It is being reported that President Barack Obama will visit Israel, the West Bank, and Jordan in the spring.
This is not yet confirmed. The following article assumes that for the sake of analysis this story is true.
Political Analysis
I’m not against this but I think it is a mistake on Obama’s part. Here’s why.
While
such a visit would resolve previous criticism that Obama never visited
Israel as president, it is a mistake, especially given the timing, for a
number of reasons.
--Obama
will have a new foreign policy team which won’t have much time to
evaluate the situation and what it wants to do. It has just been
announced that Secretary of State John Kerry will visit these places in
the spring. Usually the way it would be handled would be to let Kerry go
and then evaluate if there was a good basis for a presidential visit.
--Presidential
visits are supposed to mark achievements or to make achievements
possible. A visit that does neither would be perceived as a failure and
Obama would look bad. The “peace process” is going nowhere and Obama’s
going will not jump start it at all. Afterward, people will be asking:
Wasn’t this a policy failure?
--The
timing is dangerous because it appears to reward the Palestinian
Authority (PA) which rules the West Bank for having gone against U.S.
policy by asking the UN to give it recognition as a state.
--No
matter whether some people (albeit fewer than ever) believe in
“linkage” (that is, “solving” the Israel-Palestinian conflict) will
benefit U.S. interests in the region and make Arabs and Muslims like it
more, the visit would have no such positive effect. Arabs and Muslims
would be indifferent or see it as a pro-Israel move (no matter what he
actually says); Islamists will portray it as a conspiracy that proves
how evil is America and Obama. Imagine what Hamas and the Egyptian
government’s leaders and media will say.
--Perhaps
most problematic of all, the PA will turn a visit into a minefield for
Obama, designing every detail to make it seem the president is visiting
(and acknowledging)
an independent Palestine. There will be the flag, the honor guard, the
playing of the national anthem, the use of the term “Palestine” (rather
than Palestinian Authority—what was agreed on at Oslo—or Palestinian
National Authority—the term favored by the PA’s leadership).
--Whatever
Obama says, no matter how much it might outrage Israel and its
supporters, will be deemed insufficient for the Palestinians.
--No
matter how much Obama talks of restarting negotiations or pushing for
Israeli unilateral concessions, the PA won’t do it—as they refused to do
in his
first term--so he will look foolish. Then Obama will either blame both
sides equally or just Israel. This gets him nowhere.
--The likely Israeli coalition is not going to be to Obama’s liking. Watch for his intense frown in the photographs.
I
can see there being a speech at the Israeli Knesset and at the PA's
parliament and can imagine how every line will go. It might be perfectly
fine but nothing new and no one in the region will take it seriously. I
guess it will be good for domestic consumption as Obama the peacemaker
but will this do anything useful for him
politically or for U.S. interests?
--As
for Jordan, is Obama going to preach the glories of the "Arab Spring"
to a country whose monarchy has been America's most consistently
faithful Arab ally and fears being overthrown by a similar movement
which would only turn the country over to the Muslim Brotherhood and
almost certainly lead to its embroilment in still another war against
Israel?
Satirical Content (if this offends you please don’t read it and just focus on my serious analysis)
Forgive me for saying a few things that are NOT part of my serious political analysis:
--Will
Obama go to the Arafat museum to balance a visit to Yad ve-Shem (the
Holocaust Museum in Israel) since he would then be both commemorating
the last Holocaust and the man who tried to implement the next one?
--Will he lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Terrorist?
--Certain
mass media outlets will run stories that since some friendly Israelis
will line his route with nice signs (for example, We Love You, Barack!)
that they like Barack more than Bibi and agree that he knows Israel’s
interests better than its own leaders.
--There
is a huge potential for terrible factual mistakes and turns of phrase
by Obama that will go down in history. For example, will he say
Jerusalem or al-Quds or both? Will he mention
the pre-1967 boundaries? Will he speak publicly about Iran's nuclear
threat?
Conclusion
Of
course, his main goal will be to—borrowing a President Bill Clinton
phrase—feel both sides pain and cajole them to make peace so that
everyone will live happily ever after. This is a noble sentiment but one
that’s a bit tired after fruitlessly being mouthed for a half-century.
Speaking
of Clinton, let’s remember that on his main presidential visit he told
the Palestine National Council to revise its National Covenant (which
called for armed struggle and wiping Israel off the map), since that was
one of its commitments under the Oslo agreement. They listened to him
and then just pretended very cynically to revoke it but didn’t.
Of
course, if nobody reports such things then the president doesn’t look
bad so perhaps that’s the way an Obama visit will turn out.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
No comments:
Post a Comment