Jodi Ruderon, the New York Times Israel correspondent wrote about President Barack Obama’s March 20-22 visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority:
“For
more than two years, many Israeli and Palestinian leaders have placed
blame for their stalemated peace process not only on one another but on a
lack of engagement by the Obama Administration. But now that President
Obama and his
new secretary of state have signaled plans to visit, both sides still
remain skeptical that much will change.”
While
I’m grateful that she concluded what I’ve been saying now for about
thirteen years—no progress is going to be made and every knowledgeable
person on both sides knows it —I am baffled by the beginning. I have
never heard any Israeli or Palestinian, leader or intellectual or just
plain individual, ever say such a thing. It is nonsense given the fact
that Obama’s strenuous efforts during his first two years in office got
nowhere.
The
history of what actually happened between 2009 and 2011 has been
forgotten, just as the Palestinian torpedoing of peace between 1993 and
2000 has been forgotten. Obama tried, the Arab states wouldn’t help,
the Palestinians threw pie in his face (as I wrote at the time), and
Israel offered full cooperation. Since then, the Palestinian Authority
is strutting with its newly received--from the UN General
Assembly--state. Contrary to the 1993 Oslo agreement, this was achieved
without any compromise, concessions, or agreement with Israel. So on
top of everything else, the PA feels no motivation to negotiate anymore,
not that it did much since 2000. But should we all try? Sure, just
don't do any
more damage and in your own interest don't waste too much time and
money.
All
of this should be merely academic since we are told that Obama's visit
will focus on Syria and Iran. So what does Israel want to tell Obama and
what is he likely to offer or do?
Syria:
Presumably, Israel’s leadership will express a consensus view that its
main concern is not who governs Syria but how they behave.
There’s
no sympathy for the Bashar al-Assad dictatorship which has long
sponsored terrorism against Israel. In addition, it is widely recognized
that the regime’s fall is a defeat for Iran which would be losing its
principal ally. The situation has also opened gaps between Iran and
Turkey, which has been very friendly toward Iran (a point that the Obama
Administration has ignored). And if Israel ever did attack Iranian
nuclear installations, an anti-Iran Sunni-ruled Syrian regime is less
likely to do anything in response.
In
addition to all that, a successful revolution would weaken Hizballah in
Lebanon which at the moment is the biggest threat on Israel’s borders
(Hamas is more likely to attack but less capable of doing serious
damage), and can well mean that the Lebanese terrorist group will be too
busy and insecure to renew the kind of attacks seen in 2006 and earlier
years.
Yet
what will replace the current government of Syria? Israel will stress
that it worries about a Muslim Brotherhood regime that
will try to step up the conflict with Israel, including backing its own
terrorist clients in Lebanon and Hamas. Another point—which the Obama
Administration doesn’t seem to comprehend (though some of its officials
worry about this)—is that such a regime would be permissive toward
Salafist groups wanting to attack Israel across the border, along with a
high degree of anarchy in that part of southern Syria having the same
effect.
Israel
will also warn that lots of weapons, including some very advanced ones,
are pouring into Syria that will not be secured after the civil war
ends and that will end in the hands of
terrorists to whom they are either sold, given, or even directly armed
by the American-Turkish-Qatari-Saudi strategy. They might point to Libya
as an example of this process. Perhaps some future U.S. ambassador to
Syria and other operatives will be murdered trying to get some of those
weapons back.
The
U.S. government will talk about the prospects for democracy in Syria,
how the Muslim Brotherhood there is going to be moderate and pragmatic,
and how the aim of U.S. policy is to use the Brotherhood to restrain the
Salafists.
Israeli
officials will be very polite in discussions and sarcastic when they
talk among themselves afterward. The two countries' interests may not
clash but their perceptions of how to promote those interests do. The
United States will help install in Syria a regime that is likely to be
hard-line anti-Israel that might well form an alliance with Egypt and
Hamas; try to destabilize Jordan, and give help and weapons to
anti-Israel terrorists . That might be an improvement over what exists
now but America help to Syrian moderates would have been far preferable.
Hopefully
there will be some discussion over Egypt. Obama will emphasize that the
peace treaty has not been renounced and that the Brotherhood regime is,
at least for the moment, blocking the flow of weapons into the Gaza
Strip. Israel will say thank you and talk about how this needs to
continue and about its worries that the new Egyptian government will get
more militant on foreign policy once it entrenches itself in power.
Iran:
Presumably, the U.S. delegation and Obama will emphasize
their optimism about negotiations with Tehran and express wishful
thinking that the June election will result in a more moderate
government after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad leaves office. In other
words, they will preach hope and patience.
In
addition, they will stress that all options are being kept open and
that the United States will never accept Iran having nuclear weapons.
How the U.S. government is going to stop this is quite unclear.
Personally, I don’t believe that Obama will never attack Iranian nuclear
facilities or support such an Israeli operation.
I’m not saying he should do so; I’m just predicting he won’t do so.
There
might also be talk about covert operations, perhaps even based on
U.S.-Israel cooperation, and intelligence-gathering efforts on Iran’s
drive to obtain nuclear weapons.
What’s
not clear is how much Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will emphasize
the idea of an attack on Iranian facilities. Presumably, he will say
that he is happy to give the United States and other Western countries
time to try non-military means, including sanctions. He will warn them
that negotiations won’t work. He might say something to the effect that
Israel will wait out 2013 but when 2014 comes and Iran’s drive continues
that would be the moment for a military response.
The
reality is, however, that Obama will continue to deny that his strategy
is one of containing Iran but rather of preventing Iran from getting
nuclear weapons. That will go on until Iran gets nuclear weapons and
Obama switches to a containment strategy. It might be too early to
discuss--and Israel might not want to do so lest it reduce potential
U.S. support for an attack--but it is important to understand that
there's good containment and bad containment. On that point I need say
only two words: Chuck Hagel. He is U.S. secretary of defense. Want four
more words? John Kerry; John Brennan. They are secretary of state and
CIA chief. The problem of terrible ideas meets terrible incompetence.
Just
as the issue is not that Obama hasn't tried hard enough on the "peace
process"--he tried, failed, and will fail if he tries again--the issue
is not that Obama is "anti-Israel." The latter problem is that his Arab
and Islamist strategy is damaging toward Israel, as it is also to
long-term U.S. interests, regional stability, Christians, women,
moderates, and others.
Equally, the problem is not that the Obama Administration hasn't been trying to stop Iran's nuclear program but that its
efforts won't work and its approach is wasting time. So what comes next?
If
the United States is going to end up focusing on containing
Iran--stopping it from using nuclear weapons or giving them to
terrorists--it better be done well. As for containing Iran
strategically, the Egyptian and Syrian revolutions are largely doing
that job.
At the end of the meeting, everyone
will then state publicly that the talks show the continued strength of
the U.S.-Israel alliance and that Obama is a great president and a
wonderful friend of Israel. Then Obama will return to Washington to get
back to the business of installing or helping anti-Israel Islamist
governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey; making sure
Israel is never too tough against Hamas in the Gaza Strip; and losing
credibility with America's anti-Islamist Arab and other friends.
We’d
love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13
free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not
make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.
By credit card: click here. Checks:
"American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and send
to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
--------------------
Barry Rubin is director of the
Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the
Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just
been published by Yale University Press. Thirteen of his books can be read and downloaded for
free at the website of
the GLORIA Center including The Arab States and the Palestine
Conflict, The
Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin
Reports. His original articles
are published at PJMedia.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