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.
Showing posts with label US Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Policy. Show all posts
Monday, September 20, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
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?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
US Double-Standard Hits Home
Why is it that Israel must not build new apartments for Jewish residents of its capital city, while Palestinians not only are allowed to but praised for building an entire new city in the disputed West Bank?
President Obama, in November, said Israel's construction of 900 new apartments in a Jewish section of East Jerusalem -- annexed by Israel as part of its capital city after the 1967 war -- could invite Palestinian violence. He said the new housing risked "embittering Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous."
Meantime, Palestinians are being praised for building 6,300 housing units in an entirely new city dubbed Rawabi, five miles north of Ramallah, on the West Bank, whose final status is still subject to negotiations. The city eventually will have schools, a hotel, a shopping center, health clinics, and up to 40,000 residents. Palestinian and Israeli officials, and foreign investors, among them Jews, maintain the city is critical to nurturing a Palestinian middle-class, which probably will be important to weening Palestinians away from violence and toward co-existence.
But why cannot Israel build on land it acquired in a defense war? Why the double-standard allowing only Palestinians to build, in areas not yet legally theirs? The European Union, Americans, United Nations, and others who have challenged the legality and propriety of Israeli construction ought to be held to account for their biased opposition.
President Obama, in November, said Israel's construction of 900 new apartments in a Jewish section of East Jerusalem -- annexed by Israel as part of its capital city after the 1967 war -- could invite Palestinian violence. He said the new housing risked "embittering Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous."
Meantime, Palestinians are being praised for building 6,300 housing units in an entirely new city dubbed Rawabi, five miles north of Ramallah, on the West Bank, whose final status is still subject to negotiations. The city eventually will have schools, a hotel, a shopping center, health clinics, and up to 40,000 residents. Palestinian and Israeli officials, and foreign investors, among them Jews, maintain the city is critical to nurturing a Palestinian middle-class, which probably will be important to weening Palestinians away from violence and toward co-existence.
But why cannot Israel build on land it acquired in a defense war? Why the double-standard allowing only Palestinians to build, in areas not yet legally theirs? The European Union, Americans, United Nations, and others who have challenged the legality and propriety of Israeli construction ought to be held to account for their biased opposition.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Giving Terrorists a Head-Start Again
In the wake of the botched Christmas Day bombing of a Detroit-bound jet from Amsterdam, it would make sense were the United States government to impose heightened screening of passengers arriving from certain high-risk countries where terrorists are known to operate.
Thankfully, that's exactly what the U.S. Government apparently has decided to do.
But would it make sense for the U.S. Government to publicly announce exactly which countries will be subject to the enhanced screening? Of course not, because then the terrorists will launch airline attacks from other countries where security is less stringent.
But that is exactly what the U.S. has done. In announcing the new measures, it also revealed the names of at least 14 countries from where passengers will be double and triple-checked.
Shooting ourselves in the feet again.
Thankfully, that's exactly what the U.S. Government apparently has decided to do.
But would it make sense for the U.S. Government to publicly announce exactly which countries will be subject to the enhanced screening? Of course not, because then the terrorists will launch airline attacks from other countries where security is less stringent.
But that is exactly what the U.S. has done. In announcing the new measures, it also revealed the names of at least 14 countries from where passengers will be double and triple-checked.
Shooting ourselves in the feet again.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Hamas Leaders Safe in Gaza; Fatah's True Colors
The Palestinian group Hamas has committed dozens of suicide bombings, not to mention other terrorist attacks, which have killed hundreds of Israelis. Wouldn't you think Hamas leaders would make for legitimate targets? Why should they be allowed to roam free in Gaza, which they now govern?
The Associated Press has published a photo of all of Hamas's senior leadership at a rally in Gaza on January 2. I'd like to hear Israel's justification for not eliminating them right then and there.
Meantime, in the Balata refugee camp on the West Bank, at a rally marking Fatah's 45th anniversary, young Palestinian girls carried rifles. Wouldn't you expect Fatah -- which the West trumpets as the "moderate" alternative to Hamas and whose leader, Mahmoud Abbas, the U.S. bankrolls and helps legitimize -- to encourage future generations to pursue conflict resolution through non-violence? Why is it so outragous to demand that Fatah not equip Palestinian children with weapons -- real or plastic -- at public rallies? Where are U.S. complaints? If the U.S. takes issue with Israeli housing construction in Israel's capital city, then certainly it ought to take issue as well with Fatah's encouraging violence among Palestinian kids.
The photos were published in this news story which appeared at WashingtonPost.com on January 2.
The Associated Press has published a photo of all of Hamas's senior leadership at a rally in Gaza on January 2. I'd like to hear Israel's justification for not eliminating them right then and there.
Meantime, in the Balata refugee camp on the West Bank, at a rally marking Fatah's 45th anniversary, young Palestinian girls carried rifles. Wouldn't you expect Fatah -- which the West trumpets as the "moderate" alternative to Hamas and whose leader, Mahmoud Abbas, the U.S. bankrolls and helps legitimize -- to encourage future generations to pursue conflict resolution through non-violence? Why is it so outragous to demand that Fatah not equip Palestinian children with weapons -- real or plastic -- at public rallies? Where are U.S. complaints? If the U.S. takes issue with Israeli housing construction in Israel's capital city, then certainly it ought to take issue as well with Fatah's encouraging violence among Palestinian kids.
The photos were published in this news story which appeared at WashingtonPost.com on January 2.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Combatting Domestic Extremism May Require Compromises
The increasingly urgent task of identifying, locating, and rooting out Islamic extremists and prospective jihadists who live, work, study, etc. in the United States may require that law enforcement cooperate with some distasteful people, much to the chagrin of groups that would prefer otherwise.
A handful of counterterrorism and national security groups in Washington have attempted for years to delegitimize the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. The effort stems from documents made public in 2008 linking CAIR's founding to an effort by the Muslim Brotherhood to spread Islamic radicalism to the United States and to raise money for Hamas.
Earlier this year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation cut ties to CAIR due to pressure from such advocacy groups.
Now, however, following news that CAIR helped connect to the FBI American parents worried their sons traveled abroad for jihad, CAIR's usefulness is more apparent. The parents provided information to help authorities investigate their sons' whereabouts, activities, and plans.
To the extent that CAIR and Muslim-American groups like it can help law enforcement root out nascent jihadist networks inside the U.S., then the fact of the matter is -- regardless of how disturbing it may be to hear -- that such groups should have a role in U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
Still, U.S. authorities should trek carefully. Relations with such groups should be contingent upon the extent of their cooperation and the nature of their other activites. But today's domestic counterterrorism challenges may require some flexibility. So long as CAIR is not supporting active terrorist planning, it may prove a useful -- and necessary -- counterterrorism tool. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, who stood before the media cameras to announce CAIR's assistance to the parents, probably couldn't be more happy with the renewed attention his group is receiving.
A handful of counterterrorism and national security groups in Washington have attempted for years to delegitimize the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. The effort stems from documents made public in 2008 linking CAIR's founding to an effort by the Muslim Brotherhood to spread Islamic radicalism to the United States and to raise money for Hamas.
Earlier this year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation cut ties to CAIR due to pressure from such advocacy groups.
Now, however, following news that CAIR helped connect to the FBI American parents worried their sons traveled abroad for jihad, CAIR's usefulness is more apparent. The parents provided information to help authorities investigate their sons' whereabouts, activities, and plans.
To the extent that CAIR and Muslim-American groups like it can help law enforcement root out nascent jihadist networks inside the U.S., then the fact of the matter is -- regardless of how disturbing it may be to hear -- that such groups should have a role in U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
Still, U.S. authorities should trek carefully. Relations with such groups should be contingent upon the extent of their cooperation and the nature of their other activites. But today's domestic counterterrorism challenges may require some flexibility. So long as CAIR is not supporting active terrorist planning, it may prove a useful -- and necessary -- counterterrorism tool. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, who stood before the media cameras to announce CAIR's assistance to the parents, probably couldn't be more happy with the renewed attention his group is receiving.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
White House Wrong on Israeli Housing Construction
The municipal government of Jerusalem this week approved the construction of 900 new apartments in the Jewish neighborhood of Gilo. After the 1967 war in which Arab states tried again to eliminate Israel, Israel was left in control of all of Jerusalem, including the area where Gilo now sits. (Note: The Washington Post misleadingly called the apartments “homes,” which conjures up an image of a huge swath of land dotted with 900 single-family houses and white picket fences when, in fact, the Gilo construction is much more limited in its footprint.)
Unfortunate for the Arabs, they tried to defeat Israel by war and lost. Usually, to the victor go the spoils, but not, it seems, when it comes to Israel and the Middle East. Instead, Israel is expected to give away its hard-won assets for empty promises and, if it’s lucky, cold peace.
Also unfortunate for the Arabs, the Israelis now have a government that understands the illogic of this approach and has no intention of yielding, to them or to the White House, the Jewish state’s right to build apartments for Jews on land on which Jewish blood was lost while defending the state.
In the history of time, no authority over Jerusalem has ever guaranteed religious access as much as Israel has - a fact that objective observers cannot deny. Sure, once in a while, intelligence of planned unrest forces security closures. But there is no doubting that Arab authorities enjoy and exercise wide latitude in managing sites important to the Muslim faith. (In fact, unchecked Arab construction on the Temple Mount which threatens sensitive antiquities there suggests Arab authorities enjoy too much autonomy, but that’s a subject for a future article.)
The point is: sharing control over Jerusalem with the Arabs is unnecessary. They have 22 of their own Arab countries, including control of religious sites Mecca and Medina. Mentioned only as the “remote place” in their Koran, Jerusalem is of low religious significance, and Arab demands to control at least part of the city are baseless and unreasonable. The United States should join Israel in continuing to resist such demands in perpetuity.
Instead, Barak Obama’s White House has it all wrong. Spokesman Robert Gibbs said of the Jerusalem municipality’s decision to build in Gilo: “At a time when we are working to relaunch negotiations [between Israel and the Palestinians], these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed.”
Israel’s actions make it “more difficult” because the White House allows them to, by giving Palestinians cover for refusing to negotiate.
Instead, Gibbs ought to have said: “Israel has announced plans to build new housing for Jews in Gilo in order to accommodate the natural growth of families who, understandably, need more space to live. Israel won the land in Gilo in a defensive war and, obviously, as a consequence, has an absolute right to build there….”
Gibbs would continue: “If the Arabs aspire to control parts of Jerusalem, they had better get their act together soon before their hoped-for piece of the pie shrinks any further. The Palestinians ought to come to the table, in good faith, ready to make substantive concessions to Israel in order to forge a lasting peace. Maybe then, Israel will voluntarily curtail construction. The Palestinians shouldn’t miss another opportunity.”
Israeli settlement and other housing construction for Jews is only a “problem” for the so-called “peace process” because the Arabs and this White House make it so. The fact of the matter is that robust Israeli construction, 1) demonstrates to the Palestinians that time is not on their side and 2) would hasten the pace of, and not obstruct, negotiations toward a final peace settlement if that really were the Palestinians’ ultimate goal.
Unfortunate for the Arabs, they tried to defeat Israel by war and lost. Usually, to the victor go the spoils, but not, it seems, when it comes to Israel and the Middle East. Instead, Israel is expected to give away its hard-won assets for empty promises and, if it’s lucky, cold peace.
Also unfortunate for the Arabs, the Israelis now have a government that understands the illogic of this approach and has no intention of yielding, to them or to the White House, the Jewish state’s right to build apartments for Jews on land on which Jewish blood was lost while defending the state.
In the history of time, no authority over Jerusalem has ever guaranteed religious access as much as Israel has - a fact that objective observers cannot deny. Sure, once in a while, intelligence of planned unrest forces security closures. But there is no doubting that Arab authorities enjoy and exercise wide latitude in managing sites important to the Muslim faith. (In fact, unchecked Arab construction on the Temple Mount which threatens sensitive antiquities there suggests Arab authorities enjoy too much autonomy, but that’s a subject for a future article.)
The point is: sharing control over Jerusalem with the Arabs is unnecessary. They have 22 of their own Arab countries, including control of religious sites Mecca and Medina. Mentioned only as the “remote place” in their Koran, Jerusalem is of low religious significance, and Arab demands to control at least part of the city are baseless and unreasonable. The United States should join Israel in continuing to resist such demands in perpetuity.
Instead, Barak Obama’s White House has it all wrong. Spokesman Robert Gibbs said of the Jerusalem municipality’s decision to build in Gilo: “At a time when we are working to relaunch negotiations [between Israel and the Palestinians], these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed.”
Israel’s actions make it “more difficult” because the White House allows them to, by giving Palestinians cover for refusing to negotiate.
Instead, Gibbs ought to have said: “Israel has announced plans to build new housing for Jews in Gilo in order to accommodate the natural growth of families who, understandably, need more space to live. Israel won the land in Gilo in a defensive war and, obviously, as a consequence, has an absolute right to build there….”
Gibbs would continue: “If the Arabs aspire to control parts of Jerusalem, they had better get their act together soon before their hoped-for piece of the pie shrinks any further. The Palestinians ought to come to the table, in good faith, ready to make substantive concessions to Israel in order to forge a lasting peace. Maybe then, Israel will voluntarily curtail construction. The Palestinians shouldn’t miss another opportunity.”
Israeli settlement and other housing construction for Jews is only a “problem” for the so-called “peace process” because the Arabs and this White House make it so. The fact of the matter is that robust Israeli construction, 1) demonstrates to the Palestinians that time is not on their side and 2) would hasten the pace of, and not obstruct, negotiations toward a final peace settlement if that really were the Palestinians’ ultimate goal.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
State Dept Hypocrisy
For years, the U.S. State Department has refused to identify "Jerusalem, Israel" on the passports of Americans (mostly Jewish Americans) born there and who specifically request the designation. (Meanwhile, upon request, it has omitted or removed "Israel" from the passports of Arab-Americans born in Haifa or Tel Aviv.) State has done this because it could not stomach the thought of even tacitly acknowledging Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
A 2002 U.S. law required that State begin to identify "Jerusalem, Israel" on passports if asked to do so, but State has refused to comply. The US Court of Appeals recently refused to intervene in the matter, calling it a non-justiciable political question, according to an article in the July 19 Jerusalem Post online.
So, why do we write about this now?
Because for individuals traveling to the Palestinian Authority-administered areas only, Israel will now stamp passports with a "Palestinian Authority only" entry stamp. It's doing so for security reasons, to prevent individuals who are deemed security risks from wandering about Israel without business being there.
State, however, has deemed the new practice "unfair" to Palestinian and Arab-Americans and "not acceptable." State has told Israel it "expects all American citizens to be treated equally, regardless of their national origin or other citizenship."
It is hypocritical of State to refuse to apply this standard to its own practices, continuing to distinguish between Americans born in Jerusalem from those born in other parts of Israel and making special exceptions for Americans of Arab descent.
The Associated Press had more on the story here.
A 2002 U.S. law required that State begin to identify "Jerusalem, Israel" on passports if asked to do so, but State has refused to comply. The US Court of Appeals recently refused to intervene in the matter, calling it a non-justiciable political question, according to an article in the July 19 Jerusalem Post online.
So, why do we write about this now?
Because for individuals traveling to the Palestinian Authority-administered areas only, Israel will now stamp passports with a "Palestinian Authority only" entry stamp. It's doing so for security reasons, to prevent individuals who are deemed security risks from wandering about Israel without business being there.
State, however, has deemed the new practice "unfair" to Palestinian and Arab-Americans and "not acceptable." State has told Israel it "expects all American citizens to be treated equally, regardless of their national origin or other citizenship."
It is hypocritical of State to refuse to apply this standard to its own practices, continuing to distinguish between Americans born in Jerusalem from those born in other parts of Israel and making special exceptions for Americans of Arab descent.
The Associated Press had more on the story here.
The Importance of Alternative Analysis
One of the reasons that the Middle East Contrarian exists is because we believe in the importance of alternative analysis. We recall, from our government service days, seeing the intoxicating effect of "group think" leading to intellectual paralysis and a genuine fear of sharing an opinion different from your colleagues. (Essentially, the U.S. taxpayer is paying the CIA to hire, employ, and train Israel political analysts who all think exactly alike.) That has, and will continue to, lead to disasters in American foreign policy -- most notably, the incessant push to create a Palestinian state while the Palestinians have repeatedly shown their unpreparedness for the responsibilities of statehood.
In an editorial today, the Israeli daily Ma'ariv reminds us of the important lessons drawn by a committee investigating Israel's actions leading up to the Yom Kippur war in 1973, when Israel was caught by surprise by an Arab attack:
In an editorial today, the Israeli daily Ma'ariv reminds us of the important lessons drawn by a committee investigating Israel's actions leading up to the Yom Kippur war in 1973, when Israel was caught by surprise by an Arab attack:
'Do not block or prevent different thinking and the presentation of alternative positions,' and 'Encourage pluralism; encourage more than one element to voice assessments and propose policy.'
Monday, August 17, 2009
Neglecting Egyptian Political Reform
In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, Michele Dunne of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace does a great job reminding us -- and, more importantly, Obama's White House -- of the need to resuscitate the push for more democracy and human rights in Egypt. She says Obama is mistaken to have set aside these concerns in the hope that doing so will win Egyptian support for other U.S. priorities -- namely, the peace process and Iranian nukes:
But Obama can have Mubarak's help without having to pay for it with his silence. Mubarak shares Washington's interests in preventing the emergence of a permanent Hamas state in Gaza, in promoting a peace agreement between Palestinians and Israel, and in containing Iranian nuclear ambitions. He will work toward those ends for his own reasons and cooperate with the United States accordingly -- as he did even at the height of the Bush administration's democracy promotion rhetoric in 2004 and 2005.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Media Faults Obama on Israel Policy
Voices criticizing President Obama's policy toward Israel are increasing. Anyone interested in developments in US-Israel relations and the Israel-Palestinian issue must drop everything and read the following three referenced items:
On July 30, the Washington Post published an outstanding editorial arguing Obama's very public anti-settlement stance and general hostility toward Israel may backfire.
This followed an equally stellar piece in the Jerusalem Post by Isi Leibler calling on American Jews who voted for Obama to cash in their chits and demand a more understandable approach to Israel from the White House. (They should also, by the way, beg forgiveness from us American Jews who knew better and voted McCain.) Among Leibler's points: none other than the Zionist Organization of America was excluded from a White House meeting about Israel between Obama and American Jewish groups at which the ZOA's defense of Jewish housing in Jerusalem and the West Bank could otherwise have been heard. Shamefully, no other group reportedly presented such a perspective.
Finally, the Australian reminded anyone who needed to be reminded -- which excludes the MiddleEastContrarian -- that reformed Palestinian leadership "mature enough" to confront terrorism -- and not Jewish settlements -- is the key to Israel-Palestinian peace.
On July 30, the Washington Post published an outstanding editorial arguing Obama's very public anti-settlement stance and general hostility toward Israel may backfire.
This followed an equally stellar piece in the Jerusalem Post by Isi Leibler calling on American Jews who voted for Obama to cash in their chits and demand a more understandable approach to Israel from the White House. (They should also, by the way, beg forgiveness from us American Jews who knew better and voted McCain.) Among Leibler's points: none other than the Zionist Organization of America was excluded from a White House meeting about Israel between Obama and American Jewish groups at which the ZOA's defense of Jewish housing in Jerusalem and the West Bank could otherwise have been heard. Shamefully, no other group reportedly presented such a perspective.
Finally, the Australian reminded anyone who needed to be reminded -- which excludes the MiddleEastContrarian -- that reformed Palestinian leadership "mature enough" to confront terrorism -- and not Jewish settlements -- is the key to Israel-Palestinian peace.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Obama/Biden: Right Turn on Israel
After blowing way out of proportion U.S. opposition to Israeli settlements policy and redirecting world attention from Palestinian reform efforts, where it ought to be, the White House is now starting to head in the right direction on Israel.
Over the weekend, Vice President Biden said Israel has a "sovereign right" to decide for itself whether a military strike on facilities associated with Iran's nuclear weapons program is in its national security interests.
It is important that the U.S. continue to publicly recognize Israel's prerogative to determine for itself what, if any, actions are necessary to ensure its security and to assist Israel in any way possible to help provide security.
Over the weekend, Vice President Biden said Israel has a "sovereign right" to decide for itself whether a military strike on facilities associated with Iran's nuclear weapons program is in its national security interests.
Israel “can determine for itself as a sovereign nation what is in its best interest,” Biden said. "If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice."Later, asked to respond to Biden's comments, President Obama, while traveling abroad, insisted the U.S. had "absolutely not" given Israel the proverbial "green light" to attack Israel but that "We can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are."
It is important that the U.S. continue to publicly recognize Israel's prerogative to determine for itself what, if any, actions are necessary to ensure its security and to assist Israel in any way possible to help provide security.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Not an Encouraging Start
Ok, here is my letter to President Obama advising that all this high-level attention to Israeli settlement policy is a very, very bad idea:
June 3, 2009
Hon. Barak Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Regarding your initial forays into Middle East peace-making, predominant attention to Israeli settlement policy is ill-advised and will prove counter-productive.
As demonstrated in Gaza, dismantling settlements or otherwise curtailing settlement activity is ineffective in assuaging Palestinian demands or encouraging Palestinians to compromise. Refocusing attention on Israel and settlements signals to Palestinians that the need for Palestinian reforms is less urgent. Though you may continue to highlight the need for such reforms, putting settlements first gives Palestinians an excuse to delay any actions of their own. Indeed, as Palestinian President Abbas recently told the Washington Post, he will not intervene with Arab leaders to encourage relations with Israel.
The Bush Administration was mistaken in taking a perceived quick path to victory in Iraq – that is, the military ouster of Iraq’s leadership – rather than the slower path of nurturing political change from within Iraq. Similarly, the longer but surely more effective way to reach a secure and lasting peace between Israel and Palestinians is to increase, not lessen, pressure on Palestinians for accountability, transparency, and counter-terrorism. Unfortunately, only after years of stagnation, and in the face of continued advancement and progress elsewhere in the world, will increasing numbers of Palestinians demand more effective leadership and recognize the need to make compromises for peace.
Your advisers are mistaken in calculating that focusing attention on settlements will win Arab support and Palestinian concessions. Rather, such a policy will only result in further Palestinian intransigence and expectations of more U.S. pressure on Israel. On the other hand, if you maintain focus and pressure on Palestinians to reform and meet their previous commitments, their leadership may not immediate oblige but the Palestinian people, in order to have a better life, will eventually demand of their leaders more reasonable policies. This is the proper, though admittedly more difficult, path to Middle East peace, and if none of your advisers have shared this perspective, then you ought to replace them or seek more diverse input.
Thank you for your time and attention.
June 3, 2009
Hon. Barak Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Regarding your initial forays into Middle East peace-making, predominant attention to Israeli settlement policy is ill-advised and will prove counter-productive.
As demonstrated in Gaza, dismantling settlements or otherwise curtailing settlement activity is ineffective in assuaging Palestinian demands or encouraging Palestinians to compromise. Refocusing attention on Israel and settlements signals to Palestinians that the need for Palestinian reforms is less urgent. Though you may continue to highlight the need for such reforms, putting settlements first gives Palestinians an excuse to delay any actions of their own. Indeed, as Palestinian President Abbas recently told the Washington Post, he will not intervene with Arab leaders to encourage relations with Israel.
The Bush Administration was mistaken in taking a perceived quick path to victory in Iraq – that is, the military ouster of Iraq’s leadership – rather than the slower path of nurturing political change from within Iraq. Similarly, the longer but surely more effective way to reach a secure and lasting peace between Israel and Palestinians is to increase, not lessen, pressure on Palestinians for accountability, transparency, and counter-terrorism. Unfortunately, only after years of stagnation, and in the face of continued advancement and progress elsewhere in the world, will increasing numbers of Palestinians demand more effective leadership and recognize the need to make compromises for peace.
Your advisers are mistaken in calculating that focusing attention on settlements will win Arab support and Palestinian concessions. Rather, such a policy will only result in further Palestinian intransigence and expectations of more U.S. pressure on Israel. On the other hand, if you maintain focus and pressure on Palestinians to reform and meet their previous commitments, their leadership may not immediate oblige but the Palestinian people, in order to have a better life, will eventually demand of their leaders more reasonable policies. This is the proper, though admittedly more difficult, path to Middle East peace, and if none of your advisers have shared this perspective, then you ought to replace them or seek more diverse input.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Editorial Urges Pressure on Egypt's Mubarak
Kudos to the Washington Post for today's editorial calling upon President Obama not to invite Egyptian President Mubarak to Washington unconditionally.
If he does, the administration will send the region the message that the corrupt old status quo -- in which the United States backed Arab dictators in exchange for help with U.S. strategic interests -- has been restored. That would inflict crippling damage on Mr. Obama's attempt to restore U.S. credibility and prestige, particularly with the millions of secular, middle-class Arabs who chafe under corrupt autocracies.
With Bush gone, it is important that Washington continue to call for political reform in Arab countries. Not that Bush was so successful in this regard, but at least he raised the issue for at least a while. Obama, too, needs to recognize that Middle East stability and the fight against terrorism depend upon spreading freedom in the Arab world. U.S. relations with the Arabs need to be conditioned on measurable progress in this regard.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
AP Misunderstands Bush Palestine Policy
AP reporter Jennifer Loven, reporting from Sharm al-Sheikh, Egypt, where President Bush is meeting Arab leaders after visiting Israel, said that, in a speech to the Israeli Knesset the other day marking Israel's 60th birthday, Bush barely mentioned the Palestinians' plight and foresaw a Palestinian state only in 2068. She then quotes several Arab leaders and officials sharply criticizing the speech.
In his speech, Bush said he envisioned that the Palestinians "will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved -- a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror."
With these remarks, Bush has gone further than any other Arab leader in supporting a Palestinian state. How so? Because of the conditions he's placed on it. A Palestinian state that resembles its Arab neighbors, where the people cannot freely vote for their leaders who stay in office for lifetimes and where violence reigns, like seen most recently in Lebanon, will do the Palestinians, and the rest of us, much harm and little good. Unlike Ms. Loven would have us believe, Bush understands and sympathizes with the Palestinians' plight very well and very much so because he wants to save them from the failure leadership and sad predicament that most of their Arab bretheren must endure.
In his speech, Bush said he envisioned that the Palestinians "will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved -- a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror."
With these remarks, Bush has gone further than any other Arab leader in supporting a Palestinian state. How so? Because of the conditions he's placed on it. A Palestinian state that resembles its Arab neighbors, where the people cannot freely vote for their leaders who stay in office for lifetimes and where violence reigns, like seen most recently in Lebanon, will do the Palestinians, and the rest of us, much harm and little good. Unlike Ms. Loven would have us believe, Bush understands and sympathizes with the Palestinians' plight very well and very much so because he wants to save them from the failure leadership and sad predicament that most of their Arab bretheren must endure.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Egypt Should Arrest, not Entertain, Palestinian Terrorists
The New York Times reported on Friday that Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman hosted a delegation of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad members for discussions on reaching a cease-fire with Israel in Gaza. Instead of welcoming the Palestinian terrorists with open arms and hot coffee, the Egyptian official -- whose country signed a "peace" treaty with Israel and is bound by United Nations resolutions to fight terrorism -- should have summoned his security men and arrested and jailed his guests for transfer to Israeli or US authorities. The US and Israel should demand that Egypt stop providing the political cover these terrorist groups need to survive. The solution to terrorism is not to strike a deal with these groups but, rather, to dismantle them and starve them of legitimacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
