposed to control the Old City itself? Can you imagine the conflicts in law that would occur between US law, international law, Sharia and the Halakhah over the holy sites? Are you kidding me??? The last foreign power that tried to govern these sites, Britain during the Mandatory Period, was attacked by both Jews and Arabs. I cannot imagine that this solution would prove to be any different. If Amir was willing to kill Rabin, how many crazies would carry out attacks against US soldiers? How many Hamas attacks, especially now that Hamas is allied with Iran, would take place? How many more Muslim radicals would target Americans around the world? For the US to grant Israel control over the Old City or to claim control over the Old City itself would be an utter nightmare and would destroy US-Israel relations as well as significantly harm US-Arab and US-Muslim relations. To call this a horrible policy would not begin to scratch the surface.

I assume to this point that the US would not simply grant the Palestinians control over the Old City, but let us assume that such an idea were to be proposed by the US. A US proposal that removed access to the Jewish holy sites in the Old City or in any way restricted them would likely end discussions between the US and Israel until a President more favorable to Israeli control of those sites took office. Should the US try to force through a solution in the UN that is opposed by Israel, it would destroy the US-Israel relationship and would do so with limited or no political gain. Would Saudi Arabia be a closer ally of America if America went that route? No. Would Egypt? No. Jordan? No. So why even consider it?

J Street makes sure to exclude the Old City from these initial border discussions probably because of the very problems discussed above, but if one must resort to settling the far easier disagreement through US intervention, surely the Old City and the holiest sites must be addressed that way as well, namely through an imposed solution.

Should the Obama Administration go this route, it will not only fail to bring peace but will wreak havoc in the region. The US would be far better off letting go of the peace process entirely, totally ignoring it, rather than going this route. J Street’s policy here is terrible in the extreme.

The political benefits that Israel would receive as part of the package of understanding with the U.S. are not acceptable to the Palestinians because they ease some of the pressure on Israel and make it impossible for [the Palestinians] to apply their strategy of evading direct talks and of trying to force Israel into an arrangement through UN resolutions.

The US must discourage this kind of thought process. This cannot be an option afforded the Palestinians because if they were to choose it and the US were to back off, the result would be persecution of Israel on a scale never before witnessed and of Jews on a scale witnessed all too often throughout history. The US must stand up for Israel. So, if in fact, this really is the Palestinian strategy, and it appears to be, the Palestinians must be forced to abandon it.

For more on this, you may want to visit the We Are For Israel blog, where Rabbi Micky Boyden and myself have been writing about the various proposals and counter proposals going on.

The Cairo speech:

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.

The result? Palestinians added a precondition to peace talks that they would only come to the table when Israel freezes all settlement building, including in Jerusalem, which they had never before demanded. This, in spite of the fact that Obama demanded that peace talks be started without preconditions. There was no outburst about Palestinian rejectionism when they refused to come to the table.

Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, then said that there could be no such precondition, and that the Palestinians must come to the table. The Palestinians refused. There was no outburst about “insult” and “offense” by the Obama administration.

Next, the Obama administration grudgingly accepts Netanyahu’s compromise of a ten-month ban on settlement building in the West Bank without a freeze in Jerusalem. The Palestinians still refuse to come to peace talks, insisting on a complete building freeze. There was no outburst by the Obama administration about how the Palestinians are obstructing peace with their inflexible precondition.

Cut to: Last month, Joe Biden’s visit, and the announcement of 1,600 new units in Ramat Shlomo, a suburb in northeast Jerusalem that has been understood by all to be one of the parts of “Palestinian” territory that will remain Israel in a future two-state solution. The Obama administration uses the visit as a pretext to beat up on Netanyahu. The “insult” and “offense” is actually in the way they are treating a friend and ally. Apparently, Obama has given Netanyahu a list of 13 demands, and expects a response by Saturday—so he can take them to the Arab League summit and get them to push the Palestinians back into peace talks. (Perhaps someone forgot to tell him about the concept of Shabbat and its importance in Jewish life.) The cabinet is meeting now, and they expect to have a response by Passover. That will be sundown Monday, Israel time. Among the demands:

• A complete freeze on building in all disputed territory, including Jerusalem
• Turning over more of the West Bank to Palestinian control, including Abu Dis
• The release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners

And the Palestinians will have to—come back to the negotiating table.

So there are absolutely no demands of the Palestinians at all, and nothing but demands of the Israelis. The Palestinians’ naming of a public square in Ramallah after a terrorist is ignored (and even blamed, by Hillary Clinton, on Hamas when it was all Fatah’s doing), but a housing announcement is an “insult” that causes a full-court anti-Israel press by Obama’s Chicago Machine veterans. The head of a democratic ally and friend of the U.S. is treated more shabbily than Hugo Chavez, who is aligned with, and working with, our enemy Iran (which is responsible for supplying weapons to our enemies, actively killing American soldiers and training Iraqis and Afghan to kill more). And now, Israel is being pressured so that Obama can send a representative to the Arab League summit, which is a summit of unelected monarchs and dictators with one or two sort-of democratic nations thrown in (Jordan and Lebanon), so that they can give their blessing to Mahmoud Abbas (now the unelected leader of the Palestinians, as elections were not held again this year) to talk to the Israelis.

Let me repeat: To talk to the Israelis. Nothing is being asked of the Palestinians.

The most anti-Israel administration ever strikes again. But I will leave you on a positive note: Think about the time of year that he is choosing to try to force Israel into making dangerous concessions. It’s Passover. And while I am not calling Obama a pharoah, well, as the Orthodox Union IPA blog said:

… we have to wonder – when we all are at Passover Seder Monday, and loudly declare: “NEXT YEAR IN JERUSALEM,” will we all be subject to censure by the Administration? By the EU? By the UN?

And what will they say at The White House seder? “Next year in a yet-to-be-negotiated part of Jerusalem?”

I don’t know about you, but I’ll be ending my seder traditionally. Next year in Jerusalem!

That doesn’t mean any breakthroughs are imminent, however. The more the administration pressures Israel, the more concessions the Arabs seem to want.

Of course at the end of the article Ignatius writes something that requires a little expansion:

The settlements issue illustrates why the Arab-Israeli problem drives people crazy. Even if you achieve a breakthrough, there’s always another snag ahead. White House officials grumble about Israeli intransigence, but they’re also worried about “squishy” Arab promises and demands for preconditions. “Don’t keep faxing it in, saying I gave you a peace plan in 2002,” complains the senior White House official.

Let’s be clear about something: All the major concrete breakthroughs have come from Israel: recognizing the PLO, ceding control of seven cities to the Palestinians in 1995, completely withdrawing from southern Lebanon and Gaza. The responses have been the strengthening the likes of Al Aqsa Martryrs Brigades, Hamas and Hezbollah, not peace.

But of course the harping on “settlements” has given the Arab world an excuse for never moving beyond “squishy” words.

Jennifer Rubin adds:

You’ve got me. It is the triumph of ideology over reality. And it is evidence as to just how deceitful was Obama’s campaign rhetoric with regard to Israel and the Middle East. We know what he said then. It bears no resemblance to the current approach. Had he revealed his hand during the campaign certainly then-candidate Clinton, who professed to be a great friend of Israel, would have seized on the issue.

There’s more to that too. Those of us who questioned how someone with Barack Obama’s ideological background would be pro-Israel were regularly dismissed as misinformed, if not racist, cranks. Now President Obama’s hand has been revealed. Is anyone paying attention?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

The more important point, however, is that the major settlement blocs are located on strategic high ground, or in other militarily significant locations, which are undoubtedly part of the “defensible borders” promised to Israel in the 2004 Bush Letter — as part of an agreement relating to the Gaza disengagement that should be deemed “enforceable.” There is no definition of “defensible borders” in the letter, but the one thing everyone knows it does not mean is the 1967 borders.

It is ludicrous for the U.S. to be negotiating with Israel on the number of births that can be permitted in areas already effectively promised to Israel as part of the borders necessary to defend itself — unless the Obama administration plans to break that promise as well.

(h/t Israel Matzav)

Fresno Zionism, after giving a history lesson about the Etzion Bloc, asks:

How can it be that it is — in Obama’s view — illegal for Jews to live in the ancient Jewish Quarter of the old city of Jerusalem?

In general, how is it that the 19-year Jordanian and Egyptian occupation managed to transform parts of Mandatory Palestine into places like Saudi Arabia, where Jews are forbidden to live?

Explain this, Mr. Obama. And while you’re at it, explain the significance — since it is obviously not an accident — of your strange and ungrammatical way of talking about settlements.

The terms “settlements” and “occupation” are tossed around with reckless abandon when it comes to Israel. They aren’t so much descriptions as accusations. (Israel’s presence in Lebanon, though defensive in nature, was called “occupation,” precious few accounts referred to Syria’s brutal presence in Lebanon as an “occupation.”

This isn’t accidental.

Phyllis Chesler quotes a commenter on a recent essay:

“One needn’t be right wing, nor a Zionist, or even Jewish to understand what animates those who fulminate over Jewish ‘settlements’. One only has to ask the right (no pun intended) questions to understand what their agenda really is. For instance – since there are many, many more illegal Arab buildings/settlements in E. Jerusalem and ALL over Israel, are the people who are clamoring for Jewish ‘settlement’ to cease, also calling for Arab demolitions? Further, while 20% of Israel’s population are Arabs with full citizenship, why is the PA allowed to demand that Judea & Samaria become Judenrein, all in the name of ‘peace’?

These type of questions to a fair minded person would be answered in a fair minded manner. However, when the agenda is fueled by anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic nuances, these same (righteous) questions become nothing more than a hindrance to ‘peace’ efforts.

There is nothing more important within this framework than to expose the hidden prejudices of the (in)human rights brigade.

In his Cairo speech President Obama took care not to mention the word “terror,” lest he offend the Muslim world he sought to address. Instead he adopted their language and used terms that are used to condemn Israel. He did not care how offensive his use of those words were.

UPDATE: Please see (or maybe don’t see) Tony Judt’s op-ed in the New York Times, Fictions on the ground for an offensive use of “settlement.”

Thus the distinction so often made in Israeli pronouncements between “authorized” and “unauthorized” settlements is specious — all are illegal, whether or not they have been officially approved and whether or not their expansion has been “frozen” or continues apace. (It is a matter of note that Israel’s new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, belongs to the West Bank settlement of Nokdim, established in 1982 and illegally expanded since.)

To declare all “settlements,” as Judt does, is to ignore the history of 242 and of the Etzion Bloc. Judt is condemning Israel not criticizing it.

UPDATE: Jonathan Tobin gets to the point:

For all of his attempts to treat Jewish communities over the green line as illegal (including the Jerusalem suburbs where most “settlers” live), anyone who’s read Judt’s previous writings about the country knows very well that he considers the existence of the entire state to be immoral if not illegal. That’s right. As he explained in an even lengthier essay in The New York Review of Books in October 2003, he’s not a Zionist of any sort but someone who believes Israel needs to be dismantled and replaced by a “binational” state in which Zionism will be extirpated.

or alternatively as My Right Word concludes:

Did he write to Obama to use the Cairo speech to condemn the state of democracy in Egypt? Did he suggest the President cut off funding to Mubarak the Dictator whose son will take over soon, establishing a new dynasty in the Arab Middle East? No, that he wouldn’t do. He’s just Judt the Jew, descendent of Lithuanian Rabbis, doing his best to fulfill his fantasy of dissolving the Jewish state of Israel.

Not surprisingly, Stephen Walt, agrees with Judt’s analysis (via memeorandum). Here’s Walt pretending that he’s a friend of Israel:

The result of all this, as Judt makes clear, has been to “create facts” that make a two-state solution increasingly difficult — and maybe impossible — to achieve. But don’t forget former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s warning: “If the two-state solution collapses, Israel will face a South African style struggle for political rights.” If Israel continues on its present trajectory, in other words, it will become an apartheid state. And once that happens, Olmert said, “The state of Israel is finished.” By turning a blind eye towards the settlement project for decades, in short, Israel’s so-called “friends” helped pave the road to a very bleak future.

People like Walt, find Olmert’s quote useful, but, of course, they don’t believe that Israel will become an apartheid state, they believe that it already is. (Why, for example, Israel would be illegitimate while granting minority rights, while a hypothetical Palestine which insists on ethnic cleansing would be legitimate, is one of those inconsistencies that Walt, Judt and others never bother to explore or explain.)

Judt, Walt and their ilk are not friends of Israel. They accept every claim made by those who would deny the Jewish state and impose impossible conditions for Israel to meet their standards of legitimacy. Alas they are all too much part of the mainstream political discourse.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.