Why the Mass Media’s Best Effort to Understand Obama’s Failure to Make Israel-Palestinian Peace Fails

By BarryRubin

The Washington Post has just published a very long and detailed article by Scott Wilson on why President Barack Obama failed to make progress on Israel-Palestinian peace. It still stands as the best mainstream media effort to explain Obama policy. Wilson did a lot of work, conducted many interviews, and strives to be fair. The article is useful in large part because it shows how much of what we’ve been saying about the Obama Administration was accurate and it also includes a lot of useful quotes.

For example, Wilson’s article shows Obama explicitly saying—we know he did it but not that he said it in so many words—that America must distance itself more from Israel as a way to persuade the Arabs to make peace. Of course, Obama’s action instead persuaded the Arab side to give nothing and demand more, a conclusion not drawn in this article.

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,691 (among about 46,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

What’s most lacking in Wilson’s serious effort to get the story, though, is any conceptual sense of why Obama did fail. And this can be largely explained by a curious but constant missing ingredient in mass media coverage. About 95 percent of the article is concerned with Obama’s relationship with Jews and Israel. The Palestinian side of the factor is hardly mentioned. Yet it was this aspect that caused the failure. What makes this stranger in this case is that Wilson is not trying to excuse the Palestinian side for refusing to want to make peace and even for its reluctance to negotiate.

He doesn’t even mention the refusal of Arab states to help Obama by offering Israel something in 2008; Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’ interview with the Post’s own Jackson Diehl, during Abbas’ first visit to Obama-led Washington, making clear his disinterest in diplomatic progress; Abbas’ pie-in-the-face for Obama when the president called for talks in late 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed, and the Palestinians refused; how Abbas sabotaged Obama by making a statehood bid at the UN; and many more such things.

I’m not seeking here to bash Wilson. He has produced the best account we are going to see in the mass media and yet, ironically, he has added very little—except for some juicy Obama quotes from secret meetings—to what we (and by this is meant you and I) already knew and understood.

Why are the Palestinians—their leaders’ intransigence, the radicalism of a public opinion nurtured in this direction for years, the effect of the competition from Hamas, and so on—left out of the equation? We can offer many suggestions but cannot answer this question definitively. That is a task which also requires assigning each of these factors a priority:

To read the entire article click here.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Congress Gets Tough on Palestinian Authority; Obama Administration Doesn’t

By Barry Rubin


The Associated Press reports:

"American aid to the Palestinians is in jeopardy over their ties to the terrorist group Hamas, unwillingness to restart negotiations with Israel and push for statehood at the United Nations over U.S. resistance, congressional Republicans and Democrats warned on Tuesday."

But why is Congress taking the lead on this threat? Because the Obama Administration supports continued aid no matter what happens....

Read more

"Peace Process" Silliness from Obama and Abbas

By Barry Rubin

Speaking to Jewish donors (or should we say possible Jewish donors?) to his presidential campaign, President Barack Obama pledged that his administration would "devote all of its creative powers" to trying to bring about Mideast peace.

This is not an art project. What is needed is not "creative powers" but to deal with the actual, real situation. To me, "creative powers" (Samantha creative Powers?) means to come up with gimmicks, to do anything possible to bring about the supposed signing of a peace of paper [pun] as fast as possible. If they know the Palestinian Authority is inflexible, then they will just demand more concessions from Israel. And they won't bother to ask whether the "peace agreement" they are pushing would last a month or produce a more stable region and a more secure Israel.

Every time Obama says that the "status quo is unsustainable," he's suggesting that anything would be better than the status quo. What he would produce, then, is a worse status quo.

Meanwhile, as if to prove the point,  Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas said  he would drop seeking UN approval of unilateral Palestinian independence if the United States offers something better: "I don't know if the U.S. has another option, but if it does, we will not go to the U.N.."

Read more

How Obama Administration Mishandling of the Palestinian Unilateral Independence Bid is Wasting 2011—And What He Should Have Done

This article is published in the Jerusalem Post but I have added additional material. I own the rights so link to this site if you forward or reprint.

By Barry Rubin

And so he rushes off to Europe to muster support so that the United States is not alone. It’s the end of May already. Besides, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy have already made clear that they won’t support unilateral independence.

In a real sense this issue has illustrated Obama’s incompetence and the mess created by his world view. What would a “real” president have done?

First, get an early start. The moment the PA announced it was considering this scheme, he would have coordinated with European allies to get a joint statement that this was unacceptable and that there would be negative consequences for the PA in pursuing it and refusing to negotiate with Israel. What’s being done in May should (and could) have been done in January. Why is Obama trying to get a joint stand with Europe now when the issue has been discussed for months?

Second, lobby hard in the Third World. American diplomats should be limousining into the offices of presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers all over the world to make it clear that the United States wants them to oppose this initiative. Favors should be called in; gentle warnings made. Yet as Latin American countries—a traditional area of U.S. influence--unilaterally recognized a Palestinian state, Obama stood by and did nothing.

Third, make the consequences clear to the PA. The PA has done many things to sabotage Obama’s prized peace process. Here’s a partial list:

--Went back on its promise to him not to push the Goldstone Report, which even its principal author now disowns, at the UN.

--Sabotaged his September 2009 initiative for a Camp David-style summit to be held in December, after he publicly announced it at the UN.

--Refused to negotiate seriously with Israel when Israel accepted and implemented a nine-month-long freeze of construction on settlements and then even added Jerusalem to it. The PA waited a few days before the expiration, held a couple of formal chats, and then demanded that the freeze be renewed!

--Made a deal with Hamas that obviously runs counter to U.S. policy and puts a big hole in the side of the already sinking peace process.

--Going to the UN in this time-wasting, negotiations’ killing maneuver.

Ironically, the Palestinians are almost universally portrayed as the world’s leading victims. Yet in a very real sense, they are the world’s most spoiled political grouping. Decades of refusal to negotiate, intransigence, and terrorism are rewarded while massive subsidies continue ignoring political behavior, incitement, violation of commitments, terrorism, and corruption.

Maybe that’s the real problem making this conflict persist.

Fourth, Obama has not put any sanctions on the PA, refused to threaten it, and has barely criticized it in public. Indeed, the money and diplomatic support continues no matter what the PA does. Obama’s level of backing for Israel does not go up in response to PA behavior either. So he has taught the PA that sabotaging American policy pays because it makes him (and the world) criticize Israel, widens the U.S.-Israel rift, and even brings more U.S. concessions for the Palestinians in a desperate effort to make peace, even if the Palestinian leadership cares less about that achievement than the United States, EU, and UN.

It is an amazing example of Obama’s exaltation of weakness that even a deal between the PA and Hamas has barely brought a squeak from him, after a period of saying “we’ll see what happens.” The administration’s great defense is that maybe the deal will collapse of its own weight. We’re also told that Congress will declare U.S. aid to the PA illegal and stop it because of this alliance with a terrorist group.

Yet what kind of president let’s something happen that would lead to Congress forcibly terminating one of his priority policy initiatives? This is not leadership and, of course, if it happens that will be a major embarrassment for the White House. The obvious criticism is: Why didn’t you do anything?

Fifth, the president should have explained very clearly why he is opposed to this maneuver. The problem is that he cannot really do so without blaming the PA.

Let us remember that in the year 2000—that’s eleven years ago! How time flies when you’re fantasizing about an unworkable peace process—the Palestinian leadership rejected peace. (Note: So did the Syrian leadership and the U.S. government is still treating that regime as a friend!) President Bill Clinton denounced the PA rulers. Then President George W. Bush discovered that PA leader Yasir Arafat was lying to him and trying to import Iranian weapons to launch a full-scale war on Israel. He, too, got angry.

Obama, however, has not caught on and probably never will. The PA does not want to make a compromise peace resulting in a two-state solution. Going to the UN to circumvent talks and allying with Hamas are two major ways that the PA is violating the Oslo agreement, the very basis of its existence. In fact, by rejecting peace and instead launching a terrorist war on Israel they violated it eleven years ago. And, as far as Western diplomacy goes, they never pay the price.

It will pull the rug out from under the United States every time and make its president look foolish. And that’s sure what’s happening with the PA’s unilateral independence bid.

In short, this is a huge mess. And while the PA is responsible for it, the president is, too. The PA is showing by how it behaves that it doesn’t want peace. Still, the West just doesn’t want to recognize this fact. It’s far easier and cost-free to blame Israel.

But what’s the point in Obama coming up with a new peace plan when it should be clear that it isn’t going anywhere, and why it isn’t going anywhere. People talk of a “cycle of violence.” Well what about the cycle of diplomacy? Here’s how that works:

U.S. and Europe propose plan, demand is made for both sides to make concessions, Israel makes concessions, PA doesn’t implement its part; plan fails; Israel blamed; new cycle begins.

Of course, sometimes Israel refuses also or only makes partial concessions. Yet every time the PA’s score is zero. At least Israel is always willing to talk. The PA has now refused serious talks for 2.5 years and there’s no doubt it will get to the three-year-mark.

The fact that Israel has caught onto this game and refuses to play anymore has provoked astonishment in Europe and America. Don’t those Israelis realize that it’s for their own good? No, they realize it is against their interests and also realize that these countries either haven’t been paying attention or don’t care.

But to return to the PA’s UN maneuver. The Obama Administration has botched it. In the end, the unilateral independence gimmick will be defeated but at the cost of at least one year wasted diplomacy and an increasingly reckless PA strategy. This time, though, the U.S. government will have to stick its neck out and (very possibly) do a unilateral veto.

In an article in the Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton explained how a previous president dealt with a previous such situation. Secretary of State James Baker, someone personally unfriendly to Israel by the way, made it clear in 1989 that if the UN were to take such a step the United States would cut off all of its financial donations to that institution. The problem immediately disappeared.

That's called using power, unapologetically taking leadership, and getting your way. It's a concept totally alien to the Obama Administration. But not to America's enemies.

Please be subscriber 24,262 (daily reader 41,862). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com


We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

Obama Middle East Speech: A Big and Revealing Mistake That Nobody Has Noticed

By Barry Rubin

There is a small detail at the end of Obama’s big Middle East speech that everyone has overlooked up until now but which shows how inept this administration is at understanding the Israel-Palestinian issue and why it continually makes Israel mistrustful.

In doing his balancing act on Israeli and Palestinian fears and hostility, he says this:

“I'm convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past….We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. `I have the right to feel angry,’ he said. `So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate. Let us hope,’ he said, `for tomorrow.’"

That’s genuinely touching. But in the specific case Obama cites—that of Izzedin Abuelaish on January 16, 2009-- there is strong reason to believe that the three girls were killed because of Hamas, that is Palestinian, actions.

According to an official Israeli inquiry, Hamas snipers on the roof of their five-story building were shooting at Israeli soldiers. The tank returned fire. In addition, though, the investigation could not rule out the possibility that the girls were killed by an explosion of explosives and ammunition being stored in the building by Hamas or even by fire from Hamas forces.

In other words, the president took an incident where the cause was unclear and blamed Israel for it. And of course the tragic deaths of these girls took place because the United States did nothing to help prevent Hamas from taking over the Gaza Strip and then Hamas broke a ceasefire and attacked Israel.

Since then, the Obama Administration has pressured Israel to reduce sanctions on Hamas to an absolute minimum and provided $400 million to pay salaries in the Gaza Strip, which benefits Hamas's rule.

In addition, since the Palestinian Authority has just announced it will pay money to those who are prisoners of Israel, U.S. taxpayer money will now go to reward those who have committed terrorist attacks.

And that tells us what we need to know: President Obama and his colleagues don’t get the facts straight and tend to blame Israel. In other words, Obama counterposed the reaction of an Israeli father whose son was murdered by Palestinian terrorists to that of a Palestinian father whose daughters were murdered by or because of the actions of...Palestinian terrorists.

And that's the trouble with an "even-handed" approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

But, as with the Abu al-Aish case, it is the radicals who lead the Palestinian movement, several states, and the revolutionary Islamist oppositions--not Israel--are killing the peace process.

Terrorists attack Israel; Israel defends itself.

The revolutionary Islamists--not Israel or Husni Mubarak or the Saudi regime, or past U.S. policy—are destroying the Middle East. And since Obama Administration policy fails to realize these things then it, too, is destroying the Middle East.

U.S. Policy Toward Palestinian Authority-Hamas Deal: Any Change Coming?

This article is published on my blog at PajamasMedia. The text is reprinted here for your convenience.

By Barry Rubin

Here's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the Hamas-Palestinian Authority deal:

"We obviously are aware of the announcement in Cairo yesterday. There are many steps that have yet to be undertaken in order to implement the agreement. And we are going to be carefully assessing what this actually means, because there are a number of different potential meanings to it, both on paper and in practice.

"We’ve made it very clear that we cannot support any government that consists of Hamas unless and until Hamas adopts the Quartet principles....So we’re going to wait and make our assessment as we actually see what unfolds from this moment on."

Translation of paragraph one: I'd rather not deal with it now because we can hope the deal will fall through and then we won't have to do anything at all.

Translation of paragraph two: This is badly worded by her since the phrase "government that consists of Hamas" makes no sense. Presumably she meant a government that includes Hamas. Having said this, she warns that the U.S. government won't support such a coalition regime unless Hamas renounces violence and recognizes Israel. That change in U.S. policy would be a major development.

But note two parallel situations:

--Egypt, President Barack Obama has said he would support the Muslim Brotherhood in the government.

--Lebanon, the Obama Administration has apparently accepted Hizballah as part of Lebanon's government with minor reservations like not meeting with Hizballah ministers..

So why is Hamas different? Partly it is only the result of pro-Israel congressional and public opinion that restrains the administration.

I predict that it won't get to the point of a coalition government. This deal is just propaganda for presenting a unilateral declaration to the UN from a united Palestinian front. Neither side wants free elections to be held, according to the agreement, in May 2012.

Yet while Clinton's statement has generally been reported as a strong stance that's not exactly so. If, for example, Hamas nominates ministers who are not proven members of the group (which is what they are saying they'll do) or cooperates with the Palestinian Authority in anything short of an actual coalition government, Clinton's warning would not be triggered. The same is true if Hamas finds some language that pretends to accept the Quartet conditions.

Clinton also signals a hesitation to act now by talking about waiting to see what happens. This stance leaves loopholes in which Hamas can be strengthened and legitimized while the United States does nothing. In short, this is not at all a strong U.S. stance but actually means little. The PA can easily believe that it would lose nothing in terms of U.S. or European support by partnering with Hamas.

But if there is a coalition regime and the U.S. government backs down, accepts it, continues aid, makes fostering talks with Israel a top priority, and putting the main onus on Israel for a lack of progress, that would be a very profound betrayal.

What Will Happen on the "Peace Process," Why It Will Fail, Why It Will Do Harm

This article is published on PajamasMedia and is reprinted here for your convenience.

Please be subscriber 21,993 (daily reader 39,593). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com


We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin

There is confusion on two points regarding the Israel-Palestinian "peace process."

First, will the Europeans give unilateral recognition to a Palestinian state without any commitments at all to Israel. There are conflicting voices in Britain, France, and elsewhere about what these states intend. The fact that such recognition conflicts with every commitment they have made to Israel for twenty years doesn't seem to figure in their
debates.

Second, is there going to be a U.S. plan for resolving the conflict that will be offered with confident smugness and end up by making things worse? Reportedly, though it might not be true, there are four principles in the projected U.S. plan:

--Israel accepts a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders.

Let's see, the main highway from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem will be closed and the corridor connecting Jerusalem to the rest of the country reduced to a very narrow neck that can be cut by a Palestinian state whenever it chooses. Tens of thousands of Israelis will be displaced from settlements within one mile of the pre-1967 borders. A lot more can be said on this but these are two immediate points.

But there's another detail here. What might it be? Ah, yes, the second to last president of the United States agreed that Israel would get to negotiate its own borders with the Palestinians. Later, that same president proposed minor border changes involving about three percent of the West Bank but allowing Israel to protect its security and keep a large portion of settlers where they were without taking property belonging to individual Palestinian Arabs. In exchange for these promises, Israel made concessions and took risks.

The last president before this one promised--in exchange for more Israeli risks and concessions--that the United States would support the incorporation of "settlement blocs" along the lines mentioned above--into Israel.

In the autumn of 2009, the Obama Administration promised Israel, in exchange for the settlement freeze and other steps, to accept the settlement bloc idea.

Now the Obama Administration proposes to abrogate all of these promises, raising the question of why should Israel believe any of its future promises.

--The Palestinians giving up their demand that refugees or their descendants return to Israel.

This would, of course, be a concession in Israel's favor. But the Palestinian Authority would never and could never accept this. It won't happen. "President" Mahmoud Abbas opposes it, his public overwhelmingly rejects it, and Hamas would make too much political advantage from such a concession. Forget it.

"We oppose any U.S. peace plan which wants us to waive one of our most basic rights and that is the right of return for refugees," Fatah Central Committee member Nabil Shaath said. And he's a relative moderate who has been coddled--and enriched--by U.S. governments. Far from being pleased the U.S. peace plan will make Palestinians even more anti-American. What do we need Obama for, they will say, when we can get everything we want through a unilateral declaration of independence, violence, and patience.

--Jerusalem would be the capital of both states.

While Israel would not want to make such a concession, it is possible. Prime Minister Ehud Barak even proposed this in 2000. But if Israel gets nothing in exchange such a concession is unthinkable.

--Security guarantees for Israel.

Sounds good but there are four problems.

First, while borders and Jerusalem, major concessions for Israel, are demanded ahead of time, the guarantees for Israel would only be defined later. The Israeli concessions are front-loaded; the concessions from the Palestinians will never come.

Second, such ideas as a non-militarized Palestinian state, a ban on foreign military forces being allowed in there, Israeli early-warning stations along the Jordan, or other such things, are not going to be accepted by the Palestinian Authority.

Third, who is going to be making these guarantees? The United States and Europe? The United Nations? Yet the first have repeatedly broken promises to Israel and the second is going to remain passionately and unfairly anti-Israel no matter what concessions Israel makes and after a Palestinian state is created.

Consider the last very big promises regarding security guarantees:

In 1993, the United States and others guaranteed the Oslo process. But when in 2000 the Palestinians didn't live up to their commitments, refused to negotiate, and launched a war of terrorism against Israel, the West did nothing.

In 2006, the United States, others, and the UN guaranteed Israel's northern border with Lebanon, promising to keep Hizballah from returning militarily to southern Lebanon, block arms smuggling to Hizballah, and even help to disarm that terrorist militia. But since then not only have these promises not been kept but there has been no serious attempt even to try.

In 2008, when Hamas tore up the ceasefire and attacked Israel, the main Western and UN response was to blame Israel for defending itself.

These are not encouraging precedents.

Fourth, any commitment the Palestinian Authority makes does not bound Hamas which rules almost half the Palestinian people and territory. There is absolutely no way the United States, Europe, or UN will make Hamas observe a peace agreement. And they won't even try.

How can anyone even pretend to negotiate a peace agreement that doesn't bind the co-government of that people and territory? Moreover, as we are now seeing in Egypt, if a new Palestinian government comes to power by election or coup it will feel totally vindicated in disregarding any agreement made by its predecessor.

This, then, is the context of a proposed new U.S. peace plan. Might the U.S. government, the mass media, or the "experts" acknowledge and respond to any--even a single one--of these points? One hopes a lot but doubts even more.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

Why Is It So Urgent to Try--and Keep Failing--To Resolve the Israel-Palestinian Conflict?

Please be subscriber 18,066 (and daily reader 20,066.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

After meeting U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell, EU Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton (whose last great idea was Western unilateral disarmament during the Cold War) said: "We believe that urgent progress is needed towards a two-state solution... that ends the occupation that began in 1967.”

Why? Of course, it would make sense to move ahead if it was clear that both sides wanted a deal and an agreement could easily be achieved. But in fact the Palestinian Authority (PA) doesn't even want to negotiate.

"There will not be any negotiations with Israel, in any form--direct, indirect or parallel--without an end to settlement," said Azzam al-Ahmad, a senior member of the Fatah Central Committee, the PA's ruling party. But in fact Israel froze construction for ten months and the PA didn't show any eagerness to negotiate then either.

Maybe the PA doesn't feel "urgent progress is needed" unless it gets everything it wants in return for nothing in exchange. Maybe it believes that its best strategy is NOT to negotiate and wait for the West--which believes that "urgent progress is needed"--to recognize a Palestinian state without needing to negotiate with Israel at all. Maybe this is precisely what the West is leading the PA to believe by statements like the one made by Ashton.

Of course, if the PA were to get Palestine without negotiating a deal with Israel (and not even controlling the Gaza Strip for that matter), what incentive would it have to agree to end the conflict forever, provide Israel with security guarantees, and drop its demand that millions of Palestinians must be allowed to flood into Israel and turn it into...part of a Palestinian Arab state?

None whatsoever.

And why does Ashton refer exclusively to something "that ends the occupation that began in 1967.” How about the attempt to destroy Israel that began in 1948, an even longer time ago? It is precisely because people like Ashton leave out this factor that they don't understand and cannot deal with the issue.

The other missing factor here is the belief that any "solution" must be better than what exists now. What good is a "solution" that would lead to more violence, instability, and extremism in the region? What Ashton is saying is the equivalent of arguing for peace at any price, which almost inevitably doesn't remain peace for very long.

Peace at any price? Ah, that's what Ashton advocated during the Cold War when she followed the Soviet line.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

A Hint On The Future of Obama "Peace Process" Policy

Please be subscriber 18,064 (and daily reader 20,064.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

George Mitchell, the U.S. envoy to the Middle East, has given the first hint about the Obama Administration's future strategy. He said that he will now take six weeks to talk to Israel and the Palestinian Authority to find out what they want. One idea he will present is that the two sides carry out indirect talks through the United States--essentially what has been going on for the last two years with no progress.

Note the six weeks' timeline. Presumably, Mitchell will make a report around February 1 which will then be considered and debated in the Obama Administration. This would mean that the administration will take its time and come up with something new around April.

Of course, that's speculation but it seems about the best guess one can make at present.  According to other statements, the U.S. government opposes a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence and will try to discourage (how effectively remains to be seen) other countries from recognizing a Palestinian state. I also doubt, from what I'm finding, that this administration will try an imposed solution in 2011. But we shall see.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Why Did U.S. Peace Process Diplomacy Fail; What Happens Next?

Please be subscriber 18,033 (and daily reader 20,033.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin

I think this lead from Jackson Diehl's Washington Post  article says it all:

"The latest collapse of the Middle East peace process has underlined a reality that the Obama administration has resisted since it took office--that neither the current Israeli government nor the Palestinian Authority shares its passion for moving quickly toward a two-state settlement. And it has left President Obama with a tough choice: quietly shift one of his prized foreign policy priorities to a back burner -- or launch a risky redoubling of U.S. efforts."

Since I've been trying to explain this for about ten years it's gratifying to see others getting the point. It's pretty remarkable that only after two years has the Obama Administration perhaps begun to get the first point: peace is not in the cards. One might also hope that it won't take ten years to understand that the reason for this situation is that the Palestinian Authority doesn't want peace.

Diehl understands that also. While criticizing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for not offering enough, he adds:

"[Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud] Abbas has resisted negotiating with Netanyahu ever since he took office early last year, saying he doesn't believe the right-wing Israeli leader will ever offer serious peace terms. But Abbas also turned down a far-reaching offer from Netanyahu's predecessor....By now it should be obvious: at age 75, he prefers ruling a quiet West Bank to going down in history as the Palestinian leader who granted final recognition to a Jewish state."

Diehl also says something that should have been obvious for years but one rarely hears in the mainstream debate:

"As I have pointed out before, the settlements are mostly not material to a deal on a Palestinian state, since both sides accept that the majority of them will be annexed to Israel in exchange for land elsewhere. The issue has become an obstacle in large part because of Obama's misguided placement of emphasis on it, which forced Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to embrace a hard line."

Then there's Diehl's second sentence in his lead: What will Obama do? Many people believe that he's so ideologically set on this issue that he's going to do a "risky redoubling."

Here's Diehl's conclusion. If Obama does present

"A U.S. or international plan for Palestinian statehood and try to impose it on both sides. History--including that of the last two years -- suggests that double-or-nothing bet would produce a diplomatic fiasco for Obama and maybe a new war in the Middle East. But given Obama's personal fascination with Middle East diplomacy, there's a reasonable chance he'll try it."

I agree with that argument, both regarding the "diplomatic fiasco" and the "reasonable chance." But this outcome is by no means inevitable. Preoccupied with domestic issues, possibly having learned something from the last two years (if only that he doesn't want to look foolish), fearing another diplomatic fiasco, opposed by Congress, starting to think about reelection in 2012, busy with domestic issues, Obama might well downgrade the issue in practice (even while maintaining rhetoric about high-level involvement.

This is a question that will be resolved in early 2011. We should not assume the answer to the question but wait and see what actually does happen, carefully looking for clues along the way. I promise to do that.

Footnote: Yes, I caught Diehl's reference to the "current" Israeli government not having a passion for peace. It should be noted that the current government also includes the Labor Party, the main party of the left, and that while a different prime minister might try harder--as former Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert all did--as one can see from their experiences the roadblock still remains PA intransigence.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Obama Administration Gives Up On Pointless "Freeze" Diplomacy

Please be subscriber 18,011 (and daily reader 20,011.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]


We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin

As I predicted here ten days ago, the Obama Administration has now given up attempts to get Israel to agree to a three-month freeze of construction on existing settlements.

Here is the most fascinating sentence in the New York Times' coverage:

"Officials said the administration decided to pull the plug because it concluded that even if Mr. Netanyahu persuaded his cabinet to accept an extension — which he had not yet been able to do — the 90-day negotiating period would not have produced the progress on core issues that the administration originally had hoped for."

Translation: They decided that a three-month freeze wouldn't do any good. In other words, as I've been saying since October, the administration put forward a policy that made no sense, offering big concessions in exchange for getting something worthless. 

It is good that the U.S. government has recognized the silliness of what it has been doing the last six months.

Of course, the Times tried to blame Israel exclusively: "Mr. Netanyahu could face renewed pressure from the United States and the Palestinians as the hurdle to resumed talks." As happens so often, the newspaper's writers don't seem to be reading their own words.

After all, the reporter had just pointed out that Netanyahu tried but could not get the plan through his cabinet.  Moreover, the administration messed up its diplomacy to the point that nobody in Israel could tell what it was offering.

And, of course, the Palestinian Authority has been refusing to negotiate with Israel seriously for two solid years. Yet the Times wants to blame Israel for the lack of talks.

At some point early next year the Obama Administration will have to decide whether to put this issue on the back burner or keep knocking its head against a stone wall. And that stone wall isn't Israel, it's the Palestinian Authority which, now that it has recognition from Brazil and potentially from other countries, will be more intransigent than ever.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Has the Obama Administration Failed Again?: No Freeze, No Talks, No Competence

Please be subscriber 17,956 (and daily reader 19,956.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]


We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin

While the outcome still isn’t clear, it seems that a new example of failure and humiliation is unfolding for the Obama Administration’s Middle East policy.

It appears increasingly unlikely that the president’s high-profile effort to restart Israel-Palestinian talks will succeed during the remainder of 2010 or even well beyond that time.

This Administration has had a very clear idea of what it wanted to achieve:

1. A comprehensive Israel-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli peace.


2. Getting rid of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the belief that this will reduce terrorism and strengthen US power in region and US interests.

3. Getting rid of the conflict to get Arab support on Iraq, Iran, and Aghanistan. 

The embarrassment is taking place due to faulty assumptions about these goals and how to achieve them:

--That a high-profile effort would serve U.S. interests. By showing American engagement on the issue, the Administration thought it would please Arab and Muslim-majority countries so as to gain their support on other issues. This didn’t work.

--That, at best, a high-profile campaign would be likely to succeed in bringing rapid progress toward comprehensive peace. That obviously isn’t working.

--That , at minimum, they could at least get the two sides to sit down to pretend talks where nothing actually happened but at least it could be portrayed as a diplomatic achievement. Even that isn’t working and that's really embarrassing.

Part of the problem is due to the Administration’s additional wrong assumption that the Palestinians are eager to negotiate and get a state plus the belief that the current Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership could deliver a deal. In fact, both of these ideas are wrong, too.  The PA leadership can't--and doesn't want to--deliver even on holding talks that go nowhere.

Most of the Palestinian leadership and the masses, too, are still locked into the belief that a combination of struggle and intransigence will bring them total victory some day in wiping Israel off the map. And even though they are more moderate than this, neither “President” Mahmoud Abbas nor Prime Minister Salam Fayyad are strong or determined enough even to attempt to change that orientation.

Another part of the problem is the Administration’s mistaken view that it could pressure or bribe Israel and the PA into doing what it wants. Yet since neither side has faith in the Obama Administration, both know that it’s weak, and Israel has seen that Washington doesn’t keep commitments, their incentive for cooperation is reduced. In the PA’s case at least, the United States doesn’t even put on any pressure or criticism. In Israel's case the Administration has not put on the level of pressure that its more extreme officials (and outside supporters) would like to see, though that wouldn't work either.

But even that’s not all. There’s every indication that the Administration has incompetently handled the actual negotiations about holding negotiationsy. It focused on getting Israeli concessions without firming up the PA side, thus allowing the PA to demand more. The offer to Israel was presented in a confused manner and it still isn’t clear what precisely is to be given in exchange for a three-month construction freeze.

Moreover, part of the package that led people to say that it was so "generous" that Israel was being “bribed” seems to consist of things that the United States has always provided, like support in the UN or maintaining Israel’s strategic advantage over its enemies.

The whole thing has turned into a mess and this isn’t the first time that’s happened in Obama policy on the issue. To cite just four examples, there was:

--The raising of the construction freeze idea in the first place;

--The position that promises made by the Bush Administration would not be fulfilled by his successor;

--Praising Israel for a construction freeze that didn’t include Jerusalem and then screaming when Israel fulfilled the agreed conditions;

--And announcing last year that intensive Israel-PA negotiations would begin in two months when no such agreement had been made by the PA.

Yet even that’s not all. Why did the administration seek a three-month freeze (originally a two-month freeze) at all? What was the purpose of this clearly useless goal? After all, even if the Administration obtained the freeze there would only have been twelve weeks of stagnant conversation—purchased by the United States at a high price—followed by the break-down of the talks. As an election ploy the idea at least made sense but if that was the motive the whole frantic exercise is now useless.

So far the Obama Administration has achieved a remarkable record of failure on this issue. It is, of course, understandable that the U.S. government was unable to solve the long-standing conflict--though making over-optimistic claims over what might be achieved was a self-inflicted wound--but it actually succeeding in moving the diplomatic process backwards.

Has the Obama done much harm regarding Israel-Palestinian issues? Directly, not so much since there was never much chance for dramatic progress. Yet for the Obama Administration's own reputation and credibility in the region this has been disastrous. Finally and worst of all, it isn’t clear that the current government has learned anything from the experience.

The above article could be taken as a highly critical bashing of the Obama Administration. But the sad thing is that it is totally accurate albeit not--in order to save time and to promote clarity--cloaked in bland language.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

The Great Mystery: What's The Obama Administration Up To On Israel-Palestinian Talks?

Please be subscriber 17,925 (and daily reader 19,925.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

Letters I receive from readers mainly focus on asking me what I think about the U.S.-Israel-PA negotiations about getting back to...negotiations. What is my view of this big deal that's being discussed for a three-month freeze on Israeli construction?

My response has been that until we have a clear, authoritative, and detailed description of what's being asked and offered, there's no sense in analyzing it.

Yet something very strange is going on. Before November, I pointed out that the urgent U.S. demand for a two-month freeze was a desperate attempt by the Obama Administration to be able to claim some diplomatic victory before what looked beforehand (and proved to be) a disastrous election. After all, what other possible explanation could there be for giving a lot to get Israel to stop building any apartments in the West Bank for eight weeks?   There was no conceivable diplomatic payoff in terms of U.S. national interests or Middle Eastern peacekeeping to justify such a move.

So what can one say of offering even more after the election for a twelve-week-long freeze?

All of the answers are seemingly ridiculous, though that doesn't make them any the less possible.

First, the administration may have become so obsessed with getting a freeze and restarting negotiations, as an end to themselves though in part for reasons of prestige, that they have lost all proportion in this regard. If this is true--and given the administration's past record it might be true--the current U.S. government is incompetent.

Second, the administration may actually believe that if it can only get the two sides back to the table the impetus toward peace is so great that a couple of meetings will set off lightbulbs in the heads of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that say: Hey, this is easy! What have we been waiting for! Let's make peace! If this is the true factor in administration thinking, the current U.S. government is incompetent.

American presidents don't spend vast resources in order to look good on Monday when the same matter will make them look stupid on Thursday.  Yet this has happened with President Barack Obama, notably in his September 2009 announcement that there would be some new high-level, intensive Camp David talks eight weeks later when no such outcome was likely. Whether such behavior is due to arrogance, ideological blindness, or some other factor isn't important.

There is a third possibility, however, that should be added. A lot of my readers will favor this one but I think it is the least likely. Despite rumors and speculation that the administration is making various demands for huge concessions on Israel. But if that were true the Israeli government would not be seriously considering the deal and there would be multiple leaks from officials opposing any such arrangement.

In this scenario, the Obama Administration may decide to try to impose some kind of solution on both sides. There are two potential variations on this theme. One would be trying to get the declaration of a Palestinian state without boundaries; the other would be to try to impose a comprehensive solution.

If this is the goal guiding administration thinking, the current U.S. government is incompetent, stupid, and dangerous.  The most likely outcome of this scenario is that the administration will fall on its face very badly. The other is that it would significantly damage the regional strategic balance, promote instability, and create a disaster for U.S. interests.

All of the details and leaks, however, seem to point to the first two scenarios as being most likely. It is hard to be too specific since we don't know all the details but here's an example. Consider the issue of whether Jerusalem would be included in the freeze. If the U.S. government insists on including it, Israel's government probably wouldn't agree but if Washington doesn't so insist the PA will use this as a pretext not to talk.

Or suppose the United States and Israel do come to an agreement, it is likely that the PA would deliberately raise demands that were so high that the United States couldn't meet them. For, as I've been reporting for years, the key element here is that the PA doesn't want a deal, or at least not a deal that would make it impossible to launch a phase two campaign in future to eliminate Israel altogether.

Another element is that the U.S. government might present as a generous offer selling Israel things, like arms supplies to maintain Israel's military superiority, that have been taken for granted in the past relationship. This is no great deal but a significant retreat from the relationship as it has functioned for decades.

What is most likely to happen is this: the United States will give various gifts to both sides and the talks either will not be renewed (for a long time) and if they are will quickly fail. Since everybody should already know this then why all the diplomatic frenzy?

It's better to learn the lesson: there isn't going to be any Israel-Palestinian peace or dramatic progress for years. Policy should be adjusted accordingly to maximize stability, minimize violence, and do the best possible job of promoting U.S. interests in the region on all of the vital issues of today.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Why Is the U.S. Government Rushing to Give the PA More Aid?

Please be subscriber 17,885 (and daily reader 19,885.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]


We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

The U.S. government is rushing an additional $150 million to the Palestinian Authority (PA) so that it can have a balanced budget. Funny, the United States doesn't have a balanced budget and the same government doesn't think that's a problem.

Moreover, the PA doesn't really tax its own people. The U.S. taxpayer is thus subsidizing its free services at the rate of about 50 cents per American. Since the PA actually rules a little over two million people (since it doesn't control either the Gaza Strip or east Jerusalem), this aid infusion alone provides each Palestinian there with about $75.

As if that isn't enough, though, one of the reasons the PA has run out of money is that it is spending $3.4 million for a museum to Yasir Arafat, a man who--among other things--once ordered the murder of the U.S. ambassador and deputy chief of mission in the Sudan and also rejected peace with Israel, destroying President Bill Clinton's heroic efforts to achieve a solution to the conflict. Arafat and his colleagues also stole hundreds of millions of dollars previously paid by U.S. taxpayers. Maybe the PA should collect that money if it needs additional funds. And here's a preview of what will be in the museum, based on what the PA teaches young Palestinians about him.

For more on Arafat see here. One can easily imagine what this museum will say about terrorism (endorsing), Israel (hating), and America (reviling).

I'm not advocating a cut-off in U.S. aid to the PA. Such assistance is indeed in the U.S. (and also Israeli, for that matter) interest. Having Hamas overthrow Fatah to take control of the PA would be a step for the worse and it is better if the West Bank's economy develops and living standards there are raised.

But it is not so clearly productive to be rushing to give the PA even more money despite its high levels of corruption and mismanagement; paying a lot of the money into the Gaza Strip which (whatever the intentions) strengthens Hamas rule there, refusal to negotiate with Israel or reduce incitement to violence and extremism. The administration seems most willing to use U.S. aid as leverage to get concessions from Israel but never seems to consider this in regard to the PA.

Like this administration's efforts toward a number of hostile countries, the U.S. government gives the impression that the PA is doing the United States a favor by taking its money. [For a broader view on this problem, see this article by Bret Stephens.] Here it is November 2010 and after almost two years the Obama Administration can't even get the PA to negotiate with Israel yet at a moment of financial crisis in America is eager to subsidize that regime to the extent that it doesn't even have to tax its own citizens.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Introduction to a Farce: The Current State of Israel-PA Negotiations

By Barry Rubin

What, you might ask is the current state of Israel-Palestinian negotiations. Well, something like this:

After almost two years with no direct talks, the two sides had a couple of meetings.

Then the Palestinian Authority demanded an unconditional extension of the freeze on construction of buildings on West Bank Jewish settlements.

Israel said that it would do so if the PA first recognized Israel as a Jewish state.

The PA came back by saying that it would never ever do that. But if Israel defined it's final boundaries before negotiations, the PA would return to the talks. Israel won't do that, of course, but the U.S. government termed the Palestinian statement a step forward.

So at the end of 2010, victory is defined as getting Israel and the PA to hold a meeting every two weeks. If this were to be achieved there would be cheers as to the great success! And even this minimal step forward (bringing us to the level of around 1991 or so) is unlikely.

Oh, by the way, the president of the United States gave the opinion in his UN speech that he would solve the issue within one year.

That is what diplomacy is reduced to on this issue. How can anyone seriously argue this is a problem ripe for solution?

Israel-Palestinian Talks: It’s the U.S. Election Stupid!

Please be subscriber 17,536. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

The New York Times tries to figure out the answer to the question I asked: Why is President Barack Obama not only putting so much prestige into quickly resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict but doing so at a moment when the prospects for success look so minimal?

And on top of that:

Why is he asking Israel for a two-month, one-time, non-renewable freeze of construction on West Bank Jewish settlements?

Why is he offering Israel so much to do something that will lead to two months of talks after which the negotiations will certainly collapse?

Why is he offering the Palestinian Authority so much to stay in the talks for eight weeks and then walk out, no hard feelings?

The headline is, “Risks and Advantage in U.S. Effort in Mideast.” So what’s the possible advantage? A big breakthrough to peace in eight weeks?

What possible gain could be made by holding just four (count `em, four) short meetings and then ending the freeze and letting everyone walk away, keeping the goodies the administration has given them?

Naturally, the Times blames the problems only on Israel, or in the words of Mark Landler’s article, “With the negotiations deadlocked over the issue of Jewish settlements.” But they are also deadlocked over the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) evident desire to find some excuse to get out of negotiations that it stalled until the previous nine-month freeze was within hours of ending.

Somehow the reporters never seem to get the story about how the PA daily broadcasts, teaches, and sermonizes that all of Israel is part of Palestine. As in the repeatedly broadcast geography lesson on official PA television:

"The West Bank and Gaza have another section in Palestine which is the Palestinian coast that spreads along the [Mediterranean] sea, from....Ashkelon in the south, until Haifa, in the Carmel Mountains. Haifa is a well-known Palestinian port. [Haifa] enjoyed a high status among Arabs and Palestinians especially before it fell to the occupation [Israel] in 1948. To its north, we find Acre. East of Acre, we reach a city with history and importance, the city of Tiberias, near a famous lake, the Sea of Galilee. Jaffa, an ancient coastal city, is the bride of the sea, and Palestine's gateway to the world."


Still, that’s not what’s most important here. This article is about the mystery of why the Obama Administration is so obsessed about making progress (or, more accurately, to pretend to be making progress) in the next few weeks. 

Landler continues:

“But even if [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] signs on, some analysts predict that the two sides will end up in the same cul-de-sac in two months. Mr. Abbas, several people said, has told associates that he feels that he has no choice but to keep pushing for a freeze, largely because the Obama administration made settlements the centerpiece of its first 10 months of Middle East diplomacy.”

At least we clear see how much of this is Obama’s fault for making settlements the critical issue. Yet after interviewing the usual suspects, the author never gets close to guessing at the administration’s motivation or strategy or goal.

Indeed, it accepts the administration’s framework. Perhaps the fact that the two sides don’t want to alienate Washington would lead them to keep talking? But the Times doesn’t see the brontosaurus, the blue whale (the word elephant is insufficient here) in the small one-bedroom apartment:

Why two months? Why two months? Why two months? (There’s not only a blue whale but also an echo in here.)

If I were telling this as a joke I would scream the punchline:

BECAUSE THERE’S AN ELECTION, STUPID!

Nope, no domestic politics going on here! Yes, we know the big issue is jobs and the economy. On foreign policy, administration supporters will talk about making America popular again, withdrawing from Iraq, and standing firm in Afghanistan.

Yet the administration has made the Arab-Israeli conflict its principal international issue. What possible diplomatic success can it find to put on display? And how would it look if the “peace process” would collapse and it could be pointed out that Obama wrecked any chance by his emphasis on settlements and distancing from Israel?

Hmm, maybe it would be enough to keep Israel and the Palestinian Authority just to keep pretending there will be more negotiations for another 2.5 weeks?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

How Can Obama's Ineptness on Middle East Issues Be Explained, Especially When It Makes Him Look Foolish?

Please be subscriber 17,528. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

A friend who follows these issues closely wrote me to ask a question about something that is confusing him:

"How could Obama, who screwed up so badly before on the settlement issue, have convened a high-profile summit at the beginning of September only to possibly have it blow up in his face just weeks later because he failed to secure a deal on the moratorium [on construction] matter? How could he, and his staff, be so inept?....

"It's just hard to imagine that Obama didn't understand Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's constraints or Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas's weakness (and need to find an excuse to get out of a negotiating process he can't compromise on). ...This is simply incomprehensible, is it not?"

Well, such behavior is quite comprehensible if one understands that it is largely stupid not only from the standpoint of peace and U.S. interests but even in the context of the Obama Administration looking as if it knows what it's doing.  Let me state the issue in one sentence:

Knowing that it was unlikely he'd get a continued freeze and that the PA was eager to get out of negotiations, why did Obama stake so much of his prestige on success; give himself unnecessary self-imposed impossible deadlines; make a breakthrough seem likely and easy (despite giving lip service to the difficulties); and magnify the issue's importance so that a failure seemed all the worse?

Remember, this isn't the first time in the last month that Obama has set himself up for humiliation on the issue. He also made his big UN speech which presented the Israel-Palestinian conflict as the world's most important issue and made the potentially embarrassing prediction that he would resolve the conflict within one year.

Defenders of the Obama Administration would say that he had some secret plan that is too intelligent for us mortals to comprehend (critics have their own conspiracy theories). Not so in both cases. Or they would say that someone pointing to the emperor's lack of clothes is merely biased against Obama. OK, so if that's the reason you've got to be able to answer this question: Where are the clothes?

Or they would say that Netanyahu--they would never blame it on Abbas--had let him down. Yet Netanyahu didn't do anything that was unpredictable, or at least shouldn't have been. And the make-up of his coalition is well-known, as is the fact that a nine-month freeze was sold to Netanyahu as an experiment and it was one that clearly failed.

The answer that would make the administration look best is that it knows there's no hope of progress but just want to show that they are working hard on the issue (supposedly keeping Muslims and Arabs happy) and are trying to avoid a crisis (so they can focus on Afghanistan, Iraq,and Iran nuclear).

There must be some truth here but this doesn't explain why they look so foolish in dealing with the issue. For example, that strategy would encourage them to downplay the peace process and lower expectations, not make it seem like big meetings are about to happen and grand breakthroughs are at hand.

So this is an example of incompetence on the part of the Obama Administration, though I've also pointed out how part of it is due to an element of cynical domestic political calculation.

Now, let's go back one year to September 2009. What happened then? In front of the world's leaders gathered during the UN session, Obama proclaimed that within two months there would be direct, intense, high-level, Camp David-style talks that would quickly produce a peace settlement.

Thus, what happened this year is hardly new, and can be extended to other issues. Don't get me started on Iran, revolutionary Islamism, Syria, and a half-dozen other questions but you can provide the examples for yourselves, dear readers.

Back to Israel-Palestinian negotiations. For one thing, the Obama Administration is spoiled in the classical sense of that word. It knows the media won't ridicule it and thus it can get away with big mistakes. And that feeling of safety, in turn, encourages the kind of carelessness that leads to big mistakes.

Another factor is ideology. The administration's officials genuinely--and wrongly--seem to believe that this is the world's most important issue. Thus, the magnify it, an action that puts more pressure on them to solve it. Needing to solve it, they next think they can do so.

Connected with this is another misconception about the conflict, though on some levels they must know better. For example, they really seem to believe that the Palestinians are eager for a deal and Israel is recalcitrant. Almost all of their experience shows the contrary, yet that has no effect on their thinking. After all, it was the Palestinian leadership that killed Obama's September 2009 plan and stalled talks for a whole year.

The U.S. officials can think that if only Israel did more everything would be fine, but they must be aware that Arab states have refused to be helpful and that Abbas has tried to do everything possible to get out of talking. Their shortcoming, however, is that they have not made the leap to comprehending that their paradigm is wrong: the Palestinian leadership neither wants nor can deliver a compromise peace.

As long as they fail to reach that conclusion they keep banging their heads against the wall.

I am not aware of a single mass media outlet that has asked the basic questions about why the Obama Administration keeps looking so stupid on this issue and repeats its miscalculations. Blaming Netanyahu is always an easy way out of actually thinking about what's going on, yet many don't even do that so much nowadays. They just seem puzzled about things like: If the Palestinians are so miserable and oppressed, why aren't they eager to negotiate .a compromise peace?

But let's stick to U.S. policy for right now. There is no mystery here. A combination of Incompetence (not implementing a desire plan well), ignorance (not understanding the region), ideology (systematically misunderstanding issues and rejecting corrective experience, and arrogance (assuming one is always right, ignoring experience and criticism) is the answer.

It isn't just incompetence, of course, as I pointed out in the list of the previous paragraph. Yet let me put it this way: Even if you want to do something stupid for various reasons, you still don't want to look stupid in doing it. The looking stupid part is the essence of incompetence.

Obama is not doing a very good job on international affairs, as policymakers from countries all over the world know and say in private. Refusing to see that reality means finding it hopelessly impossible to understand what's happening in the world and especially in the Middle East nowadays.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

Obama Administration Tells Israel: Make Us Look Good For Election and We Will Reward You (A Little Bit)

Please be subscriber 17,509. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

Contents of a White House letter have been published saying what the Obama Administration will offer Israel if it extends the moratorium on building inside West Bank settlements for two months. The specific proposals reveal again how the White House doesn’t seem to understand the situation, or perhaps is thinking of something other than the Israel-Palestinian peace process.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu couldn’t continue the freeze because there isn’t enough support in his coalition for doing so. Thus, minor U.S. offers don’t change that fact in any way. Moreover, the main underlying problem is lack of confidence that the Palestinian Authority (PA) wants peace with Israel, is willing to compromise, or will implement commitments in future. As you read this, keep in mind all of the problems I've written about which Israel must keep in mind in making any peace agreement.

When we consider the specifics, then, the U.S. offer isn ‘t relevant. But there are more problems:

First, the administration offers not to seek an extension of a two-month freeze. Why two months, why not three or four? Why not two weeks?

Hmm, readers, what is happening within two months? The U.S. election! The implication is that the Obama Administration is offering Israel the following basic deal: Make us look good until the vote and we will give you a pay-off.


That’s it. Because the only alternative view is that the United States believes that the once-every-two-week talks will make such dramatic progress in two months that both Israel and the Palestinians will be on the verge of peace or an end to the freeze won’t matter.


Is that credible? No.  And so when press reports say that the White House is angry that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected the offer we can well understand why this is so. The U.S. government certainly isn't going to pressure the PA to give in, which is the other alternative. The collapse of the peace talks on the verge of the November elections won't make it look good. But if the PA walks out in December won't matter in terms of American politics. 

The Obama Administration cannot bash Israel between now and the elections but it might seek to get revenge in 2011.

Back to the U.S. offer. Second, the United States offers to support measures to prevent the smuggling of weapons and terrorists into Israel after a Palestinian state is established. This is interpreted as allowing for Israeli forces to stay in the Jordan valley and guard the border with Jordan for several years.

This is nice but Israel knows that the PA would never agree to this idea and that the U.S. government isn’t going to do a lot of arm twisting to get it to change its position. Moreover, while Israeli leaders in the past have spoken about maintaining a security zone with Jordan, that was always linked with holding on to the Jordan Valley's territory. The U.S. proposed temproary idea would set up a situation in which an isolated Israeli force would be subject to attack by terrorists on a regular basis, with international condemnation when it had to intercept or kill terrorists.

While not exactly the same thing, the United States and the “international community” promised to stop cross-border weapons’ smuggling into Lebanon in 2006 and four years later not a single weapon has been intercepted. True, in this case Israeli troops would be doing the work but the skepticism of their getting international support remains.

Third, the letter promises the U.S. government would veto any UN Security Council resolution against Israel for the next year. This is insulting. Historically, the United States has watered-down, blocked, or vetoed such resolutions. So this “concession” in fact takes back a previous policy. It signals to Israeli leaders that the current administration isn’t exactly reliable. And, of course, it suggests that after the year is over Washington will not veto such resolutions, a big step backward.

Fourth, the administration pledges to talk with Israel and Arab states about a, "regional security architecture." Wow, that can be expected to yield precisely…zero.

And finally, the United States will sell more weapons to Israel after there is a peace agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state. Well, that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? Again, suggesting that this would happen if Israel freezes construction for two months also simultaneously suggests that it won’t happen otherwise. Like the veto point, it actually withdraws something Israel was previously expecting.

According to media reports, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu politely pointed out that when the United States originally demanded the freeze it promised that it would secure concessions from Arab states. This didn’t happen. It also promised that the Palestinians would be responsive and fulfill their commitments. That didn’t happen either. Indeed, I should point out, they refused to negotiate until the last minute and then did so mainly to get the freeze extended still further without any concession or advancing the negotiations on their part.

Netanyahu’s right. But it isn’t his job to point out what I’m telling you couldn’t be more obvious: this is a deal motivated by domestic political benefit for the administration, not the strategic interests of the United States or the cause of peace.

PS: The Obama Administration denies there was an official letter or that a letter was sent to Netanyahu. Of course! This is a standard diplomatic lie. It was a draft letter, that would only have been sent officially if Netanyahu had agreed. So it wasn't sent officially, that is, the administration can deny that there was an official letter or that anything was officially sent. But my article above is completely accurate.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Is the U.S. Government and West Generally Starting to Comprehend the Real Issues and Problems in the Middle East?

Please be subscriber 17,495. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

After acceding to U.S. requests for nine months by freezing construction on existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank and also not building over the pre-1967 frontier in Jerusalem, Israel got nothing.

While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed willing to continue it in some form, pressures from within his coalition made that impossible.Therefore, the freeze is coming to an end, though Israel is still ready to discuss limits on new construction. Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas is threatening to walk out of the once-every-two-weeks direct talks.

So what has been the reaction?

First, 87 U.S. senators, that's 87 percent of the membership, have urged Obama to keep Abbas from walking out of talks. They have not blamed Israel for the crisis.

The Obama Administration is approaching the issue calmly and there has been no bashing or even criticism of Israel. Why? Lots of reasons, one being the impending November elections and the government's eagerness to show it has achieved something in international affairs. Another is that officials now realize that the PA has been their real headache, refusing to talk for 20 months, constantly setting new preconditions, and eagerly looking for some way to walk out of negotiations. Europe is being pretty quiet also about blaming Israel.

Even Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, a frequent critic of Israel in the past, gets it, criticizing the Obama Administration--not Israel--for its handling of the settlements' issue. And Ben Smith at Politico writes a story headlined, "In blame game, arrow tilts to Abbas."

These statements and articles generally miss the deeper story: incitement to kill Israelis and destroy Israel continues at full speed in the PA media and institutions; the PA's Fatah leadership neither wants nor can deliver a compromise two-state solution at present; Hamas's control of the Gaza Strip poses an insuperable obstacle; nothing has been done by the PA to prepare Palestinian public opinion for compromise (quite the contrary); and Israel wants peace on reasonable terms. But a lot of people in the U.S. government and media now understand--at least temporarily--the symptoms indicating all of these factors.

Overarching all of this is the real main issue: the great struggle in the Middle East between Islamists and nationalists, the efforts by the Iran-led radical bloc and local revolutionary Islamist groups (using terrorism or even electoral means) to overthrow the relatively moderate regimes and drive U.S. influence out of the region.

In another indication of this fact, in still another example of strong U.S.-Israel military cooperation, the U.S. Defense Department has agreed to help Israel develop a short-range anti-missile system aimed against the kind of barrages fired in the past by Iran's clients, Hizballah and Hamas.

Of course, there are limits, some due to understandable diplomatic maneuvering, some due to lack of comprehension. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley was mild in saying that the United States was "disappointed" by the Israeli decision and praised Abbas for not immediately walking away from the talks.

But will they praise him if he walks out in a week or so?

Meanwhile a new, very potent computer virus has hit Iran, reportedly targeted especially at its nuclear program. Wonder where it could have come from? Additionally, to their credit, the Obama Administration and most of Europe have toughened sanctions to the point where they are hurting the Tehran regime. The regime is far from falling or changing but it is all shook up and part of the elite is starting to ask whether an aggressive foreign policy and a nuclear weapons' drive isn't a big mistake.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

























.

Abbas Looks For A Way to End Peace Talks--With A Smile On His Face

Please be subscriber 17,491. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

It never ceases to amaze me how hysteria and mystification so clouds peoples' minds over the Arab-Israeli (or Israeli-Palestinian) conflict. Consider this simple point of logic which you may not see explained anywhere else. And see the point at the end about President Barack Obama.

Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas claims that he can't negotiate with Israel if Israel once again begins to construct buildings on existing settlements after a nine-month freeze on construction.

Let's evaluate this statement.

First, Abbas knew that the freeze would last nine months and might not be renewed when it ended in September. If he wanted to give Israel an incentive to continue it--by showing that this Israeli concession, brought progress toward peace and some advantage for Israel--Abbas could have acted. Instead, he stalled until the very last moment. For weeks, the United States begged and pressed him to return to talks.

Second, if the Palestinians negotiate a two-state solution they will get--worst-case analysis--almost all of the West Bank. There will be no Jewish settlements in that territory. The settlements will be gone. All the roads and buildings Israel built (unless dismantled in the days before the agreement's implementation) will go to the Palestinians.

So if Abbas and the Palestinians are horrified by Israeli construction, wouldn't it have made sense for them to negotiate real fast? But, on the contrary, they stretch out the process year after year after year, continually finding excuses for doing so.

Remember that the PA refused to negotiate for well over a year after January 2009. All that time Israel was building on settlements. Then for the last nine months when Israel wasn't building in the West Bank, the PA still refused to negotiate.

Let's now provide a full timeline:

Phase One: From 1992 until late in 2000, the PLO, and later the PA negotiated with Israel at a time when there were no limits on construction within settlements. They were, however, in no hurry to make a deal and, in fact, killed the talks in 2000. Incidentally, Israel made a huge concession from its previous positions to begin the process in 1993: No new settlements or territorial expansion of existing ones. It kept that commitment. The PLO and PA also made some "concessions": They would fight against terrorism. They didn't.  They never raised as a bargaining point the idea of a freeze on construction in existing settlements.

Phase Two: Then from 2000 to 2009--a decade--the PA refused any sustained peace negotiations at a time when there were no limits on construction within settlements. They never raised as a bargaining point the idea that they would end the violence (2000-2005) or that they would negotiate in exchange for a freeze on construction in existing settlements. That was President Obama's idea in mid-2009 and they rejected it.



Phase Three: After Israel did freeze construction, the PA wasted nine months--knowing the clock was ticking on the temporary freeze--without making any moves to accelerate, or even hold, negotiations.

Thus, the PA has wasted almost 20 years, during which thousands of buildings have been added to Israeli settlements.

Here is a fundamental flaw in the assumption that the Palestinians are desperately eager to get a state and end their suffering. They don't seem so eager at all. Why? Because the Palestinian leadership has long argued that it is more important to conquer all of Israel--or reach an agreement that didn't get in the way of pursuing that goal--than to make compromises and get a two-state solution.

What does the PA want? An independent Palestinian state given as a gift by the world rather than requiring mutual compromise with Israel. That doesn't require negotiations, it requires a lack of negotiations.

If Abbas walks away from talks he will not be crying that creation of a Palestinian state has been delayed. On the contrary, he will be smiling that he escaped from what most PA leaders--though not Prime Minister Salam Fayad--view as the peace trap.

Incidentally, note that when President Barack Obama made his upbeat interpretation of the "peace process" one of the main themes in his September 23 UN speech, he was totally aware that the negotiations were probably on the verge of collapse. It could be argued that by playing up the issue he was trying to encourage everyone to keep going, but how can you stake your diplomatic reputation on a card that is about to bring down a house of cards?  That's somewhere between being irresponsible and suicidal.

But perhaps Obama has reason to think he can get away with such things. After all, people have forgotten what happened with his speech to the UN last year! He predicted high-level, intensive Israel-Palestinian talks within three months and it took him a year to get low-level, fragile, limited talks. His policy was a total failure yet try to find anyone in the mass media reporting that point.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.