Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - Netanyahu avoids 'electioneering' in the US
Just about a year ago, the Obama administration, furious with Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, let everyone who would listen know that it deemed the Prime Minister's address to a joint session of Congress two weeks before the Israeli elections to be '
electioneering.'
In the summer of 2012, the administration went out of its way to accuse Netanyahu of interfering in the US election by
hosting Republican nominee Mitt Romney three and a half months before that election took place.
Now, the shoe is on the other foot. With the media paying less and less attention to Obama, he wants a visit from Netanyahu to shed the limelight on the White House again. Last week, Netanyahu's ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, informed the administration that Netanyahu wouldn't be coming because he did not want to appear to be interfering with the US election campaign. On Monday night, the Obama administration
feigned surprise at Netanyahu's decision.
The
White House said Israel had proposed two dates for a meeting between
the leaders and the U.S. had offered to meet on one of those days. "We
were looking forward to hosting the bilateral meeting," said Ned Price, a
spokesman for the White House's National Security Council. "We were
surprised to first learn via media reports that the prime minister,
rather than accept our invitation, opted to cancel his visit."
But Netanyahu's office said Israel's ambassador to the U.S. had
already informed the White House last week there was a "good chance"
Netanyahu would not make the trip.
It said the ambassador told the White House there would be a final
decision on Monday.
That day, Israeli news reports erroneously reported
that Netanyahu would not travel because he was unwilling to meet with
Obama. Netanyahu's office said it then informed the White House directly
that Netanyahu would not be visiting.
Netanyahu was invited to address a summit of the pro-Israel group
AIPAC. An Israeli official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because
he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, said Netanyahu
wanted to avoid potential meetings with presidential candidates at the
summit. Netanyahu was accused of siding with Mitt Romney in the 2012
presidential campaign and he appears wary of sparking any additional
claims of meddling in American politics.
"It's a tumultuous primary season in the United States ... we don't
want to inject ourselves into that tumultuous process," the official
said.
It was the latest signal of ongoing tensions between the U.S. and its
closest Mideast ally. Relations between Israel and the U.S. never fully
recovered after Obama incensed Netanyahu's government by pursuing and
then enacting a nuclear deal with Iran.
And another reason Netanyahu doesn't want to go to Washington:
However, there have also been reports the Obama administration is
considering setting parameters for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal to
make it easier for Obama's successor to pursue. Israel rejects an
imposed formula and says any outline of a peace accord has to be reached
through direct negotiations.
It will be interesting to see whether Netanyahu actually stays away from Washington from now until after the elections in November.
Hmmm.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Campaign 2012, imposed solution, Middle East peace process, Mitt Romney, US presidential campaign 2016
NY Times calls for 'imposed solution'
In an editorial that says that 'all share the blame' for the Middle East impasse - and then conveniently forgets Barack
Hussein Obama's role in the impasse - the New York Times concludes that the United States 'and its partners' must
impose a 'solution.'
The best way, likely the only way, to head off this debacle is with the start of serious negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. The two sides haven’t even been in the same room together since September 2010.
One might add that there have not been serious negotiations since Abu Bluff walked out on them after asking Israel to destroy Hamas at the beginning of Operation Cast Lead in December 2008. But reminding us that it was the 'Palestinians' who stopped the negotiations - and who have continuously refused to resume them - just isn't part of the Times' agenda.
All share blame for the stalemate.
All except for Obama. It was Obama who came into office and promptly decided to be more 'Palestinian' than the 'Palestinians' by insisting on a 'full settlement freeze' as a precondition to 'negotiations.' He sent Abu Mazen up a tree from which the 'Palestinian leader' could not climb down. And then he took the ladder away by refusing to admit his massive mistake.
But no, says the Times. All share the blame except Obama. And in the pecking order the Times chooses. Notice who comes first.
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has used any excuse he can find (regional turmoil, the weakness of his coalition government) to avoid negotiations. He has blustered and balked at President Obama’s prodding.
Let's look at what Israel's Prime Minister has done since he took office in March 2009. He accepted the 'two-state solution,' the first time any Likud Prime Minister had ever openly done so. He imposed a ten-month 'settlement freeze' in Judea and Samaria. That 'settlement freeze' has continued de facto beyond that ten-month deadline and has included 'east' Jerusalem. Netanyahu has continuously repeated the mantra that he will meet with Abu Bluff anytime and anywhere without preconditions - but Abu Bluff won't meet unless he is first assured of the outcome. And now, despite the fact that most Israelis are opposed, Netanyahu is apparently on the verge of accepting a negotiating framework in which the default position would be going back to the
'1967 lines' 1949 armistice lines (and yes, they really are indefensible despite the fact that the Times poo poos it - look at a topographical map). But that's still not enough for the New York Times. Netanyahu is number one on their list of those to blame for the Impasse.
Republican leaders in Washington — who seem mainly interested in embarrassing Mr. Obama — have encouraged his resistance.
That's a cheap shot motivated by the elections. How have Republican leaders encouraged Netanyahu? Did they feed him dinner when Obama would not? Was it only Republican leaders who applauded Netanyahu in Congress? Steny Hoyer didn't applaud? Chuck Schumer didn't applaud? Howard Berman didn't applaud? Of course, they did, and rightfully so. Netanyahu is the leader of America's premiere ally, who has managed to keep both his country's economy and democracy afloat in a region that otherwise has neither. Isn't that worth applauding?
Arab leaders haven’t given the Israelis any incentive to compromise.
No, they haven't. But then the Obama administration hasn't exactly succeeded at getting them to give Israel any incentives to 'compromise' either. And the very existence of a 'Palestinian state,' which has been turned down by the Arabs time and time again in favor of destroying Israel, would be a compromise in and of itself.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, seemed to give up on diplomacy when Mr. Obama could not deliver a promised settlement freeze.
Actually, Abu Mazen has not given up on diplomacy. He just thinks of it a little differently than we do. We in the West think of diplomacy as being the art of compromise. The 'Palestinians' think of diplomacy as getting what they want with guarantees of it before they ever sit down at a table.
We see no sign that he has thought even one step beyond the U.N. vote.
That is true, but why hasn't the Obama administration (which the Times is once again seeking to shield from all blame) not pointing that out?
With the September deadline approaching, the Obama administration is back in the business of incremental diplomacy. The White House is working with Israel and the Quartet (the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations) on a statement setting out parameters for negotiations. The core element: a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps and guarantees for Israel’s security.
In May, President Obama endorsed that idea, which is widely accepted as the basis of any deal. At the time, Mr. Netanyahu scored points with hard-liners in Israel — and Republican lawmakers played the same game here — denouncing those boundaries as “indefensible.” Now the Israeli leader seems willing to accept them. It’s a start but not enough.
A start? Not enough? It's giving away the entire game before we sit down at the table. Netanyahu is playing a game of high stakes poker, but the Times doesn't mention the quid pro quo he has demanded: He has demanded that the 'Palestinians' recognize Israel as a Jewish state, essentially giving up the claim that they can flood whatever is left of Israel after a 'settlement' with 'refugees.' Netanyahu is betting that the 'Palestinians' won't agree to that. So far, it appears that he is right. Will Obama force him to drop that demand too? (I'm not even dealing with the Times' cynical portrayal of Netanyahu's dispute with Obama in May).
To have any chance of inducing the Palestinians to drop their statehood bid — and finally move the peace process forward — the United States and its partners should put a map and a deal on the table, with a timeline for concluding negotiations and a formal U.N. statehood vote. The Security Council and the Arab League need to throw their full weight behind it.
If what the Times is suggesting is the Clinton parameters (or some modified version of them), the 'Palestinians' have already rejected them. Just ask Bill Clinton.
But there's another issue here. Once again, we're talking about deadlines. I've done dozens of business deals and the only time that a deadline works is if after the deadline, the deal goes away and is off the table. Forever. I've been involved in deals where we went around in circles in November and December, but come the end of December, where the deal becomes impracticable if not done in the current calendar year, people really come to the table. And either they make the deal or they walk away and live with the consequences.
Going all the way back to Oslo 18 years ago, there were always deadlines, but they were always artificial. The deadline's passing had no consequences. The only way to make a deadline work is that if the deadline passes and there is no deal, the parties get up and walk away and the status quo remains as is - with no pressure from anyone to change it. The problem is that the 'deadlines' aren't real. The 'Palestinians' are always given the right to come back and demand more. And so they compromise on nothing.
But don't expect a real deadline to happen. It doesn't fit the Times' or Obama's agenda. What could go wrong?
Labels: imposed solution, New York Times, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, unilateral declaration of statehood
January 20, 2013?
Elliott Abrams reports on an
open letter to President Obama issued by a number of former American policymakers (Hat Tip:
Gershon D). The letter's signers include Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lee Hamilton, Frank Carlucci, Thomas Pickering, Sandra Day O’Connor, and James Wolfensohn, among others, and was apparently initiated by former Republican Congressman Lee Hamilton (Indiana), who is signed on the cover letter that accompanied it.
The letter blames Israel entirely for the current impasse in 'negotiations,' and calls for imposing a 'settlement' on Israel. It sets out the following six points (I have left Elliott's commentary in):
(1) “The United States will oppose any effort to challenge or undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel within internationally recognized borders,” which suggests that we will not oppose undermining Israel today or tomorrow, when it has no such borders.
(2) “The United States will work for the establishment of a sovereign and viable Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, subject only to agreed, minor and equal land swaps to take into account areas adjoining the former Green Line heavily populated by Israelis . . .” President Obama’s suggestion of using the 1967 lines as a base was not enough, and the United States should further undermine Israel’s negotiating position by demanding that any swaps be “minor” and that any settlement not right on the Green Line, such as Ariel (population 18,000), be abandoned.
(3) Any solution to the refugee problem cannot flood Israel with Arabs and destroy its character as a Jewish state, so that “proposals for unlimited entry of Palestinian refugees into the State of Israel will be opposed by the United States.” But this formulation of course suggests that proposals for “limited entry” would not be opposed, meaning that an Israeli policy of refusing any such entry is likely to be viewed as obstructionist—yet another Israeli obstacle to peace.
(4) As part of a peace agreement, “the United States will support the presence of a U.S.-led multinational force to oversee security provisions and border crossings.” It is a surprise to see this proposal for yet another overseas military commitment at a time when there is so much pressure for withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan and Iraq and cuts in the defense budget. And given the nature of the terrorist threat to Israel, how an effective multinational force could be organized is mysterious. In an analogous situation, the international force in Lebanon has failed completely to restrain or disarm Hezbollah.
(5) Jerusalem will be divided between Israel and Palestine and “each side” will control its own holy places. Among many other problems, what this means for the Christian holy places and the entire Armenian Quarter is not specified.
(6) “The United States will encourage the reconciliation of Fatah and Hamas on terms compatible with these principles and UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.” So there is no precise call for Hamas to adhere to the Quartet Principles, requiring it to abandon terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and adhere to previous agreements. Instead, the United States will move from treating Hamas as a terrorist group, which it is a crime to support, to “encouraging” Fatah to reconcile with it.
Read the whole thing.
Here's where I break with Elliott. Elliott is dismissive of the possibility that President Obama could ever adopt this letter as policy.
These proposals would cause the president political damage, not political risk. Further damage would be caused were he ever to adopt not only these positions but in addition the threatening attitude that is proposed. In his cover letter, Lee Hamilton explains: Prospects for the implementation of these principles depend entirely on an understanding by both parties that there are consequences for their rejection. . . . In his speech, President Obama omitted reference to consequences. We believe the cost-benefit calculations of neither party will be changed without that understanding.
So these are not to be American proposals, but an American ultimatum to Israel. It is striking that the toughest language, about “consequences” and changing Israel’s “cost-benefit calculations,” is found not in the letter to the president but only in the introductory description from Lee Hamilton. Whether all of the signers agree with this approach cannot be certain, but it must be assumed that all of this was hashed out in advance.
The analysis and the proposals made in this letter reveal that many of America’s most experienced former senior officials now blame Israel alone for the freeze in Middle East peace negotiations. And they believe that Israel should be forced into compromises and sacrifices under enormous American pressure, even if the vast majority of Israelis oppose them and view them as dangerous. This is, to use State Department terminology, “deeply disturbing,” even if the likelihood that any president would accept this advice is small.
But is the likelihood that the President might accept this advice really small? If God forbid Obama is re-elected, come January 20, 2013, he would have four years in office during which no real political damage could be done to him. He would never have to stand for re-election again. Sure, the Democrats could be punished at the polls in a 2014 midterm election, but we've already seen that in 2010, and it didn't seem to bother Obama too much.
Could Obama adopt this strategy of imposing a settlement in 2013? You bet he could - and I'd bet he would.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Elliott Abrams, imposed solution, Lee Hamilton
Foreign Affairs' Israel bashing fest
I haven't seen it, but the current issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine must be an Israel bashing fest. On Tuesday, I reported on an article by Robert M. Danin in the current issue, which extols the virtues of Fayyadism, and calls on Israel to
participate in promoting it. Now, we have another excerpt, this one by Howard Sachar, that calls on the 'great powers' to
impose a 'settlement' on the Israelis and the 'Palestinians.'
Indeed, it is worth recalling that hardly ever in modern history have undersized nations whose relations with their neighbors have been drenched in rancor and blood managed to negotiate successfully more than interim cease-fires or armistices with one another. More frequently, and however unwillingly, these minor actors have accepted the initiatives of great powers with vested interests in acting as their protégés' advocates and guarantors and in constraining small states' irredentist and territorial ambitions.
For precedent, one may hark back to the sequence of nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century great-power conclaves -- of London, Paris, and Berlin, among others -- that established the independence or guaranteed the security of countries as diverse as Greece (1829), Serbia (1856), and Bulgaria and Romania (1878), or to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which sculpted an aggregation of European successor states and Middle Eastern mandates from the debris of the prewar empires. Similarly, in the wake of World War II, the United Nations selectively acknowledged or postponed the demands of postimperial claimants to diplomatic recognition.
And how successful were any of those 'peace talks'? And how many of the disputes were existential? And were any of those countries democracies when the imposed solutions happened?
I can't get behind the firewall to read the full article, but I would bet on the examples being poor and inapplicable.
Labels: Foreign Affairs, Howard Sachar, imposed solution
