It’s not just the Arab/Muslim world that’s disappointed with President Obama, the New York Times is too.
The Times has come to the belated acknowledgment – the Washington Post noticed this back in July – that the administration hasn’t been very successful in the Middle East as expressed in Diplomacy 101.
Peacemaking takes strategic skill. But we see no sign that President Obama and Mr. Mitchell were thinking more than one move down the board. The president went public with his demand for a full freeze on settlements before securing Israel’s commitment. And he and his aides apparently had no plan for what they would do if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said no.
Most important, they allowed the controversy to obscure the real goal: nudging Israel and the Palestinians into peace talks. (We don’t know exactly what happened but we are told that Mr. Obama relied more on the judgment of his political advisers — specifically his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel — than of his Mideast specialists.)
The idea made sense: have each side do something tangible to prove it was serious about peace and then start negotiations. But when Mr. Netanyahu refused the total freeze, President Obama backed down.
And I love this paragraph:
Washington isn’t the only one to blow it. After pushing President Obama to lead the peace effort, Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, refused to make any concessions until settlements were halted. Mr. Mitchell was asking them to allow Israel to fly commercial planes through Arab airspace or open a trade office. They have also done far too little to strengthen Mr. Abbas, who is a weak leader but is still the best hope for negotiating a peace deal. Ditto for Washington and Israel.
Saudi Arabia blew it? Give me a break. Saudi Arabia has never done more than play lip service to the peace process. Expecting help from the Saudis is another failure of the Obama administration. And has Israel really done too little to help Abbas? PM Netanyahu has boasted of removing hundreds of checkpoints and it has shown according to the Globe and Mail.
Driving through the towns of the West Bank, one can see and feel the difference from conditions that existed only a few months ago. The cities of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah and Hebron all display new-found vitality.
Jenin has become a shopping destination for Israeli Arabs. Nablus’s historic market is packed with Palestinians from all over the West Bank.
Ramallah and Hebron are bustling cities where people enjoy normal lives.
The reason is the withdrawal of Israeli soldiers in recent months and the elimination of many of the checkpoints between Palestinian communities.
On the other side Ethan Bronner of the New York Times reports:
As for the Palestinians’ claim to have successfully ended violence, the Israeli military begs to differ. Yes, its officers say, the Palestinian forces are better trained than in the past, and yes, they have worked seriously in their new roles. But without nightly Israeli raids into Palestinian cities, the violence would never have stopped.
“Last night we carried out between 15 and 20 actions,” a top Israeli commander said of the West Bank raids, in a recent interview under military rules of anonymity. “That was a fairly typical night. It’s like throwing a blanket on a fire. If we stop for a minute, we will go backwards very quickly. We call it cutting the grass.”
Israel has been mostly cooperating with the Americans; cooperation from the Arab world – including the Palestinians – has been non-existent.
The Times concludes its editorial:
The president has no choice but to keep trying. At some point extremists will try to provoke another war. and the absence of a dialogue will only make things worse. Advancing his own final-status plan for a two-state solution is one high-risk way forward that we think is worth the gamble. Stalemate is unsustainable.
It’s funny. Despite the fear the Times expresses for “extremists” trying to “provoke another war,” it leaves out any mention of Iran’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons. But the Times is wrong. Extremists don’t seek to “provoke another war,” they seek to exploit opportunities that are given to them and extend their reach. Violence is a means to that end not an end to itself. This is something that the Times fails to understand.
The Times criticized the President for failing to consider what would happen if PM Netanyahu wouldn’t respond to his call for a total freeze on settlements. But the paper’s myopia is clear: why doesn’t it ask the same of the administration’s response to Arab non-cooperation. Barry Rubin addresses this:
In principle, the PA should be eager for talks. Obama believes that the Palestinians situation is “intolerable,” so aren’t they eager for progress? And also the PA owes Obama big-time. The United States pressures Israel on its behalf; gives it military training; diplomatic support; and lots of money. Obama has made speech after speech promoting their cause and exalting the Palestinians without any real criticism.
He could ask for concessions. He could demand concessions. He could pressure them for concessions.
And what’s the big concession? Come negotiate and get your state, which would be the same size as all the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip, plus billions of dollars in compensation payments, pretty please?
Yet it is hard to see this happening. Why? The traditional reason for not wanting to pressure the Palestinians is that US. governments thinks it must prove itself champion of their cause in order to gain backing from the Arab and Muslim world.
With the Obama Administration, however, there is something more. First, it hates to pressure anyone (or at least anyone except Israel). Second, it is less fond of Israel. Third, it sees itself as progressive and Third World in its orientation and thus has a horror of pushing anyone perceived to be on the “left†by the strange definitions prevailing today.
Then there’s still another problem. No matter what the Obama Administration does the PA will say, “No.†And then what will the White House do? Provoke an open rift; heated criticism; cutting off aid? Not a chance. PA leader Mahmoud Abbas might even, gasp!, threaten again for a week or two that he’s going to resign.
The funny thing is that the Times is wondering where Obama went wrong, but the President seems to be following the Times’s worldview. The editors just can’t bring themselves to admit that they were wrong too.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
