Posted By Marc Lynch Share

The Israeli attack on Gaza during the last weeks of the Bush administration looks more than ever like Bush's "last gift" to Israel and to the region -- carried out during the transition, with no American attempt to intervene, ending immediately before Obama's inauguration.  It poisoned the well for the new administration.  But how badly?  Will there be a "fresh start" or has the Gaza carnage significantly changed the prospects for effective movement by the new administration? 

I would argue that the Gaza crisis did impose significant costs on the new administration, and will make its task much more difficult in the early going. Few in the region seem prepared to grant Obama a fresh start, with the horrific conditions in Gaza still drawing great attention and outrage. But at the same time, if the Obama administration seizes the opportunity to really change the Bush approach -- in ways consistent with its own campaign rhetoric on regional engagement -- then it may yet be possible to spin some gold from the carnage.  

Here are five examples of the poisonous effects of Israel's attack on Gaza... and how Obama could work to overcome them:

  1. Wrecked Obama's honeymoon period. Arabs across the political spectrum were outraged by Obama's "one president at a time" mantra. As justifiable as this was -- and I think it was -- it looked in the region like Obama tacitly approved of Bush's green light for the operation. Obama now faces a lot more skepticism and anger than he otherwise might have. That said, I never expected the honeymoon period to last all that long anyway. Arabs were already closely scrutinizing every word and deed by the President-elect -- and a remarkable number seemed almost eager to find a reason to believe that Obama would fail to really change U.S. policy. But the fury is proportionate to the hopes -- and there is a real reservoir of hope and anticipation there which should not be ignored. If -- and only if -- Obama demonstrates serious changes in U.S. policy in the region, he will find many takers. 
  2. Made peace talks less likely. Israel's attack has generated tremendous outrage across the board, has worsened the divides between Gaza and the West Bank and between Hamas and Fatah, and probably will hasten the election of Benjamin Netanyahu next month.  The environment for peace talks will be as toxic as possible.  On the other hand, prospects for peace talks were already very shaky, and even before the Gaza war I heard more support for the "Syria First" option than for immediate moves on the Palestinian front.  The crisis forces the Israeli-Palestinian track on to the agenda, and perhaps strengthens the case for a  more even-handed approach (the appointment of George Mitchell is a very encouraging sign). What's more, if Gaza undermines the prospects for a return to Clinton-era "peace processing" this might actually be a very healthy thing... after all, Clinton's peace processing failed, for reasons which Aaron Miller, Dan Kurtzer, Rob Malley, and Martin Indyk have all laid out in considerable honesty and graphic detail of late. Here I highly recommend the report written by my friend Nathan Brown on Gaza for Carnegie (full disclosure: Nathan's office is two doors down from mine, and I read an earlier draft). If the Gaza crisis exposes the myths and vain hopes of the peace processors, it could push towards new approaches with a better chance of actually tackling the issues on the ground.  That's going to have to involve dealing with Hamas at some point, as most reasonable people increasingly recognize. 
  3. Strengthened radical voices, but not necessarily al-Qaeda.  There's no question that Gaza has weakened the hand of moderates and strengthened more extremist voices across the political spectrum.   It would be a mistake to simply reduce this political contest to "support for al-Qaeda", however. It should be obvious, but too often isn't, that a whole lot of Arabs and Muslims who have no patience whatsoever for al-Qaeda's ideology or tactics are furious about Gaza. Reducing the full spectrum of political opinion to al-Qaeda's extreme, marginal salafi-jihadism is a way of marginalizing and ignoring legitimate, widely-held Arab political beliefs. Abandoning that Bush-era rhetorical gambit could open up real possibilities for new political initiatives and public diplomacy... if the Obama team is willing to make that change.
  4. Strengthened the hand of the dictators. The American reliance on Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the Gaza crisis shines a glaring light once again on the tension between democracy promotion and strategic politics as usual. With public opinion inflamed and the "peace process" in peril, Arab autocrats will bid to demonstrate their usefulness to the United States in exchange for less talk of their tyrannical ways. The bad old habits persist for a reason. I'm not optimistic that this one will be overcome, but I'll continue to advocate for pushing hard on public freedoms in the region.
  5. Sharpened regional divisions. Nobody is fooled by last week's love-fest in Kuwait, where the Arab divisions and dueling summitry which had paralyzed the official Arab order during the Gaza crisis were supposedly overcome. The Gaza crisis has driven an ever sharper wedge between the camps of "moderation" and "rejection", as they've come to be called in official Arab discourse.  Here's where Obama could make a real difference.  The Bush administration thrived on and encouraged these divisions, working hard to promote clashes between the "Sunni moderates" and the "Iran-backed radicals."  Obama has the chance to end American support for this dangerously divisive approach and instead push for Arab reconciliation as part of the broader concept of regional engagement with Syria and Iran. There are real possibilities here -- if, and only if, the administration is able to maintain its coherent regional focus and ambition.
None of this would vindicate the Israeli decision to attack Gaza. But these might at least suggest how a forward-looking policy based on different premises might work with the new environment. 
 

WALKING WOUNDED

7:06 PM ET

January 26, 2009

Nuclear Israel's 'war on Gaza' poison's US diplomacy

It is tempting to see the hand of the Cheney-AIPAC cabal in the January war. The timing of this war, in the final minutes of the unitary co-presidency, was sweet for Olmert-Livni. A lame duck crooked PM could pick up the phone and torpedo a US security council vote on our own cease-fire motion. That's some poison 'chalice from the palace.'

To apply Rumsfeldian logic, the central front in any Israeli war is US voter opinion, our military aid budget and foreign policy. We broadly perceive Israeli blood as our own, and arab casualties as orcish easterlings. Any bloodshed tends to harden US opinion behind Israeli occupation ops. One murdered Israeli justifies blasting away 100 Gazans, to get at the bad guys.

Even without the smoldering wreckage of Gaza, it's sobering to look at Obama's top admin picks. Biden's 'I am a zionist' gaffe aside, he's deeply invested in expansive Israeli borders. Rahmbo is even more front and center, screening the president's calendar and agenda, protecting his "Israel First' credentials for 2012 fundraising. I guess a former US Congressman legally isn't a lobbyist per se, but he's one rainmaking friend of the jewish state. SecState Clinton, she's a pragmatist, and the path of political expediency led most of Congress to support bombing Gaza City. Any deviation away from 'Israel First' would be a departure from her conservative youth, centrist husband, and NY senator past.

Mitchell and Clinton's diplomacy will be spied on and exposed for destruction, if it threatens any substantive change to our policy of paying for Israeli military suppremacy, and enabling Israel's offensive options.

I'd like to hope that Obama has pulled oponents to a more progressive policy into his cabinet, in a Lincolnesque move that will return Israel to it's 1967 borders. I've not seen any sign of that yet.

I do think it will take new developments on the central US political front. Before our elected leaders will summon the courage to put the 'eretz israel' program that is so destabilizing permenantly out of reach, they need political cover.

It's time for US progressives to try something else. Nuclear truth or consequences for Israel could be that something.

Israel's tap on US military aid is predicated on their 'nuclear opacity'. They both claim possession (Vannunu, and both Olmert and Peres have broken the silence) and defer inspections of their nuclear weapons program. This has allowed them to wag the dog thru threat of a first nuclear strike at various times. Yes, they have threatened first use, to protect an occupying army in Egypt, without sufferring from non-compliance with Nuclear Proliferation Treaty provisions. And gotten new arms shipment from us for doing so.

As author and signatory to the NPT convention, we are required to ensure that enabling military aid and technology is not going to a proliferator. Like F-15 nuclear bombers. Israel is in non-compliance, having partnered for nukes with India and apartheid S. Africa. Israel's uranium and plutonium separation activities at Dimona would probably not even pass IAEA safety inspections for reactor fuel standards, and leaks are starting to create a stir in the Israeli press.

As a sovereign state, Israel has a right to defense, and even to pursue nuclear weapons, just like India. But they also are subject to US laws and treaties that govern our military aid. If we blindly let them wag the dog, we are sacrificing our right to a sovereignty foreign policy, and our right to peaceful cooperation. On nukes, no less.

The jouney begins with a single step. It's time for Prof. Lynch's colleagues to demand an NIE on ME nuclear status be delivered to congress. Confirm or deny Israeli nukes, history of aquisition and doctrine of use. Spotlight the elephant in the room. Then our elected representatives and government officers can be tasked to rationally respond according to existing law and the best information.

We have a right to know what we are voting on, and should demand no less for our representatives.

 

BRETT

1:47 AM ET

January 27, 2009

Excellent comment for the

Excellent comment for the most part, Walking Wounded, with regards to the issues surrounding Israel's nuclear deterrent.

I wonder if there is any chance that they'll end up lowering or loosening the blockade. Israel will probably oppose, but if the blockade stays up, then Hamas will probably continue to check for opportunities to change that situation - and since their background is that of a militia, further violence is going to be one of the major options.

As is, this is another argument for loosening our ties to Israel as part of a greater limitation of our exposure to the Middle East, economically as well as politically. If Israel wants to continue building settlements in the West Bank (and before some poster comes in roaring about "Well, they were legal back in 1949 under a UN Resolution!", keep in mind that the 1948 Resolution is essentially dead. The 1949 Armistice agreement was much more important.), while building roads and the like alongside hundreds of checkpoints in order to keep the West Bank Palestinians in a neat, Apartheid-style arrangement, that would be their perogative - but they couldn't count on US support for it.

 

WALKING WOUNDED

2:55 AM ET

January 28, 2009

Israeli nukes are offensive enablers, not a deterrant

Thanks for your kind comment, Brett. But your use of 'Israel's nuclear deterrant" illustrates how we bend the language to the breaking point for Nuclear Israel. I suggest 'Israel's regional nuclear monopoly' as descriptive of the two major facts. Only they got 'em, for now.

Nuclear deterrant generally calls up a defensive image, a doctrine that deters nuclear attack. Like Pakistan's small but growing arsenal deters India's much larger and growing nuke inventory from gaining an overwhelming advantage.

The combined front line ME Arab states haven't had even a numerical conventional parity with Israel since 1967, when it was shown that the qualitative Israeli military advantage was overwhelming.

When Israel went operationally nuclear before 1973, it's rumored to have targeted Moscow, by modifying a non-nuclear US Army rocket. This could properly be called a deterrent to Russian re-arming of the frontline arabs, who were belligerant and insisting on return to their 1967 borders. I've not read the book, but I think the Moscow missile was part of the 'Samson Option', a doctrine of a nuclear Masada, a MAD Armegeddon.

But Israel's threat of going nuclear agains non-nuclear Egypt in 1973 couldn't be described as a defensive deterrant, since it was used to guarantee victory in holding onto Egyptian Sinai, and continued blockade of the Suez canal. Blockade is an offensive act of war. There is some tit for tat in that, since Egypt blockaded israel first, in 1967. Still, Egypt's attack to relieve the blockade was essentially self defense, carried out on their sovereign territory. Egypt had no capability to do more than drive Israel out of artillery range of the canal, so a claim that this represented an existential threat that required 'nuclear deterrance' seems specious to me. Israel won the war, destroying Egyptian armor and airforce, taking the other side of the canal.

No Arab country has attacked Israel since 1973, other than thru state sponsorship of terrorism, such as Saddam's 'insurance policy' for families of 2nd intifada bombers in the W. Bank. Or the 1991 Scuds, which also weren't deterred by Israel's threat to go nuclear. No Arab country or combination has the capacity to win a conventional battle, so ME 'nuclear deterrance' begins to lose meaning, except as a failed doctrine.

Nukes clearly didn't deter Hezbollah's Iran supplied missiles in 2006, or Hamas in 2008, any more than it deters our small-war foes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Broad failure of the N-deterrant leads some (including Israelis) to theorize that the concept of nuclear deterance against a weak foe is obsolete.

Israeli nuclear doctrine today seems to be more of a squeeze play against the USA, used to force more and more advanced arms and conventional overkill, so even a tactical shortfall in their offensive operations won't 'force' use of nukes. Most recently, we have been squeezed for more cluster bombs in 2006, after the Israeli inventory was expended in retaliation for a stalled offensive into Lebanon. And the depleted uranium 'bunker busters' they needed in 2008. Those were to be used to blow pressurized uranium gas enrichment facilities in Iran, which would release the gas, effectively a dirty-bomb attack on the Iranian people.

Israel has an atomic weapons umbrella that enables it's threat to blow radiological poison across the Iranian countryside. Calling that 'Israel's nuclear deterrant' misrepresents the situation.

 

DAN KERVICK

1:08 PM ET

January 27, 2009

Mitchell's Outdated Itinerary

Given the itinerary for this trip, I'm not sure it should even be taken. Meeting only with Fatah and Abbas on the Palestinian side, along with the usual gang of discredited despots, only sends a message of US cluelessness, and will suggest to people in the region that the US doesn't even know what is going on there. If for political reasons the US administration is unable to get real at this time, then they shouldn't accelerate peacemaking efforts until they are prepared to get real at a later time.

If you are trying to end a war, then you need to tour the war zone, or at least meet with the two parties who are actually at war. Dallying with the most discredited leaders in the region all around the periphery of the massacre, while keeping a haughty remove from the scene of the butchery itself, just looks obtuse and supercilious - and even cruel.

The Likud candidate in Israel is articulating policies that are at odds with US policies and interests, and any reasonable peace plan. If Mitchell refuses to address these policies squarely and criticize them, out of a desire not to be seen as interfering with the Israeli election, he will instead be seen as greenlighting the "natural growth" of Israel's West Bank colonies.

It is hard to see how anything good comes out of this trip if the Obama administration refuses to seize the moment, get out ahead of events instead of being dragged along behind them, and break out of the crippling conventional wisdom and stultifying taboos in Washington which make progress impossible. I can see the dispirited headlines proclaiming "Business as Usual" throughout the region following Mitchell's trip.

To adapt a famous Lincoln quip, it is better to be suspected as a betrayer of hope than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

 

HAROLDBURBANK

10:52 PM ET

January 27, 2009

What can Mitchell do?

For "luck" I emailed Mitchell before he left to wish him godspeed and to raise 4 concerns:

1) President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and others in the US government have failed to call for a UN war crimes commission to investigate obvious Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

2) Our new government has said little about negotiating directly with Iran, which by all accounts is waiting for US initiatives. This includes direct talks with Hamas.

3) Our new government has said nothing about inspecting, let alone reducing or eliminating Israel's nuclear weapons stockpiles.

4) Our government will risk being perceived as being controlled by Israel if all of the above are not addressed in a serious way during a mid east peace process.

I do not think Mitchell will be permitted by Hillary Clinton or Obama to address any of these issues in a serious way or probably at all. Clinton appears especially intransigent, though she answers to Obama. Obama would put the ball in Iran's and the Palestinians' court if Mitchell did bring these issues up. I wish Obama would do so to signal the firmest break possible with not only Bush mid east policy (both Bushes) but Bill Clinton's as well.

Jimmy Carter just opined that Obama represents a clear chance for mid east peace. He does not unless he raises at the least all of the points above.

Harold Burbank

 

RULAZ

7:46 PM ET

January 30, 2009

Superb Analysis

Marc: I think this article is extremely insightful!

I posted it for discussion on iReport. You can track iReporter's responses here: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-204373

 

RULAZ

9:14 PM ET

January 30, 2009

Update

The post is here: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-204424 The other post did not upload properly.

 

DON MAC NAMARA

11:28 PM ET

January 31, 2009

There is no real " dividend "

There is no real " dividend " here for the US , as there was for example in N. Ireland , where so many Irish Americans were stakeholders in the peace process.
There is no wealth involved in the immediate conflict zone.

There is so much deep seated hatred on both the Israeli and the Palestinian side that the extremists will again prevail and the moderates will be side lined as they were in Northern Ireland ( J.Hume and R.Trimbleby - both Nobel Prize winners - both marginalized )

Both Obama and Hilary Clinton have wobbled on the middle east and their wobble has been skewed in favor of the Israelis .

As all of the honeymoon of Obama and his administration plays out , and while the world wishes him every prayer and hope for success, Omert will also be sidelined and face the criminal charges of embezzlement ,Benj. Netenyahu will be instated . He is more hawkish that Omert and might even re invade to finish the job .The world will watch then and see all too soon , as Joe Biden has predicted , how Obama reacts under pressure. ( as if he didnt have enough already )
As for calls for the indictment of Israeli soldiers and officers for war crimes , I would'nt hold my breath. Even before there has been a formal charge laid before them Omert has already engaged council for their defence.
This is hideous in itself as Omert is the one who should be facing these charges .

 

Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

Read More