Reality Intrudes

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
14 April '10

The AP characterized Obama’s comments on the Middle East “peace process” at the conclusion of the nuclear summit as “surprisingly downbeat.” But, given what’s been coming out of the White House these days, it was the best news Israel and its supporters have had in weeks – since the beginning of the contrived tizzy over a Jerusalem housing permit. It was, I’ll grant you, a bit of a surprise. A sliver of reality, it seems, has intruded into the Obami’s Israel policy. The AP reports:

The two sides “may say to themselves, ‘We are not prepared to resolve these issues no matter how much pressure the United States brings to bear,’” Obama said.

Obama reiterated that peace is a vital goal, but one that may be beyond reach “even if we are applying all of our political capital.”

Obama was responding to a question about whether the successful negotiation of a new arms control treaty with Russia and the agreements he won at this week’s nuclear summit could help him make gains elsewhere. His words are a recognition that although he pledged to work hard for a deal from his first day in office, Obama has gotten little traction in the decades-old conflict.

Now it’s not normally good news for Israel’s supporters when James ”f*** the Jews” Baker is quoted by an American president. But in this case it was an improvement over what we’ve heard of late:

(Read full post)

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

If You Think the Obama Administratiion's Middle East Policy is Bad Now, Just Consider This...

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
03 April '10

Charles Freeman has just taken another step in revealing his out-of-control loathing of Israel, accusing it of being worse than South Africa. Who is he and why is this significant?

It matters because Freeman, with nothing more to lose from making public his true feelings, had been the Obama Administration nominee to be coordinator of Middle East intelligence. Freeman had to withdraw and though the real reason has never before been made public, it is this: he was involved in business with Saudi Arabia which came dangerously close to the borders of legality.

Freeman was also a client of the Saudis to such an extent that then Secretary of State James Baker apparently decided to get rid of him. Baker, who certainly couldn't be accused of being pro-Israel, described Freeman in scathing terms in his own autobiography for always taking the Saudi line in a way that interfered in the effort to force Iraq out of Kuwait in 1990-1991.

(Read full post)
.

False Moral Equivalence and Its Defenders

Peter Wehner
Contentions/Commentary
03 February '10

Jackson Diehl, in a recent posting, wrote about the fact that in his State of the Union address, President Obama failed to mention Israel, the Palestinians, or the Middle East peace process, which was one of his most high-profile diplomatic initiatives during his first year. “For those reading tea leaves,” Diehl wrote, “and there are many in the Middle East — the president has offered a few signs recently that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have moved down his list of priorities.” Diehl thinks that’s a wise idea.

As I argued in a column earlier this month, the history of Israeli-Arab diplomacy clearly shows that only peace efforts that originate with the parties themselves have succeeded. Or, as former secretary of state James A. Baker III once put it, we “can’t want peace more than the parties” themselves. Baker, a master of Middle East diplomacy, once publicly gave Israelis and Palestinians the White House phone number and invited them to call when they were serious about pursuing negotiations. In a more subtle way, Obama may be doing the same thing.

I agree that having the U.S. try to impose a solution is the wrong way to proceed. But where I disagree with Diehl is in his “pox on both your houses” approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This is an almost reflexive habit among many people in the foreign-policy establishment and the political class. The Israelis and Palestinians are equally to blame for the tension and lack of progress. Both sides have made mistakes. Neither has done all it should. Both are equally culpable. Call us when you’re serious.

This account is not only wrong; it is fanciful.

(Read full post)
.