Iran's nuclear ambitions and sponsorship of terror should be curtailed before Israel is expected to concede territory to Syria in accordance with any future peace agreement. Otherwise, supposed peace agreements play into the Arab strategy of shrinking Israel in size while retaining the will and capability to attack.
After accompanying Secretary Clinton to the Middle East last week, U.S. special envoy to the Middle East and former Senator George Mitchell dropped in on Syrian President Bashar al-Asad in Damascus to reassure him that renewed focus on an Israel-Palestinian deal would not be to Syria's detriment.
Mitchell reportedly said, "Our effort to resolve the Palestinian-Israel conflict in no way contradicts or conflicts with our goal of comprehensive peace between Israel and Syria."
Seizing on Mitchell's remarks, Israel's left-leaning, liberal daily Ha'aretz is calling for a renewed push on Israel-Syria talks. The paper says the Israeli government should "seize the opportunity for peace currently materializing" and "achieve a peace agreement that will provide great advantages to this country."
Ha'aretz probably calculates that such an agreement, likely requiring Israel to forfeit the Golan Heights to Syria, will involve Syria 1) expelling Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist groups from Damascus and 2) ending material and logistical support to Hizballah in Lebanon. It's doubtful Asad would actually ever do so, regardless of what he may agree to on paper, making a peace deal with Israel extremely risky and, essentially, useless. The "great advantages" Ha'aretz envisions from a comprehensive peace between Israel and all her neighbors, then, would not materialize.
Given the extent of the Iranian threat, it is unwise to advocate further land concessions beyond what Israel might make in the context of the current peace talks with the Palestinians. Ha'aretz's big rush to shrink Israel geographically before the situation with Iran is resolved involves too much risk.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Will Clinton's Message to the Palestinians Get Through?
In a press conference in Washington with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas, Secretary of State Clinton reportedly said:
She's right. With regard to the Palestinians, it's not Abbas's signature on some piece of paper that's going to bring peace, but whether or not the Palestinian people are ready to put the conflict behind them. Their leadership, however, has a responsibility to prepare them for conflict-ending concessions and coexistence with Israel. Clinton's message is a good first step, but the question is, Will it get through? We were reminded this week that at least some of the Arab press cannot be counted on to deliver it.
Egypt's state-run newspaper, al-Ahram, doctored a photo of President Obama and Middle East leaders at the White House recently to depict Egyptian President Mubarak leading the others down a hallway, rather than walking last which was the real situation.
It's just the latest illustration of how messages intended for Middle East audiences are shaped by autocratic leaders and their government-controlled media. And it reflects the challenges that may lie ahead in reaching out to the Palestinians to condition them for peace. Palestinian leaders -- and not U.S. leaders in Washington -- ultimately will have to do that themselves.
Your leaders may be sitting at the negotiating table, but you [the people of the Middle East] are ultimately the ones who will ultimately decide the future. [sic]
She's right. With regard to the Palestinians, it's not Abbas's signature on some piece of paper that's going to bring peace, but whether or not the Palestinian people are ready to put the conflict behind them. Their leadership, however, has a responsibility to prepare them for conflict-ending concessions and coexistence with Israel. Clinton's message is a good first step, but the question is, Will it get through? We were reminded this week that at least some of the Arab press cannot be counted on to deliver it.
Egypt's state-run newspaper, al-Ahram, doctored a photo of President Obama and Middle East leaders at the White House recently to depict Egyptian President Mubarak leading the others down a hallway, rather than walking last which was the real situation.
It's just the latest illustration of how messages intended for Middle East audiences are shaped by autocratic leaders and their government-controlled media. And it reflects the challenges that may lie ahead in reaching out to the Palestinians to condition them for peace. Palestinian leaders -- and not U.S. leaders in Washington -- ultimately will have to do that themselves.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Parsing Netanyahu's Words
PajamasMedia has published my article on Netanyahu's about-face on reciprocity and demilitarization, two key indicators that his tough stance on Israeli security may be weakening.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Palestinian Negotiator Moonlights As Times Headline Editor
The following is an unpublished letter-to-the-editor of the New York Times:
September 7, 2010
Dear Editorial Page Editor:
I somehow missed the press release announcing Palestinian peace negotiator Nabil Shaath’s appointment as Times headline writer.
“Settlements in West Bank Are Clouding Peace Talks” [September 3, 2010] quotes Shaath as saying, “The climate [in recent talks between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas] was positive, but the cloud is still there. The Israelis gave absolutely no hopeful signs that they will continue the moratorium [on settlement building].”
Rather than pin the fate of the talks on Israeli policies, the larger mystery and threat is whether the Palestinians now are prepared to make conflict-ending concessions. Netanyahu adviser Zalman Shoval says the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation-state “more than any other thing is the most tangible obstacle” to peace. In his memoirs released last week, Quartet envoy to the Middle East and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair writes, “If the Palestinian cause gave up violence emphatically and without ambiguity, there would be a peace agreement within a year.”
Netanyahu says Israel will go “a long way” toward achieving peace – presumably, including concessions on settlements. The real “cloud” is whether Palestinian leaders still lack the courage to prepare their people for decisions required of a final deal. According to a recent poll, only a third of Palestinians see negotiations – vice violence – as the best means to an agreement.
Sincerely,
Jess M. Sadick
September 7, 2010
Dear Editorial Page Editor:
I somehow missed the press release announcing Palestinian peace negotiator Nabil Shaath’s appointment as Times headline writer.
“Settlements in West Bank Are Clouding Peace Talks” [September 3, 2010] quotes Shaath as saying, “The climate [in recent talks between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas] was positive, but the cloud is still there. The Israelis gave absolutely no hopeful signs that they will continue the moratorium [on settlement building].”
Rather than pin the fate of the talks on Israeli policies, the larger mystery and threat is whether the Palestinians now are prepared to make conflict-ending concessions. Netanyahu adviser Zalman Shoval says the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation-state “more than any other thing is the most tangible obstacle” to peace. In his memoirs released last week, Quartet envoy to the Middle East and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair writes, “If the Palestinian cause gave up violence emphatically and without ambiguity, there would be a peace agreement within a year.”
Netanyahu says Israel will go “a long way” toward achieving peace – presumably, including concessions on settlements. The real “cloud” is whether Palestinian leaders still lack the courage to prepare their people for decisions required of a final deal. According to a recent poll, only a third of Palestinians see negotiations – vice violence – as the best means to an agreement.
Sincerely,
Jess M. Sadick
US Interfering in Israeli Decision-Making
The following is an unpublished letter-to-the-editor of the Wall Street Journal:
September 2, 2010
Editorial Page Editor
Wall Street Journal
Dear Editorial Page Editor:
U.S. taxpayers should not be subsidizing commercials in which Palestinian leaders profess partnership with Israelis in hopes of winning concessions in peace talks (“Israel, Palestinians Jockey Ahead of Summit,” World News, August 31, 2010). Rather, Israelis alone must decide, based on tangible actions and not empty words, whether Palestinians, and not just their leaders, are trustworthy partners for peace.
A better and more urgent use of U.S. funds would be to enable Palestinian leaders to preach coexistence and compromise to their own people. According to recent polling by the reputable Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, more than three-quarters of Palestinians still aspire to “historic Palestine from the river to the sea,” and a large minority still supports violence. Palestinian leaders and media continue to send counterproductive messages, naming parks and summer camps after “martyred” terrorists and educating children to aspire to “return” to pre-1967 Israel. A children’s program on official Palestinian television last week reportedly described five Israeli cities as “occupied.”
Until Palestinian leaders begin educating their people differently, no peace agreement with Israel will be permanent, regardless of the firmness of their handshake.
Sincerely,
Jess M. Sadick
September 2, 2010
Editorial Page Editor
Wall Street Journal
Dear Editorial Page Editor:
U.S. taxpayers should not be subsidizing commercials in which Palestinian leaders profess partnership with Israelis in hopes of winning concessions in peace talks (“Israel, Palestinians Jockey Ahead of Summit,” World News, August 31, 2010). Rather, Israelis alone must decide, based on tangible actions and not empty words, whether Palestinians, and not just their leaders, are trustworthy partners for peace.
A better and more urgent use of U.S. funds would be to enable Palestinian leaders to preach coexistence and compromise to their own people. According to recent polling by the reputable Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, more than three-quarters of Palestinians still aspire to “historic Palestine from the river to the sea,” and a large minority still supports violence. Palestinian leaders and media continue to send counterproductive messages, naming parks and summer camps after “martyred” terrorists and educating children to aspire to “return” to pre-1967 Israel. A children’s program on official Palestinian television last week reportedly described five Israeli cities as “occupied.”
Until Palestinian leaders begin educating their people differently, no peace agreement with Israel will be permanent, regardless of the firmness of their handshake.
Sincerely,
Jess M. Sadick
A Fair Exchange
Iranian President Ahmadinejad and some aides have applied for visas to enter the Unied States to attend meetings at the United Nations later this month.
This weekend, Iran reportedly had planned to release one of three American hikers accused of spying and held without trial for almost 14 months, but decided instead to condition her release on first receiving $500,000 bail. Undoubtedly, she wouldn't return to stand trial, so the money would be forfeited to Iran's coffers.
President Obama -- who's felt obliged to weigh in on local issues such as the New York City mosque and the Koran-burning Pastor -- should speak out on this one and tell Ahmadenijad:
"If you want visas to enter the U.S., be sure the woman hiker is on your plane when you arrive."
It's that simple. Maybe if the U.S. stood firm and on principle, we would begin to reverse perceptions abroad of U.S. weakness, a theme which Secretary of State touched on in a speech last week. Why should Ahmadinejad enter the United States and dine in New York's finest restaurants while he continues to imprison three innocent American citizens?
This weekend, Iran reportedly had planned to release one of three American hikers accused of spying and held without trial for almost 14 months, but decided instead to condition her release on first receiving $500,000 bail. Undoubtedly, she wouldn't return to stand trial, so the money would be forfeited to Iran's coffers.
President Obama -- who's felt obliged to weigh in on local issues such as the New York City mosque and the Koran-burning Pastor -- should speak out on this one and tell Ahmadenijad:
"If you want visas to enter the U.S., be sure the woman hiker is on your plane when you arrive."
It's that simple. Maybe if the U.S. stood firm and on principle, we would begin to reverse perceptions abroad of U.S. weakness, a theme which Secretary of State touched on in a speech last week. Why should Ahmadinejad enter the United States and dine in New York's finest restaurants while he continues to imprison three innocent American citizens?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
