Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
With Prime Minister Binyamin on his way to Washington, President Obama's
just released interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg provides a
clear picture as to just how poorly briefed he in on Israeli Palestinian
affairs and painfully silly about Iran.
+ Painfully silly On Iran: "they are capable of changing;... even if that
takes ... 20 years, then that’s very much an outcome we should desire.
Question: What logic is there to the U.S. plan not to apparently place any
restrictions on Iranian weapons development and production (other than
taking the last enrichment steps of the material for the nuclear warhead)
while allowing Iran to retain the equipment to enrich uranium to weapons
grade given that Mr. Obama concedes they may not change their dangerous ways
for the next two decades?
+ Bad briefing on Israel: "the window is closing for a peace deal ..in
part
because of changes in demographics... There are going to be more
Palestinians, not fewer Palestinians, as time goes on. There are going to be
more Arab-Israelis, not fewer Arab-Israelis, as time goes on.
While the American Jewish staffers and their Israeli Leftist pals continue
to pitch the demographic argument, the figures keep moving in Israel's
favor, with Palestinian and Israeli Arab fertility rates declining while
Jewish rates go up. Even those secular Russian immigrants whose cousins
back home barely approached a sustaining fertility rate are having 3 and 4
kids in the Jewish Homeland.
And to make matters worse: Israelis are slowly starting to realize that the
REAL demographic threat would happen if a Palestinian state were created and
it was flooded with millions of Arabs who had someone in their family living
for any period of time during the British Mandate.
Given how many dramatic twists and turns have recently taken place in the
region and the world it doesn't require much of an imagination to recognize
that there are many plausible scenarios according to which Israel finds
itself unable to cope with a flood of millions of Arabs crossing from the
sovereign Palestinian state into what was left of Israel.
Keep in mind Mr. Obama's warning: The condemnation of the international
community can translate into a lack of cooperation when it comes to key
security interests.
Again: pitching the demographic argument may work among fellow travelers -
but it has long ago lost its punch among thinking Israelis.
+ Painfully silly argument: "We do not know what a successor to Abbas will
look like."
So Israel should cut a deal based on Mahmoud Abbas when there is no telling
what kind of radical may take his place?
+ Bad sense of what is happening in the world: "situation will not
improve"
Mr. Obama is the president of a country that is developing domestic energy
resources at breakneck pace that promises to radically change the face of
the world in the coming decades. And that includes the implementation of
technologies that while not favored by the greens of the world have shown
such success that even some European countries have opted to join in
fracking shale. The British Geological Survey estimates there could be
1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas in the north of England alone. And
the more energy available from the West the better the situation for Israel.
Yes. There is every reason to believe that the situation for Israel will
indeed improve.
+ Poor briefing: "The only thing that I've heard is, "We’ll just keep
on
doing what we’re doing, and deal with problems as they arise. And we'll
build settlements where we can. And where there are problems in the West
Bank, we will deal with them forcefully. We’ll cooperate or co-opt the
Palestinian Authority." And yet, at no point do you ever see an actual
resolution to the problem."
A suggestion: He talk with Minister Bennett. On the one hand he does in
fact have a plan. On the other hand, it is silly to suggest that a
necessary condition for a program is for it to provide "an actual
resolution
to the problem" - this when a realistic assessment is that as far as the
Arabs are concerned Israel's existence is "the problem".
+ Skewed sense of the direction o developments: "there comes a point where
you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very
difficult choices."
An alternative narrative is that much of Palestinian street is disgusted
with two decades of Oslo bred corruption and could very well breath a sigh
of relief if a serious program was implemented based on a combination of
full Israeli citizenship rights for Arabs in areas annexed along with ramped
up programs aimed at making the remaining Palestinian autonomous urban areas
economic successes.
+ Painfully silly argument: " Do you place restrictions on Arab-Israelis
in
ways that run counter to Israel’s traditions?"
Oops. So is Mr. Obama suggesting that even if we give the Palestinians
everything they want that we still stuck with terrible problem posed by the
Israeli Arabs?
+ Painfully silly argument: " It means reduced influence for us, the
United
States, in issues that are of interest to Israel. It’s survivable, but it is
not preferable.
=====
Obama: 'The Window Is Closing' for a Viable Israel-Palestine Peace Deal
In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, the president
discusses Iran, Syria, and his view of the imperatives now facing Israel's
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Matt Ford Mar 2 2014, 4:09 PM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/obama-the-window-is-closing-for-a-viable-israel-palestine-peace-deal/284161/
President Obama spoke on Israeli-Palestinian peace, the Iranian nuclear
negotiations, and the Syrian civil war in a wide-ranging interview with The
Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg conducted on Thursday and released on Sunday
afternoon.
After a global economic depression, the turmoil of the Arab Spring, the U.S.
military's withdrawal from Iraq, and a catastrophic civil war in neighboring
Syria, Obama sees a much different Middle East than when he took office.
Perhaps the most significant change is the growing sense of rapprochement
between Iran and the great powers as they inch closer to a diplomatic deal
on the Islamic republic's nuclear program. For Obama, this progress comes
despite Iran's other activities in the region.
OBAMA: Here’s what I understand. For years now, Iran has been an
irresponsible international actor. They've sponsored terrorism. They have
threatened their neighbors. They have financed actions that have killed
people in neighboring states.
And Iran has also exploited or fanned sectarian divisions in other
countries. In light of that record, it’s completely understandable for other
countries to be not only hostile towards Iran but also doubtful about the
possibilities of Iran changing. I get that. But societies do change -- I
think there is a difference between an active hostility and sponsoring of
terrorism and mischief, and a country that you’re in competition with and
you don’t like but it's not blowing up homes in your country or trying to
overthrow your government.
GOLDBERG: And you feel there’s a real opportunity to achieve a genuine
breakthrough?
OBAMA: Here’s my view. Set aside Iranian motives. Let’s assume that Iran is
not going to change. It’s a theocracy. It’s anti-Semitic. It is anti-Sunni.
And the new leaders are just for show. Let’s assume all that. If we can
ensure that they don’t have nuclear weapons, then we have at least prevented
them from bullying their neighbors, or heaven forbid, using those weapons,
and the other misbehavior they’re engaging in is manageable.
If, on the other hand, they are capable of changing; if, in fact, as a
consequence of a deal on their nuclear program those voices and trends
inside of Iran are strengthened, and their economy becomes more integrated
into the international community, and there’s more travel and greater
openness, even if that takes a decade or 15 years or 20 years, then that’s
very much an outcome we should desire.
Negotiations with Iran are closely linked to another perennial American
diplomatic endeavor: resolving the long-standing conflict between Israel and
Palestine. Since Obama won re-election over a year ago, U.S. Secretary of
State John Kerry has spear-headed the administration's toughest push yet on
advancing the peace process. Kerry's efforts have borne some tentative signs
of progress, with a framework accord planned to be announced in the coming
weeks.
At times, the Obama administration's increased sense of urgency has caused
friction with Israeli officials. Israeli defense minister Moshe Yaalon
publicly apologized in January after telling an Israeli newspaper that Kerry
is "acting out of misplaced obsession and messianic fervor." When
Kerry
warned that boycotts against Israel could intensify without a peace deal,
Israeli minister of strategic affairs Yuval Steinitz retorted that Israel
"cannot be expected to negotiate with a gun to its head."
GOLDBERG: Let me read you something that John Kerry told the American Jewish
Committee not long ago: “We’re running out of time. We’re running out of
possibilities. And let’s be clear: If we do not succeed now -- and I know I’m
raising those stakes -- but if we do not succeed now, we may not get another
chance.” He has also suggested strongly that there might be a third intifada
down the road and that if this peace process doesn’t work, Israel itself
could be facing international isolation and boycott. Do you agree with this
assessment? Is this the last chance?
OBAMA: Well, look, I’m a congenital optimist. And, obviously, this is a
conflict that has gone on for decades. And humanity has a way of muddling
through, even in difficult circumstances. So you never know how things play
themselves out.
But John Kerry, somebody who has been a fierce advocate and defender on
behalf of Israel for decades now, I think he has been simply stating what
observers inside of Israel and outside of Israel recognize, which is that
with each successive year, the window is closing for a peace deal that both
the Israelis can accept and the Palestinians can accept -- in part because
of changes in demographics; in part because of what's been happening with
settlements; in part because Abbas is getting older, and I think nobody
would dispute that whatever disagreements you may have with him, he has
proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and
diplomatic efforts to resolve this issue. We do not know what a successor to
Abbas will look like.
[...]
I believe that President Abbas is sincere about his willingness to recognize
Israel and its right to exist, to recognize Israel’s legitimate security
needs, to shun violence, to resolve these issues in a diplomatic fashion
that meets the concerns of the people of Israel. And I think that this is a
rare quality not just within the Palestinian territories, but in the Middle
East generally. For us not to seize that opportunity would be a mistake. And
I think John is referring to that fact.
We don’t know exactly what would happen. What we know is that it gets harder
by the day. What we also know is that Israel has become more isolated
internationally. We had to stand up in the Security Council in ways that 20
years ago would have involved far more European support, far more support
from other parts of the world when it comes to Israel’s position. And that’s
a reflection of a genuine sense on the part of a lot of countries out there
that this issue continues to fester, is not getting resolved, and that
nobody is willing to take the leap to bring it to closure.
Another challenge for Obama's efforts toward Israeli-Palestinian peace is
his rocky relationship with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The
two leaders are scheduled to meet this week. Netanyahu, who took the helm of
the Israeli government for a second time two months after Obama's first
inauguration, vowed to "stand steadfast" against "various
pressures" on
Israel. Speaking with Goldberg, Obama struck an amicable chord.
GOLDBERG: My impression watching your relationship with Netanyahu over the
years is that you admire his intelligence and you admire his political
skill, but you also get frustrated by an inability or unwillingness on his
part to spend political capital -- in terms of risking coalition
partnerships -- in order to embrace what he says he accepts, a two-state
solution. Is that a fair statement? When he comes to Washington, how hard
are you going to push him out of his comfort zone?
OBAMA: What is absolutely true is Prime Minister Netanyahu is smart. He is
tough. He is a great communicator. He is obviously a very skilled
politician. And I take him at his word when he says that he sees the
necessity of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think he
genuinely believes that.
I also think that politics in Israel around this issue are very difficult.
You have the chaos that’s been swirling around the Middle East. People look
at what's happening in Syria. They look at what’s happening in Lebanon.
Obviously, they look at what’s happening in Gaza. And understandably a lot
of people ask themselves, "Can we afford to have potential chaos at our
borders, so close to our cities?" So he is dealing with all of that, and I
get that.
What I've said to him privately is the same thing that I say publicly, which
is the situation will not improve or resolve itself. This is not a situation
where you wait and the problem goes away. There are going to be more
Palestinians, not fewer Palestinians, as time goes on. There are going to be
more Arab-Israelis, not fewer Arab-Israelis, as time goes on.
And for Bibi to seize the moment in a way that perhaps only he can,
precisely because of the political tradition that he comes out of and the
credibility he has with the right inside of Israel, for him to seize this
moment is perhaps the greatest gift he could give to future generations of
Israelis. But it’s hard. And as somebody who occupies a fairly tough job
himself, I’m always sympathetic to somebody else’s politics.
But he also mixed sensitivity with concern. Without a viable peace deal to
resolve the West Bank occupation and the status of Palestinians and Arab
Israelis, Obama questioned what the long-term effects on Israeli society and
political culture would be.
OBAMA: I have not yet heard, however, a persuasive vision of how Israel
survives as a democracy and a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors in
the absence of a peace deal with the Palestinians and a two-state solution.
Nobody has presented me a credible scenario.
The only thing that I've heard is, "We’ll just keep on doing what we’re
doing, and deal with problems as they arise. And we'll build settlements
where we can. And where there are problems in the West Bank, we will deal
with them forcefully. We’ll cooperate or co-opt the Palestinian
Authority."
And yet, at no point do you ever see an actual resolution to the problem.
[...]
It’s maintenance of a chronic situation. And my assessment, which is shared
by a number of Israeli observers, I think, is there comes a point where you
can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult
choices. Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of
the West Bank? Is that the character of Israel as a state for a long period
of time? Do you perpetuate, over the course of a decade or two decades, more
and more restrictive policies in terms of Palestinian movement? Do you place
restrictions on Arab-Israelis in ways that run counter to Israel’s
traditions?
This, Obama fears, could weaken Israel's position in future negotiations,
especially as Europe and other members of the international community grow
increasingly critical of Israeli policies.
OBAMA: Look, sometimes people are dismissive of multilateral institutions
and the United Nations and the EU [European Union] and the high commissioner
of such and such. And sometimes there’s good reason to be dismissive. There’s
a lot of hot air and rhetoric and posturing that may not always mean much.
But in today’s world, where power is much more diffuse, where the threats
that any state or peoples face can come from non-state actors and
asymmetrical threats, and where international cooperation is needed in order
to deal with those threats, the absence of international goodwill makes you
less safe. The condemnation of the international community can translate
into a lack of cooperation when it comes to key security interests. It means
reduced influence for us, the United States, in issues that are of interest
to Israel. It’s survivable, but it is not preferable.
Whatever cautious optimism Obama has for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations
and negotiations with Iran did not extend to Syria. Earlier last month,
Bashar al-Assad's regime missed a February 5 deadline to transport all of
its estimated 1,300-ton chemical weapons stockpile out of the country, with
only 11% of its chemical weapons supply moved.
The U.S., which brokered the disarmament deal with Russia last year after a
deadly chemical weapons attack killed over 1,000 Syrians in a Damascus
suburb, accused the Syrian government of dragging its feet in implementing
the deal. Diplomats hammered out a new timetable last week that hopes to
complete the challenge by August. Obama acknowledged critics of his Syria
policy by pointing out the lack of viable alternatives.
GOLDBERG: I was reading your Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech last night,
and I wanted to quote one thing you said: “I believe that force can be
justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other
places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and
can lead to more costly intervention later.”
I was really struck by that last sentence. I’m wondering at what point in
Syria does it become too much to bear? I’m not talking about the bifurcated
argument, boots on the ground or nothing, but what does Assad have to do to
provoke an American-led military response? Another way of asking this is: If
you could roll back the clock three years, could you have done more to build
up the more-moderate opposition groups?
OBAMA: I think those who believe that two years ago, or three years ago,
there was some swift resolution to this thing had we acted more forcefully,
fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the conflict in Syria and the
conditions on the ground there.
When you have a professional army that is well-armed and sponsored by two
large states who have huge stakes in this, and they are fighting against a
farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly
now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict -- the notion that we
could have, in a clean way that didn't commit U.S. military forces, changed
the equation on the ground there was never true.
Obama also challenged the conventional wisdom that Bashar al-Assad and his
allies are "winning" the bloody civil war that will enter its third
year
later this month with over 200,000 dead and millions displaced.
OBAMA: Over the last two years I have pushed our teams to find out what are
the best options in a bad situation. And we will continue to do everything
we can to bring about a political resolution, to pressure the Russians and
the Iranians, indicating to them that it is not in their interests to be
involved in a perpetual war.
I'm always darkly amused by this notion that somehow Iran has won in Syria.
I mean, you hear sometimes people saying, "They’re winning in Syria."
And
you say, "This was their one friend in the Arab world, a member of the
Arab
League, and it is now in rubble." It’s bleeding them because they’re having
to send in billions of dollars. Their key proxy, Hezbollah, which had a very
comfortable and powerful perch in Lebanon, now finds itself attacked by
Sunni extremists. This isn’t good for Iran. They’re losing as much as
anybody. The Russians find their one friend in the region in rubble and
delegitimized.
And although Obama concluded the interview with a final note on his
administration's policy towards Syria, his words also reflect the broader
challenges of U.S. foreign policy in an increasingly unstable world.
There is a great desire not just to stand there, but to do something. We are
doing a lot; we have to do more. But we have to make sure that what we do
does not make a situation worse or engulf us in yet another massive
enterprise at a time when we have great demands here at home and a lot of
international obligations abroad.
No comments:
Post a Comment