Obama is still seeking a Middle East legacy? by Jonathan Schanzer

...President Obama may be the last man on earth to get the memo, but after decades of fruitless efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it might be wiser for the U.S. to step back until the Palestinians recognize that peace cannot be imposed from the outside. If Mr. Obama is still seeking a Middle East legacy at this late stage in his presidency, his best move is do nothing to make it worse.

Jonathan Schanzer..
Opinion/Wall St. Journal..
31 October '16..
Link: http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-israel-surprise-1477956091

The Middle East has few bright spots these days, but one is the budding rapprochement between Israel and its Sunni Arab neighbors, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, thanks to shared threats from Iran and Islamic State. Now the Obama Administration may have plans to wreck even that.

Israeli diplomats gird for the possibility that President Obama may try to force a diplomatic resolution for Israel and the Palestinians at the United Nations. The White House has been unusually tight-lipped about what, if anything, it might have in mind. But our sources say the White House has asked the State Department to develop an options menu for the President’s final weeks.

One possibility would be to sponsor, or at least allow, a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction, perhaps alongside new IRS regulations revoking the tax-exempt status of people or entities involved in settlement building. The Administration vetoed such a resolution in 2011 on grounds that it “risks hardening the position of both sides,” which remains true.

But condemning the settlements has always been a popular way of scoring points against the Jewish state, not least at the State Department, and an anti-settlement resolution might burnish Mr. Obama’s progressive brand for his post-presidency.

Mr. Obama may also seek formal recognition of a Palestinian state at the Security Council. This would run afoul of Congress’s longstanding view that “Palestine” does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood, including a defined territory and effective government, though Mr. Obama could overcome the objection through his usual expedient of an executive action, thereby daring the next President to reverse him.

Both actions would be a boon to the bullies in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, while also subjecting Israeli citizens and supporters abroad to new and more aggressive forms of legal harassment. It could even criminalize the Israeli army—and every reservist who serves in it—on the theory that it is illegally occupying a foreign state. Does Mr. Obama want to be remembered as the President who criminalized Israeli citizenship?

Mr. President - What’s in a name?

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
15 June '12..

Word is that US President Barack Obama, remarkably free from introspection and unencumbered by healthy hints of self-doubt, assiduously attributes Israeli mistrust of him to his eminently Muslim middle name. For him that encapsulates it all.

Such simplistic, one-dimensional explanations typify his neophyte missteps on the treacherous turfs of foreign policy. Obama botches things up because of his predilection for facile grand gestures, which, alas, can’t alter intricate realities. He hasn’t got an elementary handle on our Israeli outlook and is likewise unable to navigate the tempestuous Islamic sea that swirls ominously around us.

He doesn’t get us and he doesn’t get them.

Obama’s oversimplified presumptions about our perceived antipathy toward him (without stopping to consider his undisguised cold shoulder to us), are matched by oversimplified expectations that the Muslim/Arab world should cheer him. These too hinge on that eminently Muslim middle name. Being called Hussein should, in and of itself, create an affinity, make Muslims trust him and accept him as a kindred spirit.

This, of course, is every bit as simplistic as the notion that Israelis should harbor misgivings because of his name.

In both cases there’s more than latent condescension in the notion that simpleton natives can be attracted or repelled with trivial outward accoutrements. Obama, the sophisticated enchanter, can manipulate them. Whether he captivates or chides them, they, like impressionable children, will play out his expectations, complying with considerations as silly as those encapsulated in a name.

Rubin - How Is Obama’s Middle East Policy Endangering Israel?

Let Me Count the Ways

Barry Rubin
Rubin Reports
12 December '11



http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/12/12/how-is-obamas-middle-east-policy-endangering-israel-let-me-count-the-ways/

Think about this: In the year 2012 the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Middle East will be governed by radical Islamist regimes that believe in waging jihad on Israel and America, wiping Israel off the map, suppressing Christians, reducing the status of women even more than it is now, and their right as true interpreters of God’s will to govern as dictators. (Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey) President Obama does not see this as a problem.

Recently a reader sent me a note from an Obama supporter responding to some of my articles. He says–like the administration–that Obama has not done a single thing to damage Israel’s security. I have written this response. The other person’s statements are in bold.

.–Obama did cause the Palestinians to drop their U.N. maneuver of obtaining statehood without a negotiated peace.

The PA announced they it was going to do this gambit around October 2010. Obama did nothing until almost a year later. He made no threat nor put any pressure on the PA. He had to take this stand or else veto in which case that would have been costly to him in the Arab world for sure. It is good that he did this but it was the absolute minimum, not some great concession to Israel. In other words, the Palestinian Authority broke all of its commitments to negotiate peace with Israel, the Obama Administration did nothing, blamed Israel, and after a year stopped the PA from formally wrecking everything so that we all went back to the previous situation. And this is proof of great support for Israel?

–If Obama was so anti-Israel why did he do that?

Answer above. For goodness sakes one doesn’t have to be pro-Israel to stop the PA from blowing up the peace process chances forever and messing up U.S. interests. And of course this is about the only thing that Obama has done “for Israel” on a diplomatic level in three years which is why people keep citing it. Indeed, by mentioning this action by Obama his supporters in an indirect way announce how little he has done, that only the most minimal steps can be expected.

It doesn’t matter whether Obama likes Israel or not but only what is his policy and the effects it has. President Richard Nixon did not like Israel but his policy very much supported Israel’s security. Nor is this a matter of whether Obama doesn’t like the Likud or Prime Minister Netanyahu. Nor of whether or not he visits Israel. I don’t think Obama is a Muslim or an antisemite. He simply has policy beliefs that endanger Israel but also all of the moderate people in the Middle East and U.S. interests there.

Glick - Obama's only policy

Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
05 August '11



http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/08/obamas-only-policy.php

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has explained repeatedly over the years that Israel has no Palestinian partner to negotiate with. So news reports this week that Netanyahu agreed that the 1949 armistice lines, (commonly misrepresented as the 1967 borders), will be mentioned in terms of reference for future negotiations with the Palestinian Authority seemed to come out of nowhere.

Israel has no one to negotiate with because the Palestinians reject Israel's right to exist. This much was made clear yet again last month when senior PA "negotiator" Nabil Sha'ath said in an interview with Arabic News Broadcast, "The story of 'two states for two peoples' means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this."

Given the Palestinians' position it is obvious that Netanyahu is right. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that Israel and the PA will reach any peace deal in the foreseeable future. Add to this the fact that the Hamas terror group controls Gaza and will likely win any new Palestinian elections just as it won the last elections, and the entire exercise in finding the right formula for restarting negotiations is exposed as a complete farce.

So why is Israel engaging in these discussions?

The only logical answer is to placate US President Barack Obama.

For the past several months, most observers have been operating under the assumption that Obama will use the US's veto at the UN Security Council to defeat the Palestinians' bid next month to receive UN membership as independent Palestine. But the fact of the matter is that no senior administration official has stated unequivocally, on record that the US will veto a UN Security Council resolution recommending UN membership for Palestine.

Given Congressional and public support for Israel, it is likely that at the end of the day, Obama will veto such a resolution. But the fact that the President has abstained to date from stating openly that he will veto it makes clear that Obama expects Israel to "earn" a US veto by bowing to his demands.

These demands include abandoning Israel's position that it must retain defensible borders in any peace deal with the Palestinians. Since defensible borders require Israel to retain control over the Jordan Valley and the Samarian hills, there is no way to accept the 1949 armistice lines as a basis for negotiations without surrendering defensible borders.

Say what you will about Obama's policy, at least it's a policy. Obama uses US power and leverage against Israel in order to force Israel to bow to his will.

What makes Obama's Israel policy notable is not simply that it involves betraying the US's most steadfast ally in the Middle East. After all, since taking office Obama has made a habit of betraying US allies.

Obama's Israel policy is notable because it is a policy. Obama has a clear, consistent goal of cutting Israel down to size. Since assuming office, Obama has taken concrete steps to achieve this aim.

Rubin: Rahm Emanuel Tries to Build Up Obama on Israel But Digs Him Into a Deeper Hole

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
05 June '11

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/06/rahm-wasnt-built-in-day-but-obama-digs.html

You know that President Barack Obama understands he’s got problems with Israel (and, more importantly for him, with its supporters in the United States) when he trots out Rahm Emanuel to write an op-ed in defense of the president’s alleged love for Israel.

Rahm Emanuel may have been born an Israeli citizen and had his son bar-mitzvahed in Jerusalem but to have Emanuel attest to Obama’s credentials on Israel is like having Mel Gibson as spokesman for Australia; or Arnold Schwarzenegger as Austria’s booster; or Dominique Strauss-Kahn as the poster boy for France's tourism board ("Hi, I'm Dominique Strauss-Kahn, come to France and stay in our wonderful hotels!)

In other words, it is totally meaningless and even—for those who know something about the individuals involved—even counterproductive.

There are, however, two important things it tells us about Obama and his administration:

First, they are detached from reality enough to think that this is a clever idea. Rather than going to someone actually recognized as being pro-Israel or active in Jewish affairs who supports Obama (I could give him a list of far better people) he turned to a political crony who is disliked by both communities. Despite the near-fanatical support for Obama by the majority of American Jews, he is totally deaf to their concerns and feelings.

Second, it shows that Obama always prefers a cheap public relations’ gesture to a substantive policy action.

Just because Emanuel was born an Israeli citizen, however, doesn’t mean he knows much about the country. I was struck by the total idiocy of his big argument:

“President Obama, like every student of the Middle East, understands that the shifting sands of demography in that volatile region are working against the two-state solution needed to end generations of bloodshed.”

If Obama is a student of the Middle East, he gets an “F” on his report card.

I’m a student of the Middle East and I think that’s total nonsense. Why is the “demography” in the region against the two-state solution? Because there are more Palestinians? Who cares? That has absolutely zero political impact as such.

Israel does not rule the Gaza Strip. Hamas does.

Israel does not rule the people of the West Bank (as opposed to territory there without any people living in it) Fatah does, through the Palestinian Authority.

Hello? That’s been the basic situation now for 17 years. (Not the Hamas part, the Palestinian Authority aspect.)

So what if the Palestinian population doubles, triples, quadruples, that has no effect at all on Israel’s status as a democratic state of its citizens. And as the past has shown, Israel can win against much larger countries because of a list of factors I won’t bother listing here.)

Rubin: Here In One Sentence is What Obama Doesn't Understand About the Middle East

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
30 May '11

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/05/here-in-one-sentence-is-what-obama.html

Here's the sentence:

The changes in the region are producing more extremism, not more moderation.

That applies to attitudes toward America and Israel as well as on internal social issues.

Rachi Ghanouchi, head of Tunisia's Islamist movement--a man long portrayed as a moderate in the West--just publicly came out and called for Israel's destruction. And what does Voice of America tell us and the Arabs? That Ghanouchi is a moderate who doesn't want an Islamist state! Your tax dollars at work. What does CBS News tell us? That the Islamist party denounced the killing of a priest. Obviously very tolerant people.

Of course, the Tunisian Islamists are far weaker than those in Egypt. Still, the West is deluding itself in thinking they are moderate.

Yet let's listen--thanks to MEMRI--at what the VOA and CBS producers counterpart in the Arab world is saying. In an article written for a Qatari and a Jordanian newspaper, entitled "Israel Is Surely Temporary," Samir al-Hijjawi says

"It's time for Israel to go... It's time for the end of the great lie... It's time [for Israel] to go because the regimes protecting [it]... are toppling one by one." He added that the recent protests on Israel's borders prove the Palestinians and Arabs will never relinquish all of Palestine because it is sacred Muslim territory.

I'll bet that every producer and pretty much every staff member of al-Jazira--the station Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recommended as accurate--agrees.

Get it? For Obama, the "Arab Spring" means moderation and democracy. To most Arabs and Muslims, it represents a resurgence of Islamism and nationalism, the prelude for getting rid of Israel and U.S. influence in the region.

I'd be bothered less if Obama acknowledges that but claimed that his proteges would win. The fact that he has zero percent understanding of the threat is the prelude to disaster. The fact that almost all Western newspapers and television news operations think the same way as Obama makes the situation even worse.

This article is published on PajamasMedia.


If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Arab Spring: What Does It Really Mean?

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
22 May '11

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/05/arab-spring-what-does-it-really-mean.html

There are 20 Muslim-majority political entities in the Middle East--counting the Gaza Strip and West Bank separately.

In 2 of these--Tunisia and Egypt--there has been political change, though the outcome is far from certain. As of now, both are basically ruled by the military. The revolutions succeeded in large part because of support from the armed forces. In Egypt, the parliamentary elections are certain to produce a majority of Islamists, Marxists, and radical nationalists.

In 2 more--Libya and Yemen--change is pending. In Libya, though, the dictator is basically winning the civil war despite Western intervention on the other side. In Yemen, even if the dictator leaves it is generally recognized that nothing will change.

There have been no major pro-democracy or even anti-regime demonstrations in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Morocco, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.

In Bahrain, the demonstrations have been put down. In Syria and Iran, though there are still demonstrations, they have been heavily repressed. Nothing is going to change in Iran and probably not in Syria.

This is not to deny that there have been important developments, yet is this as much of an earthquake as many seem to think? Is this so clearly a transition to democracy?

It might be the beginning of a long-term process that will last for decades.

"Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests don't align perfectly with our long-term vision for the region."

Everyone should be parsing that sentence which is a model of suicidally wishful thinking.

Yeah, they might not be perfect democracies and they might cause us a little trouble for a short time but everything's going to be great! Nothing can possibly go wrong except, of course, if repression stops these wonderful transitions.

Remember, when a president refuses to look at what can--and will--go wrong and at what the threats are--if only to combat them more effectively--his country is in very serious trouble. And so are its friends.

This article is published on PajamasMedia

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/.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Obama's virtual reality

Yoram Ettinger
Israel Opinion/Ynet
21 May '11

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4071786,00.html

Op-ed: President’s idealistic vision ignores Arab tradition of tyranny, political violence

On November 2, 2010, the US electorate decided that President Obama was detached from domestic reality, and therefore dealt the Democratic Party a devastating defeat in federal and state legislatures, as well as in gubernatorial elections. In his May 19, 2011 speech on the Middle East, the President proved himself detached from Mideast reality as well.

President Obama is determined to introduce democracy to Arab countries, in spite of their 1,400 year old systemic track record of tyranny, terror, political violence, uncertainty, volatility and treachery. He prefers the virtual reality of the "Arab Spring," rather than contending with the Middle Eastern reality of the "Stormy Arab Winter." Hence, he views the seismic events rocking the region as "a story of self-determination" and is convinced that "repression will not work anymore."

Obama's virtual reality leads him to compare the violent Arab Street to "the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a king, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat." Are the two million Egyptians who assembled at Cairo's Tahrir Square, cheering Sheikh Kardawi, a top Muslim Brotherhood leader, following in the footsteps of Patrick Henry and Martin Luther King???

President Obama offers to relieve "a democratic Egypt" of up to $1billion in debt and to channel billions of dollars to Egypt and Tunisia, "the vanguard of this democratic wave…, (which) can set a strong example through free and fair elections, a vibrant civil society, accountable and effective democratic institutions and responsible regional leadership." He expects the flow of aid to generate trade, entrepreneurship and a free market economy. However, he downplays the absence of an appropriate infrastructure of values and education in the Arab Middle East, which is a prerequisite for democracy and a free market economy.

Glick: Obama's abandonment of America

Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
20 May '11

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/05/obamas-abandonment-of-america.php

I was out sick yesterday so I was unable to write today's column for the Jerusalem Post. I did manage to watch President Obama's speech on the Middle East yesterday evening. And I didn't want to wait until next week to discuss it. After all, who knows what he'll do by Tuesday?

Before we get into what the speech means for Israel, it is important to consider what it means for America.

Quite simply, Obama's speech represents the effective renunciation of the US's right to have and to pursue national interests. Consequently, his speech imperils the real interests that the US has in the region - first and foremost, the US's interest in securing its national security.

Obama's renunciation of the US national interests unfolded as follows:

First, Obama mentioned a number of core US interests in the region. In his view these are: "Countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel's security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace."

Then he said, "Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind."

While this is true enough, Obama went on to say that the Arabs have good reason to hate the US and that it is up to the US to put its national interests aside in the interest of making them like America. As he put it, "a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities."

And you know what that means. If the US doesn't end the "spiral of division," (sounds sort of like "spiral of violence" doesn't it?), then the Muslims will come after America. So the US better straighten up and fly right.

And how does it do that? Well, by courting the Muslim Brotherhood which spawned Al Qaeda, Hamas, Jamma Islamiya and a number of other terror groups and is allies with Hezbollah.

How do we know this is Obama's plan? Because right after he said that the US needs to end the "spiral of division," he recalled his speech in Egypt in June 2009 when he spoke at the Brotherhood controlled Al Azhar University and made sure that Brotherhood members were in the audience in a direct diplomatic assault on US ally Hosni Mubarak.

Another Sign of Impending War in Israel

West Bank Mama
20 May '11

http://westbankmama.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/another-sign-of-impending-war-in-israel/

President Obama’s speech last night, with his statement about Israel returning to the 1967 borders, is another sign of impending war here in Israel, but not in the way that the Arabs hope for.

The political experts will analyze both his speech and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech next week in Congress to death, spinning it one way or another, but the important thing in understanding what happens in the Middle East is not to concentrate on America or Israel’s words, but the Arab reaction to those words, and more importantly, their actions.

Hamas has already rejected Obama’s speech, saying that Obama favors Israel. The Fatah faction has called for an emergency meeting to discuss it – not exactly a positive reaction. Even when he supposedly “gives” them what they “want” – it is not enough. This is typical, and is the core point to consider when looking at modern Israeli history.

The Arabs will never accept Israel’s right to exist, and they will go to war against us again and again. They cannot compromise – it is always all or nothing with them. Since we here in Israel will not give in and just commit suicide, there will always be ongoing conflict. They refused to compromise when the UN partitioned the region in 1947. After the unsuccesful attempt to drive all of the Jews out in May 1948 , (which they have the nerve to complain about, even now) instead of learning to live with the Jewish State, they decided to try again 19 years later. The Jews defended themselves again, and won. This paved the way for the Jews to be able to unite Jerusalem and visit the Kotel (Western Wall) for the first time in 19 years, and it enabled me and 300,000 other Jews to be able to live in Yehuda and Shomron (Judea and Samaria).

Now Obama has stupidly raised the Arab expectations again. They will wait in growing frustration for him to “do something” to make Israel go back to the 1967 borders. (Common sense says that if Obama sits and watches Assad kill thousands of his own people without doing anything, it is crazy to think he will go against Israel for building houses. Then again, if we were dealing with common sense the whole region would be at peace) When he doesn’t, they will explode and attack us, again.

The real question is how widespread the next war will be. It might be “just” an operation in Gaza to stop the inevitable rocket fire from there. It might include riots and terrorist attacks in Judea and Samaria – what the Arabs are calling the third intifada. It might include rocket fire from Hizballah in Lebanon. Or, it could be an even wider conflict which includes the Arabs from Syria and Egypt to pile on. The worst case scenario is all of these things together – which will represent a re-enaction of our War of Independence – with one major difference. Instead of attacking a state with 600,000 citizens, including many refugees from the Holocaust, poorly trained and without its own weapons industry – the Arabs will be attacking a country with 7 million people with the best trained army in the world (and yes, better than America’s for the one main reason that we are always fighting for our lives. Fighting thousands of miles from home is not the same kind of thing as fighting in your own backyard to protect your family).

The most ironic thing, of course is the fact that Obama said what he did to try to further the “peace process”. Not only will this not bring peace, but Obama will lose support of many Jews and pro-Israel Americans. For a short time he may gain support of the Arabs, but when they see his inaction they will start to complain, and their support will dwindle too.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

From Israel: Sharing As Possible

Arlene Kushner
Arlene from Israel
19 May '11




Once this goes out, there will not be another posting from me for several days, as I shift my focus from the wider world to my private world, and the advent (please G-d may all go well in the next couple of days) of a new grandchild. The greatest of blessings, and the reason for everything I do: those dearly, deeply loved of the next generation.

And yet, as I write, we are in the midst of several things happening. It is only very briefly that I will be able to address them.

~~~~~~~~~~

What can I say? Obama is from another planet, delusional. Dangerous.

And let us not forget devious. Today Prime Minister Netanyahu is meeting with him in the White House. But BEFORE they had a chance to talk, BEFORE Netanyahu had a chance to give his talk, the president of the United States, a man never to be trusted, had his say. And undercut Israel's position.

In his speech from the State Department last night, he said peace between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel is "more urgent than ever." And, while saying he cannot impose a settlement, proposed what it should look like:

The core, the key, is that he went on record saying that Israel should return to the '67 armistice lines. This in spite of multiple understandings with American administrations that Israel would not be asked to do this.

He suggested that there should be a “full and phased withdrawal” of the IDF to be coordinated with the Palestinians during a transition period with a clear duration and demonstrated security effectiveness.
He would put us on the block, and yet he then has the unmitigated gall to talk about devotion to Israel's security. A transition period? The '67 lines will never be acceptable, can never be secure, but he would have us move in that direction even before other matters are clear. He sees us making that move to entice the Arabs back to the table. He would have us do this BEFORE Jerusalem and refugees are even discussed. Gone is the principle of "everything is decided or nothing is decided."

What particularly galled me is that he admitted that the unity government raises "profound and legitimate questions for Israel” and said, in an other-worldly approach, that the Arabs will have to "provide answers." Right. But in face of these "profound questions" he acknowledges Israel has, he is calling for her to take bold steps towards peace.

~~~~~~~~~~

Israel's Response: Elder, Yisrael Medad, and Daled Amos

Yosef
19 May '11

The first responses to Pres. Obama's speech are beginning to appear. The following three are always a good place to begin.

Elder of Ziyon: My review of Obama's speech

The Obama speech was clearly wordsmithed to keep Zionists as happy as possible while he slipped in a major US policy change. As far as I can tell, this is the first time that a US president has announced that the solution must be based on the so-called “1967 lines” as opposed to the previous position that the borders must be determined through negotiations.

Now, this has been the Israeli position–or at least the Labor and Kadima position–since 2000, and it is hard to ask the US to be more righteous than the Pope. But it is still a change in policy and it makes it much more difficult for Jews to believe that they will continue to have free access to their holiest sites. (Read full post)

==========================================

Yisrael Medad: Obama Has A Vision

From his speech today:

...The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region. [so, going back to the dispute over the Road Map outline, first come cessation of violence and incitement and perverse education in schools and summer camps and then only afterwards, negotiations about territory - and not parallel] We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders [which means that the Arab society in Judea and Samaria still has a long way to go]... (Read full post)

=============================================

Daled Amos: Text Of Israel's Response To Obama's Middle East Speech

Here is the text of Israel's reaction to Obama's speech today:
Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace. Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.

That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress. (Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Why Obama Administration Peace Process Policy Will Be A Total Waste of Time in 2011

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
20 January '11

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-obama-administration-peace-process.html

Since predicting the future is hard, to say the least, it's always interesting when one can clearly see a crisis looming months ahead of time. The usual pattern is for the impending problem to be ignored until the last minute, then it is suddenly discovered by journalists and policymakers with great astonishment.

Often, they then misdiagnose the causes of the problem precisely because they never understood why it happened in the first place.

In this case, the Palestinian Authority (PA) foreign minister--remember when the 1993 Israel-PLO agreement said that the PA wouldn't conduct foreign policy? Ha-ha-ha--Riyad Malki says he will seek recognition of a Palestinian state in September at the UN. For many years, Malki ran the terrorist group, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) on the West Bank. But it's ok! He quit.

So far, recognition has been obtained from Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador, with Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, and Chile considered next. Of course, almost 100 countries recognized the Palestinian state a long time ago, often 20 years ago, and that didn't change anything. Indeed, I was present when a unilateral declaration of independence was made near Algiers on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the PLO's parliament.

Everything the PA has obtained in the last 17 years has been due not to those diplomatic recognitions but to the 1993 agreement with Israel. To walk away from that agreement and negotiations in general would be a serious matter of violating every commitment the PA has understaken. It tells something about the PA's pattern of behavior and reliability in keeping agreements. But who cares, right?

More immediately, though, I have not seen a single article in any mass media outlet that makes these most simple and obvious points:

First, the PA has basically refused to negotiate with Israel for two full years, though one would scarcely know that from media coverage.

Second, this intransigence is now being parlayed into a unilateral action. The PA won't negotiate with Israel at all. Thus, it will not have to make any commitments, compromises, or concessions. It will simply get a state on a silver platter on all of the territory it claims.

That, at least is the strategy: If the world gives me everything I want who needs you?

I have also not seen a single mass media outlet even mention that the problem here is that the Palestinians would be offered a state without having to declare that this is their final demand. In other words, as the Palestinians have always wanted, the door would be open for a second round of conflict to wipe Israel off the map.

Who will be the big loser if this happens? In theory, you would think it would be Israel. But in fact even the PA realizes that this is going to have limited effect on the ground. The PA does need Israel for many things, including, for example, helping keep it from being overthrown by Hamas and passing through needed goods.

Even PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has admitted, in the words of an AP dispatch, "that the recognition drive at the UN will not necessarily bring realization of a state. But it helps the Palestinians enshrine their demand that the 1967 borders serve as the basis for drawing their nation's shape."

Or in Malki's words: "Such recognition would create political and legal pressure on Israel to withdraw its forces from the land of another state that is recognized within the 1967 borders by the international organization."

But it won't affect Israel very much at all. Nothing really will change.
By the way, let's remember that contrary to international practice, the PA cannot claim to be a state in those borders because it doesn't control that territory. And I'm referring here to the Gaza Strip, east Jerusalem, and much of the West Bank. Moreover, it is asking for recognition in contradiction to its existing treaty commitments. But again, who cares?

The UN General Assembly will no doubt accept Palestinian statehood by a resounding majority without that country making any commitments to peace, security guarantees, an end of the conflict, or anything else. Then the issue will go to the UN Security Council where the United States will veto it. Yes, President Barack Obama will do that. And so there will be no real change in the situation.

And that brings me back to my point. The big loser here is the United States. After all, why should the PA make any attempt whatsoever to negotiate seriously if at the end of nine months it can get everything it wants for free? How can the U.S. government ignore this reality?

In other words, the next nine months of U.S. policy on the peace process will be a complete and total waste of time. And nothing Israel does, for good or bad, will affect that reality.

There is, of course, something the U.S. government can do: maximum pressure on other states not to recognize; maximum pressure on the PA to drop the idea. Of course, this is not going to happen.

So, surer than the Titanic was going to hit that iceberg if it didn't change course, the Obama Administration is headed for getting a big hole in its side and taking on considerable water. Remember, you heard it here first. And you probably won't hear it anywhere else until about August.

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.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Washington Post: Obama Administration "looks weak" and is "pushed around by Arab strongmen"

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
06 December '10

The Washington Post's editorial, “Mr. Mubarak vs. Mr. Obama,” has two passages especially worthy of notice.

Among U.S. daily city newspapers, the Post has been the best generally at understanding the serious trouble created by the Obama Administration’s mistakes and misunderstandings. In this editorial, it urges the U.S government to get tougher with Egypt over human rights’ issues there, especially in regard to the parliamentary elections.

What interests me most, though, are two specific statements. Here they are:

“[Egyptian President Husni] Mubarak's rude dismissal of what have been gentle U.S. calls for change is making the Obama administration look weak in a region that can be quick to act on such perceptions….

“Most of all, Mr. Obama should make it clear that he will not be dismissed or pushed around by Arab strongmen. If Mr. Mubarak gets away with it, others will be quick to follow his example.” In fact, the Post was so upset about this that it followed up with a second, similar editorial.

I think the Post is trying to be subtle here and to put its argument in terms that the White House might heed. But, of course, these statements are also ironic. After all, what’s been happening during the last two years? Follow Mubarak's example? He's merely following everyone else's example.

“Look weak”?” “Pushed around by Arab strongmen?” To broaden the list a bit, here's what's been happening regarding U.S. policy:

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

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

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
28 November '10

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.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Ben Smith Spills the Beans: Obama’s Middle East Policy Is a Disaster

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
22 November '10

Ben Smith reveals what nearly every serious Middle East observer already knows: Obama has made things worse, not better, in that volatile region. He reports:

Instead of becoming a heady triumph of his diplomatic skill and special insight, Obama’s peace process is viewed almost universally in Israel as a mistake-riddled fantasy. And far from becoming the transcendent figure in a centuries-old drama, Obama has become just another frustrated player on a hardened Mideast landscape. …

Meanwhile, Palestinian leaders have refused American demands to hold peace talks with the Israelis before the freeze is extended. Talks with Arab states over gestures intended to build Israeli confidence – a key part of Obama’s early plan — have long since been scrapped.

The political peace process to which Obama committed so much energy is considered a failure so far. And in the world’s most pro-American state, the public and its leaders have lost any faith in Obama and – increasingly — even in the notion of a politically negotiated peace.

Obama naturally blames everyone else. But the criticism is biting and personal: it is Obama and his misguided ideology that are at the root of the problem:

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The U.S. Elections and the Middle East: How Many Barack Obamas Do You Need to Change a Light Bulb?

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
03 November '10

What effect will the Congressional elections have on U.S. foreign policy generally and Middle East policy in particular?

It isn't a matter of individuals in Congress, since nobody lost or won who will have some big influence on U.S. policy in the next couple of years. The important factor is to what extent the White House hears the message being delivered by the electorate, which of course was largely concerned with domestic issues.

And this brings us to the central issue not only for U.S. policy but also for the world today: Is President Barack Obama both pragmatic and a politician, or is he an ideologue who has no grasp of the real world? After almost two years we are still asking this question because very little is really known about this man.

If Obama is pragmatic and a politician he will take note of two things. First, his foreign policy has not won great applause by the American people. Second, his foreign policy has not won great applause--at least outside of Western Europe, and even there they are having their doubts--by foreign leaders.

In addition, much of his policy in the Middle East has failed, certainly regarding Israel-Palestinian issues, Lebanon, and Syria.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

J Street: slimier than we thought

Fresnozionism.org
23 August '10

Jeremy Ben Ami’s job is to sell administration Middle East policy to Jews.

This is not so easy to do when said administration is the most anti-Israel one since 1948. How do you sell a policy whose primary goal is to gain approval in Riyadh, the world capital of antisemitism, to Jews?

Actually, it’s easy when your customers are Jews who have had their collective Jewish historical memory wiped clean by the unprecedented paradise in which Jews have lived in the US since 1945. The American people gave us a tremendous gift by treating us more or less like anyone else legally, economically, politically and even socially — not to mention playing a major role in defeating Hitler. Many of them even like and admire us.

There has never been another time or place in Jewish history that even comes close. No matter how benign the ruler or how wealthy the community, diaspora Jews have never been able to forget that they were diaspora Jews. Until now. And now they are forgetting in droves.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Obama's Not Even Popular in the Middle East! So What's the Point?

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
23 June '10

The last pillar of President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy, his alleged popularity in the region, has gone bye-bye. All the apologies, distancing from Israel, the Cairo speech, the Istanbul speech, the engagements with Syria and Iran, the ban on using the word “Islamism,” and all the other apparatus of the new, non-strategic strategy have availed him—and U.S. interests—not.

Why? It’s very simple. On one hand, there are the enemies of America who don’t take that stance just because they thought George W. Bush was icky. They want--depending on who we are talking about--to conquer the Middle East, take over their own countries, establish a Caliphate, lord it over neighbors, wipe Israel off the map, turn women into chattel, get rid of the Christians, expel Western influence from the region, and/or transform their own countries into Islamist utopian dictatorships.

So why should we expect them to care whether the U.S. president is a nice guy who likes them and is really sorry for any time in the past when America actually did or tried to do something in the region? Indeed, Middle East dictators and revolutionaries also believe that nice guys finish last.


Then there are those who depend on the United States for their survival. You may think first of Israel but the list includes pretty much every Arabic-speaking government—more than a dozen—all of them except for Syria, Yemen, Sudan, and the Gaza Strip Islamist dictatorship of Hamas. They want a strong, determined U.S. policy that protects them from their radical enemies at home and abroad. If Washington can't provide that, these rulers seek their own deal with the revolutionaries in order to survive.

Thus, it shouldn’t surprise anyone—but does due to bad ideology and media coverage—that Obama isn’t popular. According to the latest Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project poll, he’s gone down in every Muslim-majority country. Only 17 percent of people in Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt have a positive view of the United States. In Egypt, America is less popular than it was when Bush was president.

And in some cases, Obama is less popular than the United States as a country! In Pakistan 17 percent like America, only 8 percent like Obama, despite billions in U.S. aid rained down unconditionally on that country. In Turkey, he leads the popularity of the United States by only 6 percent.

Of course, the low figures are being spun by administration supporters to suggest that if only the United States pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq, abandoned Israel completely, and perhaps held its breath until turning blue, this would all change.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Reverse linkage

Fresnozionism.org
08 June '10

I had a discussion with a friend the other day in which we talked about one-state and two-state solutions. She didn’t see how a two-state solution could work (neither do I), but a one-state solution is worse. What to do? My usual response is “do nothing and wait for the Arabs to change,” which is kind of unsatisfying, I admit.

Backing up a bit, the two-state solution won’t work mainly because the major Palestinian factions – roughly divided into the Arafatists and Hamas – don’t want it. Neither group can swallow a sovereign Jewish state of any size, although their ideas of the kind of Arab state that they would replace it with and their strategies for getting there may differ.

The Obama plan envisions either somehow getting the Palestinian factions together or having the Arafatists crush Hamas. In either case the resultant will continue to ‘resist’ the ‘occupation’ which began with the Zionist aliyah of the 1880’s. Either the administration is naïve, or it just doesn’t care about the result once it has discharged its obligation to create ‘Palestine’.

The fundamental problem is that the Palestinians think that they can win if they resist persistently enough. They like to use the example of the 200-year occupation of the Holy Land by the crusaders.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.