#Tomorrow13 Should we initiate or should we wait until the Middle East sorts itself out?
Anyone who has read this blog for a day or more knows my position on this.... Steve Linde moderating.
I walked into
this session as Itamar Rabinovich was speaking and now Dore Gold is up. Gold says that before we talk about what we should do, we have to recognize what has happened and where we stand. He says that we don't have an option for a permanent status agreement with the 'Palestinians' and lots of weapons on our borders and therefore we have to adopt the position of dispensable borders. Leaving the Jordan Valley would be a national disaster.
Dore Gold says that Hassan Rohani is a master of taqiyya and is the star of the first chapter of Gold's book on the Iranian nuclear threat. Rohani bragged in 2004 about how they completed their nuclear program because of his negotiations. Rohani is not a dove but a fox.
Dan Kurtzer now speaking. Kurtzer wants to talk about the ostrich and the eagle. Kurtzer says that ostrich exposes a certain part of its anatomy that might be
exposed to shrapnel by burying its head in the ground. Israel has limited ability to influence change in Arab world, and is mostly affected by what Israel says and not by what it does. Response to Arab spring so far has been enlightened.
Kurtzer found out over the last few days that he's a solutionist and he believes that there's a solution to our dispute with the 'Palestinians.' Gap has been narrowed significantly but no final settlement has been reached. He thinks Israeli initiative which shows it understands that fire in its own house must be put out would be smart. That must include secure, recognized and defensible borders. Both peace treaties with Arab neighbors have provided us with security because they gave us peace partners who were responsible to implement the treaty just like we were. He says borders have to be negotiated. Starting with defined borders may be a way back into the 'peace process.'
Kurtzer says there's a major debate in the US over intervention in Syria. Israelis know better than anyone that conflict fatigue has affected the US - troops on the ground here for the last 12 years. To what degree are concrete achievable American needs at stake? American people aren't sure. Is a devil we know better than what will emerge from the outcome?
Meir Dagan up next. Says he's not a prophet. Says we should not fear worst case scenario. Says our interest and those of the Gulf countries, Egypt and maybe even the 'Palestinians' all have the same interest. All of us fear the open conflict between Shiite and Sunni, and that this creates opportunities for Israel to create different alliances.
Says Saudi plan a starting point and vital for us to discuss it even though he doesn't like all of it either. There are things for which we need the support of other Arab countries to reach an arrangement with the 'Palestinians.' Problems are complicated. Lists other issues in Iran aside from nuclear issue.
If Assad doesn't win in Syria, we can shut down Hezbullah. There are more opportunities here and we should take initiative with Arab world. Says the Muslim Brotherhood took over in Egypt because they were very well organized. New regimes in Tunisia and Libya may not survive - they are criticized daily. The same is true in Egypt. Morsy trying his best not to touch agreement with Israel because he is dependent on money he receives from the United States. King Abdullah has been ruling Jordan longer than any Prime Minister of Israel or any President of the United States. We took a risk with Jordan and it paid off. We have to prepare ourselves for the worst but take every opportunity and chance that we get.
20 minutes of panel debate and then short questions.
Sima Shine says she agrees with Dagan because he was her boss.... She wants to talk about the Iranian election. Where is Iran really going? She doesn't have an answer yet. Rohani is only becoming President in August. What does it mean that he was elected with more than 50% in the first round? She says that the public in Iran sees Rohani as stepping into Moussavi's shoes from 2009. Have to look at his internal agenda - is talking about lifting censorship and giving women more freedom. But the economy is terrible. In July there will be more sanctions. You cannot disconnect the economy from sanctions and the nuclear project and therefore he cannot improve the economy without coming to terms over the nuclear program. The Iranians want sanctions removed which is impossible.
She says that there is no doubt that Israel must initiate. The question is whether Israel has a good answer to all its problems and are they all connected. Will doing something about the 'Palestinians' change the situations in Syria and Iran? She says yes (I say no).
Itamar Rabinovich says that the problem is that no Israeli leader will put Olmert's 2008 proposal on the table, but that Abu Mazen won't accept anything else. So how to find a way to move forward? Offering them $4 billion as a bribe is not the best way forward. Saudi plan (now known as Arab peace initiative) may not be the best way forward. It talks about return to 1967 borders. That includes Syria and obviously no one is going to do that today. So need to open a dialogue with the Saudis but cannot put five lines on the table and say 'take it or leave it.'
Dore Gold says he agrees with Rabinovich that time is not ripe for a full final status agreement. He says that he also agrees with much of what Dagan said. In the '90's the entire approach was economic. The Middle East we have today has two common threats - the Iranians and the Muslim Brotherhood. That should help us to build dialogue with some Sunni Arab countries, but that dialogue has to be quiet.
Rabinovich says that 'two-state solution' is not dead and criticizes senior Israeli officials for saying that it's dead. For a senior minister in the cabinet to say that the 'two-state solution' is dead is damaging.
Kurtzer asks why isn't this the time to try for a final status agreement. He thinks this is a time to try for it. He says that we cannot look at the Arab peace initiative through its details but we have to understand the context and that it represents a victory for Zionism because it shows that the Arab world has given up on trying to destroy Israel. In 2002, Arab world threw up its hands and said that Israel is here to stay (if only... CiJ).
Kurtzer says that if we don't agree with him, we shouldn't keep digging the hole deeper with 'settlements.' He says it's just exacerbating the problem every day. People are moving into these houses with no expectation of being a bargaining chip and complicating the agreement that Israel says its seeks with the Arab world. Says people are looking at details instead of looking at eagle's perspective. Dagan pointed out unexpected benefits of Morsy government which has done more to stop Hamas tunnels than anyone else. Egypt working with Israel on strategic issues. Kurtzer says it's time for final status agreement but at least don't make the situation worse.
Dore Gold says that the problem with the Arab peace initiative is that it's 'take it or leave it.' You can't even keep the 'refugees' in Lebanon. It's not a basis for sitting down to talk. Unfortunately, it's take it or leave it.
Meir Dagan disagrees. He says that Israel has to start a serious dialogue with the 'Palestinians.' Saying that there's no way to reach an agreement is damaging to Israel. He knows we cannot reach a final agreement with the 'Palestinians' now but we have to talk to them seriously. He says that we have to take seriously the Arab League's willingness to accept the existence of the State of Israel.
Dagan says he agrees with Kurtzer. Asks rhetorically if we should wait for Hamas to take over in the 'West Bank.' At least the 'Palestinian Authority' has a goal of establishing a 'Palestinian state.' Says Hamas would win election and that is worst case scenario for Israel.
Now taking questions from the audience. First questioner asks Dore Gold why Israel doesn't just call the 'Palestinians' bluff by offering six-month 'settlement freeze.' (Because we did already - CiJ). Gold says just what I said. We did this. It may not have been perfect but the US recognized it was a real freeze. Maybe Mahmoud Abbas doesn't want a negotiation right now. Mubarak would help him in the old days but now Hamas' sponsors are in control in Cairo. Gold says that in a NY Times interview a few years ago, Abbas said that 'settlements' constitute 1.2% of 'West Bank' and Abbas offered 1.9% swap. Arafat signed Oslo without a 'settlement freeze.' There are far more important issues.
Itamar Rabinovich talks about 'settlement products' in Europe. Says Europeans ask why we don't want them to take a more active role. He says just think of what happened a few weeks ago and how the Austrians ran away from the Golan Heights (remember EUBAM? CiJ). BDS gaining in Europe. Rabinovich says don't expand 'settlements.' Improve our hasbara (public relations). Put 20 spokesmen on networks and it won't help if a minister gets up and says that Bibi doesn't want a 'two-state solution.'
Next questioner asks Dan Kurtzer what we're going to do about the Russians holding all the cards in Syria. Kurtzer says that you have to be careful what you say publicly (implies that Obama spoke too quickly on Syrian use of chemical weapons). US trying to weigh all factors carefully. What happens if Assad stays in power? Who will come to power if he leaves? If US believed that there would be a liberal democratic regime in Syria, there would be US bombers in Syria today. But that's not going to happen and the civil war is likely to continue even if Assad leaves. Russia has significant interests in that context. US and Russia trying to align their interests in a way that provides for a reasonable transition in Syria. It hasn't happened yet.
Meir Dagan disagrees with Dore Gold - says that the IDF can protect Israel from any border that the government decides. Withdrawing from Jordan Valley not a disaster according to Dagan. In 1967 we were on different borders and we prevailed militarily. Using security for political issues is a mistake according to Dagan.
Dore Gold cites Yitzchak Rabin's last speech to the Knesset in which he said that Israel had to retain the Jordan Valley in the widest sense possible. Ariel Sharon said the same and so did Gold when he prepared the IDF's interest map for Prime Minister Netanyahu. Gold and Dagan are going back and forth on this.
Dagan claims that Jordan Valley was only important until 1991. Iraq, Syria and Jordan were a threat until 1991 - called Eastern front. Claims it's no longer an issue (Really? Weapons smuggling to 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria? CiJ) because Iraq has no military and Abdullah won't join an eastern front. Says have to prevent terrorists from coming in but don't need direct military presence to do that if you have good cooperation with the Jordanians. Says he's not presenting a political approach. IDF can protect Israel from different borders.
Sima Shine agrees with Dagan (again - why is she on this panel?) about the Arab peace initiative even though we don't like the details and even though we don't know who will rule Syria. You have to take into account that the Arab peace initiative now is mostly Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf and maybe Syria.
End of session.
Labels: Dan Kurtzer, Dore Gold, Hassan Rohani, Iranian nuclear threat, Itamar Rabinovich, President's Conference, Steve Linde, Tomorrow Conference
They never give up, do they?
In yet another indication that the Obama administration is going back to 2009 again, former US Ambassador to Israel and Egypt, Dan Kurtzer, told the Middle East Institute on Wednesday night that President ma's second term has gotten off to 'exactly the right kind of start' - despite the questionable results of Obama's and Secretary of State John FN Kerry's trips here. Kurtzer also waxed prolific about how 'if only' there would be peace between Israel and the 'Palestinians' it would be so much easier to
put together a coalition to stop Iran.
“The ability of the United States to marshal a
coalition that will be necessary to deal with the Iran issues is far more
complicated today,” Kurtzer said in an appearance at the Middle East Institute
in Washington.
He attributed that to “far weaker Arab leadership and the
tendency of Arab leaders to be much more attuned to what we have traditionally
called the ‘Arab Street.’” Kurtzer said that in that context, working on the
Arab-Israel conflict would help those leaders in dealing with their street and
therefore create more space to “follow the United States’ lead with respect to
an Iran crisis should it emerge.”
In pressing ahead with the peace
process, Kurtzer, speaking to The Jerusalem Post after his MEI presentation,
said that US President Barack Obama’s second term had “gotten off to exactly the
right kind of start.”
What Kurtzer is pushing is known as '
linkage' and it's something almost no one in Israel accepts. The Obama administration
tried pushing it during their first term, and finally dropped it in 2011. For that matter, 'our friends the Saudis'
don't accept it either, and some on the Left have even argued that if there is any linkage, it works the other way - that
you have to stop Iran to have peace.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Dan Kurtzer, John Kerry, linkage
So much shilling, so little to show for it
Jennifer Rubin writes that no supporter of Israel should cry over the departure of
Dennis Ross as President Obama's special assistant on the Middle East.
One wondered at times how Ross justified his tenure. (“Well, Obama would have been worse without me”?) His principal function at times appeared to be no more than assuring the American Jewish community that Obama had Israel’s best interests at heart.
Former deputy national security advisor for President George W. Bush, Elliott Abrams, told me: “Dennis Ross was a reassuring presence for lots of American Jewish leaders who were very uneasy about Obama Middle East policy. No matter what the President said or did, they would always say well, but Dennis is there, Dennis says it’s OK, Dennis this and Dennis that. He was a facade behind which the political and diplomatic distance between the United States and Israel grew.” Going forward there will be no Dennis, of course. Abrams continued,“Now that facade will be removed, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that Ross tired of that role and tired of defending a president whose feelings about Israel were as cold as Ross’s are warm. This is going to hurt the White House in the Jewish community, because they have no substitute for Ross and no one with his credibility with most Jewish organizations.”
And yet, dispite those warm feelings, Ross served a president that bullied and badgered the Jewish state and insulted its democratically elected prime minister. And yet Ross was there when Obama let Iran’s Green Movement come and go. And yet Ross was there when settlements became the end-all-and-be-all of the “peace process.” In his defense, some would say, none of this was his idea; Obama was running the show. Quite possibly, but then what was Ross’s contribution?
The shame of it is that this was an experienced Middle East hand who knew better. He co-wrote a book debunking linkage between the “peace process” and confronting Iran. He was at Camp David with President Clinton when it was apparent that the Palestinians’ rejectionism, not any settlement activity, was the barrier to peace. In seeking one more round in the White House, a capstone to his long career, Ross was taking a gamble that his last chapter of public service would be a success and that he might be the one to finally unlock the secret of peace in the Middle East.
Instead he was part of the most inept Middle East team ever assembled. He served a president whose disdain for Israel could not be concealed. Not exactly what he had in mind, I bet.
One has to who, if anyone, will replace Ross in the White House. Dan Shapiro is too young and still cutting his teeth as ambassador to Israel. David Makovsky, Ross' co-author, has never held positions in government - his career is journalism and academia. Bring back Dan Kurtzer? Sounds a little tired.
On the other hand, Obama may be figuring that nothing dramatic is going to happen for the next year because of the elections anyway, and after next year, if God forbid he is reelected, he won't have to mollify the Jewish community anymore. He will have a second term as a lame duck.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Dan Kurtzer, David Makovsky, Dennis Ross
No leak at Wikileaks?
German reports indicate that the password to an
encrypted file with the names of hundreds of informants - including Mossad agents - who are the sources for Wikileaks' documents, has been circulating around the internet for several months now.
According to the report, an encrypted file has been circulating on the Internet since the beginning of the year which contains the full collection of some 250,000 US State Department cables obtained by the whistle-blower organization last year. WikiLeaks began making select cables from the collection public in November 2010, but had been editing them to protect sources. The file floating around on the Internet containing all 250,000 cables, however, is entirely unedited, according to the report.
The password-protected file had been hidden on a WikiLeaks server. Assange had given the password to an external contact, according to Der Spiegel. WikiLeaks supporters, attempting to create a public archive of cables which had already been released through various news outlets, unwittingly released the hidden, encrypted file as well. In the spring of 2011, Assange's external contact made the password to the file public.
Domscheit-Berg's rival organization OpenLeaks has now drawn attention to the fact that both the file and the password have been available on the Internet for months. Domscheit-Berg's OpenLeaks colleagues said the slip-up proved his contention that data in the hands of WikiLeaks was not secure.
WikiLeaks denied the report by way of its Twitter account, saying, "There has been no 'leak at WikiLeaks'. The issue relates to a mainstream media partner and a malicious individual,” in reference to Domscheit-Berg.
If Domscheit-Berg is circulating the names, isn't that the same thing? The consequences are the same: Hundreds of confidential State Department sources have been compromised. Would you want to talk to the State Department off the record again?
Suppose you were
one of these two ladies.
The new batch of hundreds of diplomatic cables sent out from the US embassy in Tel Aviv published on the WikiLeaks website last week includes one from January 20, 2005, with the subject title: “Snapshot of a West Bank Amcit [American citizen] Settler,” and another a couple weeks later, on February 10, entitled, “Another West Bank Amcit Settler’s account.”
The first relates to a US consular officer’s conversation with a 36-year-old American citizen who went to report the birth of her “American citizen child” at the embassy. The woman, unnamed, immigrated to Israel at the age of 20, married an Israeli Technion graduate who works in Tel Aviv, and lives in Neve Tsuf.
“As a resident of the West Bank she is technically within the consular district of the US Consulate in Jerusalem,” the cable read. “However she said that she did not wish to travel through east Jerusalem streets ‘surrounded by Arabs’ to get to the Consulate. She would go there only if accompanied by her husband, who is usually armed.
“When asked why, if she fears east Jerusalem, she is willing to live in a settlement in the heart of the West Bank, she said that she thinks of Neve Tsuf as a suburb of Tel Aviv. She feels secure at home and is comforted by the presence of Israeli soldiers in her settlement and on the roads. She does not feel that she is in any more danger in Neve Tsuf than she would be in Tel Aviv.”
The cable said the woman “considers herself religious and cited ideological reasons, not financial incentives, for moving to Neve Tsuf. She believes that the God-given land of Israel includes the West Bank.
However, she also cites practical reasons for wanting to live in a settlement. She says that, whereas within Israel she would live in an apartment, in Neve Tsuf she has a house.”
The cable then quoted a Nefesh B’Nefesh study saying that 4 percent of American immigrants to Israel in 2004 settled over the Green Line. In 2004, the cable said 1,700 Americans immigrated to Israel, roughly the same number as in 2003.
According to the cable, signed by then-US ambassador Dan Kurtzer, the woman “opposes the disengagement plan and the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
She said there are ‘21 Arab nations, and they don’t need another one.’ In a tone more sheepish than strident, she said the conflict in Israel and the territories is part of the biblical struggle between the Jews and the ‘sons of Ishmael.’ However, she said she is not an ‘Arab hater.’ She stated that an Arab built her house.”
I know a few people in Neve Tzuf, and I can guarantee you that's enough biographical detail for them to know who that was.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Dan Kurtzer, Mossad, revenants, US State Department, Wikileaks
He didn't really say that, did he?
Another jaw-dropping statement - this one from former US ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer - that has to leave you wondering whether any diplomat could actually believe it and how far the 'peace processors' are willing to bend reality to promote their agenda.
Dan Kurtzer: the 67 lines were quite defensible and the 73 expanded lines were far less defensible
Tell me he meant to reverse those two.
Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Dan Kurtzer
America's new ambassador to Israel
The Obama administration formally announced on Wednesday that it is nominating
Dan Shapiro to be its ambassador to Israel.
Everyone who was interviewed about Shapiro had nothing but praises for him. See the previous link and also
here. Shapiro is fluent in Hebrew and regularly attends a conservative temple.
Doesn't this sound like Martin Indyk or Dan Kurtzer or is it just me drudging up images of disappointments past? And how come none of those glowing reports quote Republicans like - for example - the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee?
I'd be thrilled if Shapiro turns out to be an ambassador who 'understands' us, but we've been down this road too many times before.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Obama, Dan Kurtzer, Dan Shapiro, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Martin Indyk
Obama's bad precedents
Elliott Abrams and Michael Singh explain where President Obama's proposal for a 'settlement freeze' extension differs -
dangerously - from what's been proposed by previous administrations.
The most worrying aspect of Obama's package is the linkages it establishes between Israeli concessions on settlements (and apparently on the pace of construction in Jerusalem as well) and other unrelated policy matters. Washington has long opposed, and frequently vetoed, U.N. Security Council initiatives targeting Israel. The United States has done so not out of a sense of charity, but because the anti-Israel resolutions were unconstructive, unhelpful, and unprincipled. The suggestion that unless there is a construction freeze America will no longer do so will make it far harder for U.S. negotiators to defeat or soften drafts put forward in the council in future years, and encourage further assaults on Israel there. Leaving Israel undefended in the United Nations will make successful negotiations less, not more, likely, for an Israel that is under constant attack will batten down the hatches not "take risks for peace."
More disturbing still is the explicit connection between U.S. security assistance to Israel and the settlement freeze. The offer of additional fighter jets can be interpreted two ways: First, the Obama administration may believe that the jets are unnecessary to Israeli security, and is merely offering them as a sweetener, at a cost of $3 billion to U.S. taxpayers -- or about $33 million for each day of the freeze. The second, more ominous explanation is that the United States believes the jets are important to Israel's security and the two countries' shared interests, but is using them as pressure to tidy up a diplomatic mess of its own making. As much as Israeli officials may desire the additional hardware, particularly in light of the growing threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, they will no doubt think long and hard before setting this precedent.
Obama's promise not to seek another construction freeze after the next 90-day moratorium also suggests that his administration has yet to diagnose correctly what ails its Middle East peacemaking efforts. An agreement for a freeze, with an allowance for "inward" growth of existing settlements, was reached between former President George W. Bush and former Israeli prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. The Bush administration was quick to protest when that understanding was violated -- a reaction that sometimes led to tension between the two countries.
The interest in stopping construction in settlements that would make final status talks harder is not what differentiates the Bush and Obama administrations. Rather, it is the public and strident manner in which the Obama administration has conveyed U.S. demands, and its neglect of Israeli political realities. The Obama administration has sought a total freeze as a precondition for negotiations; what is needed instead is a return to the agreements reached in previous years, which the Obama team ignored in its "anything but Bush" phase.
Obama's departures from sensible policy would be easier for him to defend if the return were sufficient. But the premise of the U.S. offer -- that within 90 days the Israelis and Palestinians can conclude a preliminary agreement on borders, rendering the settlement issue moot -- beggars belief.
Indeed.
So now
Kurtzer and Abrams - from opposite ends of the spectrum - have both said it. This is a dangerously bad deal for Israel. Will anyone here listen?
Labels: Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Dan Kurtzer, Elliott Abrams, Michael Singh
A bad deal for Israel
Former American ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer has some
misgivings about the 'settlement freeze' extension deal that ought to make Israel think twice.
The list of problems is so long that it would not be surprising if the administration were already experiencing buyer's remorse. But the arrangement has an even more serious long-term implication, one that should worry Israel profoundly.
If it goes through, this deal will shake the foundation of the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership. Since the early 1980s, the two countries have cooperated closely on assessing Israeli security, and Washington has promised to ensure Israel's "qualitative military edge" over any combination of potential Arab adversaries.
This commitment has been insulated from the vicissitudes of politics and diplomacy. Whatever the state of U.S.-Israeli relations or the peace process, America's commitment to Israel's security has been manifest. Not so, if this deal materializes. By subjecting Israel's defense needs to the political demands of an American administration, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has done something quite dangerous for Israel - he has made those needs contingent, negotiable, optional. Israel's security requirements are now merely a bargaining chip with which to negotiate what Jerusalem will or will not do to advance the peace process.
Today, the United States has "purchased" a short-term settlements freeze; what will be for sale tomorrow? For that matter, how seriously should our defense planners and congressional budget watchers take Israel's arguments about its security needs when it is prepared to market different elements of its policy for another squadron of advanced aircraft? Does anyone really believe that there is a substantive connection between a three-month settlement freeze and Israel's professed need for more airplanes?
I agree. Forget the 'settlement freeze' extension. Either the 'Palestinians' come back to the table without preconditions or they don't. If they want to blow another opportunity for a 'state,' it's their loss.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Dan Kurtzer, F-35, Hillary Clinton, settlement freeze extension
