Middle East policy change? Dissenting views

Fri, 01/30/2009 - 9:53am

Before I get on my plane, one more set of dissenting views.

I've been encouraged by the Obama administration's early moves on Middle East policy -- far more than I expected, given some of the appointments (and rumored appointments) to key positions. The choice of George Mitchell, the al-Arabiya interview and a lot of other early signals have suggested that the administration really is serious about changing at least some U.S. policies. I disagree with some esteemed colleagues who think Obama shouldn't have sent Mitchell until he had some new policy proposals developed -- the symbolism of early engagement and the demonstration of listening was more important, I think. And finally, the grumbling from backers of the Bush administration's policies over the last few days (Fouad Ajami, Charles Krauthammer, et al) is another good sign that Obama is moving in the right direction.

But a good start doesn't mean that doesn't mean that the prospects for success are great. There's such hunger for change precisely because conditions are so grim. Nothing is going to be easy. And so I wanted to highlight two far more skeptical contributions from people whose views I respect. 

First, Aaron David Miller. When he spoke at a panel I chaired at GWU last fall, I was startled at the depth of his pessimism. So I wasn't surprised at his interview at CFR.org the other day... but certainly sobered. His key points:

 right now, the prospects of any sort of conflict-ending agreement between Israelis and Palenstinians are slim to none. Gaza has so many moving parts--antismuggling, opening the crossing points, dealing with securing a longer-term arrangement between Israel and Hamas on the security side, the prisoner issue, which is now higher priority for the Israelis than ever before, and of course, the tricky issue of reconstructing Gaza and providing enough humanitarian relief. All of this is going to prove a very contentious issue for the new administration. These things are going to absorb most of Mitchell's time and become the focal point of the Obama administration's efforts.

He thinks it extremely unlikely that the U.S. position towards Hamas will change, and without that there will be little chance of changing the game. He concludes:

"Whether or not the Obama administration is able to make the difference in the end is not going to depend on who they appoint as their envoy. It's going to depend on how much Barack Obama, in the end, really decides to make the Arab issue a top priority. Because if he doesn't, it'll take our friends and adversaries about five seconds to figure out that he's really not serious. And if that happens, that could be the end."

Then, my friend Chris Toensing at MERIP (with Mouin Rabbani): 

Those who believe that the Obama administration brings good tidings for Middle East peace therefore have essentially only two arguments in their favor: that Obama is committed to improving US relations with the Muslim world and understands this cannot be done without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that the transformational impact of Israel’s Gaza war suggests he cannot put the conflict on the back burner -- as many suspect he would have liked to do for at least the better part of his first term -- in order to first deal with the global financial meltdown, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in which America is directly involved, and more direct threats to US interests emerging from Iran and Pakistan.

Yet there is no going back to 2001. If there is a significant difference between Obama’s approach, as telegraphed to date, and Bush’s, it is that much of what Obama said has been made obsolete by Israel’s Gaza campaign: Mahmoud Abbas, the 2002 Arab peace initiative and the peace process are in the past tense; Arab normalization with Israel is being reversed; and today Fatah needs Hamas in order to survive more than the Palestinian Islamists need the Ramallah PA to bring emergency supplies into the Gaza Strip. While Mitchell may be able to move forward by leaving Ramallah off his itinerary, he cannot succeed without at least the tacit cooperation of Hamas.

Indeed, Israel’s onslaught in the Gaza Strip solidified emerging trends in the Middle East that are unlikely to be reversed in the near future, least of all by business as usual. Among these trends is the eclipse of Saudi-Egyptian leadership of Arab diplomacy. Undermined by the refusal of either Israel or the US to engage with the Arab peace initiative, and severely damaged by Cairo and Riyadh’s support for Israel during the 2006 Lebanon war, that claim to leadership has been fatally discredited by Saudi and Egyptian sins of omission and commission during the Gaza conflict. Weaker and smaller rivals and adversaries such as Syria and Qatar now shamelessly flout the will of Cairo and Riyadh, with the consequence that regional actors like Turkey and Iran are playing an increasingly important role in setting the Arab agenda.

 I think that a lot of my friends are too quick to give up on an administration which is less than two weeks old -- if not before it even came into office. It would be a lot simpler for a lot of people if Obama and his team really were Bush and his team. They aren't. But they're right that the core problems aren't going to magically vanish. And as I wrote the other day, I'd be more enthusiastic about Mitchell's trip if I saw Doha on the itinerary.

Finally, Rob over at the Arab Media Shack is trying to come up with a good list of Arab pundits as a "focus group" to determine the effectiveness of U.S. public diplomacy and policy. He starts with Mohammed Haykal, Fahmy Howeydi, Ibrahim Eissa, and Abd al Bari Atwan -- if you have thoughts about who to add, go put them in his comment section. I would suggest some of the columnists for al-Hayat (Ghassan Cherbel, Abdullah Iskandir, Hazem Saghiye) and al-Sharq al-Awsat (Tareq al-Homayed, Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed) -- who can't be ignored just because they're on the other side of the great Arab divide. There are a number of good columnists in Gulf, Jordanian and Lebanese papers who I always check out -- but send your own thoughts over there. 

And now I'm off and off-line for the weekend.

Marc Lynch | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register


Advertisement

 

The Toensing article is

by Brett on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 3:50pm

The Toensing article is probably right - and I don't think it's fair to say that they are overly comparing Obama to Bush. As the article points out, Obama's statements are among those that are planting the kiss of death on Abbas and the Saudi Peace Initiative. I suppose he could conceivably change approaches, but not too quickly.

Palestine - George Mitchell Munches on Middle East Lunches

by dsinger2000 on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 4:01pm

You fail to mention the following remarks made by President Obama in his first televised interview with Arab television station Al-Arabiya:

Firstly on the issue of a new Arab state being created between Israel and Jordan President Obama stated his commitment to that eventuating but issued this note of warning:

“ QUESTION: Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state -- and you know the contours of it -- within the first Obama administration?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life…

…But it is not going to be easy, and that's why we've got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that's what's going to be necessary.”

The notion that any such new state should be democratic - as President Bush’s Roadmap stipulated - - has now apparently disappeared from President Obama's vocabulary.

The idea that such a State was just around the corner - as the previous administration had been trumpeting for the last twelve months - was now not even being able to be predicted with confidence by President Obama to occur within the next four years.

Secondly President Obama declared that any such new state would have to be part of an overall resolution of other problems in the Middle East and neighbouring regions:

“I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan. These things are interrelated.”

Thirdly President Obama negated the idea that the Saudi Peace Plan proposed in 2002 - and offered to Israel on a “take it or leave it “ basis - would be the sought for regional solution that would be supported in its entirety by President Obama:

“QUESTION : Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you've indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.”

How President Obama gets the Saudis - and the Arab League which has adopted the proposal - to ameliorate their plan to meet President Obama’s apparent objections to it in its present form will prove to be one of the most fascinating diplomatic manoeuvres to observe in the coming months and years.

Given that the Saudi proposal contains the same intransigent demands that have characterised the Arabs negotiating stance for the last 42 years, the likelihood of any substantive changes to that proposal to meet President Obama’s declared reservation seems most unlikely to occur.

President Obama did not spell out what other ideas there are across the region in his compelling interview.

Clearly trilateral negotiations between Jordan, Israel and Egypt to divide sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between their respective States is one such idea that needs to be vigorously pursued by Mr Mitchell. It alone seems to offer the best chance of improving the lives of the West Bank’s Arab residents by offering them citizenship in an Arab State without requiring them to move from their present homes whilst allowing them once more to return to the Arab fold finally freed from Israel’s occupation or control - the position they last enjoyed between 1948-1967.

The PLO had already signalled its intentions to abandon the Roadmap - and focus on the Saudi Peace Plan as the only game in town - just a few days before President Obama’s appearance on Al-Arabiya. Reuters had reported on 22 January:

"The Palestinian leadership are not ready to return to political negotiations with Israel unless there is a new basis for talks," the PLO said, without elaborating.
It said it wanted to conduct talks on the basis of the Arab peace initiative of 2002 which offers Israel peace and normal relations with all Arab countries in return for withdrawal from all territory captured in the 1967 war.”

This position had first been unveiled two months ago when the Palestinian Authority had taken out full page ads in the Israeli press calling on Israelis to endorse the Saudi plan. Those ads appear to have had no effect on Israel - or President Obama.

The current Palestinian leadership - itself the issue of much conjecture following the schism between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority - will not get to first base with President Obama if it insists on maintaining this stance.

There are three predictions that one can confidently make in this current uncertain climate whilst George Mitchell’s patience and skill is brought into play:

1. The existing Jewish and Arab residents of the West Bank will continue to copulate and populate. Any call for a “freeze” on natural increases in their respective populations - and the provision of housing and infrastructure to cope with such natural increases - is meaningless.

2. The creation of a 22nd Arab State between Egypt, Israel and Jordan will never eventuate unless the current Arab negotiating position is drastically revised by dropping their demands for sovereignty in all of the West Bank and Gaza and for millions of Arabs to be allowed to emigrate to Israel.

3. George Mitchell will be having lots more appointments, ongoing disappointments - and very many more lunches - in the region.

Let’s hope he doesn’t suffer from indigestion as he swallows what he is forced to hear.

Clearly trilateral

by Brett on Sat, 01/31/2009 - 4:42am

Clearly trilateral negotiations between Jordan, Israel and Egypt to divide sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between their respective States is one such idea that needs to be vigorously pursued by Mr Mitchell.

It's also not going to happen, since neither Egypt nor Jordan want control of the West Bank and Gaza. Bush's former UN Ambassador brought this up a while back, and was laughed out of the newspaper for not noticing this.

dropping their demands for sovereignty in all of the West Bank

Then any Two-State Negotiations are meaningless. The Palestinians won't settle in the long run for a weak state with no defenses and weak sovereignty next door to not only Israel, but their other neighbors.

Brett

by dsinger2000 on Sat, 01/31/2009 - 5:41pm

Obviously the US will have to use some inducements to get Egypt and Jordan to come to the party to help their Arab compatriots in the West Bank and Gaza(such as military and financial aid and diplomatic support)

After all Egypt and Jordan respectively occupied Gaza and the West Bank between 1948-1967. It is a pity that what is now sought was not granted when the Arabs had the power to do it during those 19 years when not one Jew lived in the West Bank and Gaza after they had been driven out in the 1948 War.

Two State negotiations were not meaningless if the Arabs had been prepared to be realistic. An offer of 93.6% of the West Bank and an area equivalent to another 5.5% of the area to be carved out of Israel's sovereign territory was reportedly made in August 2008. Again as has so often happened in the past they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. This one will probably pass them by with the election of a new Government in Israel this month, the rise to power of Hamas and the demise of the Palestinian Authority.

This leaves Jordan and Egypt as the only Arab interlocutors to be allocated Arab sovereignty over those areas of the West Bank and Gaza as agreed in negotiations with Israel.

The bottom line is that the Arabs will not get it all and neither will the Jews. The Jews have accepted that notion. The Arabs have yet to come to that reality.

Obviously the US will have to

by Brett on Sun, 02/01/2009 - 2:02pm

Obviously the US will have to use some inducements to get Egypt and Jordan to come to the party to help their Arab compatriots in the West Bank and Gaza(such as military and financial aid and diplomatic support)

"Inducements"? Absorbing the West Bank would give Jordan an additional 2 million people, none of whom want to live in Jordan, and whose compatriots were responsible for a 1970 coup attempt that nearly toppled the Jordanian monarchy. Even with enormous, continual bribes, you'd be very hard-pressed to get the Jordanians to take on that burden again.

After all Egypt and Jordan respectively occupied Gaza and the West Bank between 1948-1967. It is a pity that what is now sought was not granted when the Arabs had the power to do it during those 19 years when not one Jew lived in the West Bank and Gaza after they had been driven out in the 1948 War.

That was arguably before (or during) the formation of Palestinian national consciousness - and in any case, the population of both areas was much smaller, so it was more manageable (plus, the Palestinians hadn't attempted a coup on Jordan's government yet). That won't work anymore, for the reasons I outlined above.

Two State negotiations were not meaningless if the Arabs had been prepared to be realistic.

Your "realistic" opportunity requires them to be a sitting duck with no defenses and little border security, next to not only Israel (who has a strong but small contingent of people who do not want to give up the West Bank), but Syria (who has meddled endlessly in Lebanon's politics), among others. That's not "realistic" - they'll re-arm, with or without Israeli permission, for security reasons.

An offer of 93.6% of the West Bank and an area equivalent to another 5.5% of the area to be carved out of Israel's sovereign territory was reportedly made in August 2008.

Offers aren't 99.7% of the negotiating process, which is where every peace effort has broken (including the 2000 Peace Accords, which broke down because of Arafat and Barak talking out of both sides of their mouths while breaking promises, and Barak then getting toppled by Sharon). Moreover, this offer is laughably poor-timed at a time when the areas that would become part of Palestine are were split asunder between two rival organizations.

This one will probably pass them by with the election of a new Government in Israel this month, the rise to power of Hamas and the demise of the Palestinian Authority.

It's probably inevitable, at this point.

The bottom line is that the Arabs will not get it all and neither will the Jews. The Jews have accepted that notion. The Arabs have yet to come to that reality.

The Arabs are going to demand East Jerusalem and the removal of the settlement blocs, which even Kadima won't give up (never mind Likud, who are actually ahead in the polls at this point). Considering that throughout the entire past 20 years, when peace effort after peace effort was tried, settlements (legal and illegal) continued to expand, I question whether the Israeli government is truly ready for any compromise.

Pundit recommendations

by Guyver on Sat, 01/31/2009 - 11:52am

Al-Sharq al-Awsat's writers Tareq al-Homayed and Abdul al-Rahman al-Rashed are paid hacks. If you can predict a writer's position without reading his column then they are not worth following.

I would put Al-Hayat's Jihad Al-Khazen at the top. He at least thinks things through.

Also, Faisal Al-Qasem since he writes in Qatar's Al-Sharq.

Dsinger, it doesn't work.

by J Thomas on Sat, 01/31/2009 - 9:56pm

Obviously the US will have to use some inducements to get Egypt and Jordan to come to the party to help their Arab compatriots in the West Bank and Gaza(such as military and financial aid and diplomatic support)

What could possibly be enough? You want them to pull israel's chestnuts out of the fire. You want them to grab onto israel's tarbaby. What could we possibly give them that would be enough?

Particularly when we'd be doing it for part of our aid-to-israel program. If israel gets a reasonable peace will we still give israel so much? Not likely, once israel gets peace we'll feel like they're a regular unthreatened country that doesn't need that much aid. Solve the problem and why would we keep giving egypt and jordan stuff?

They'd need a one-time bribe to do it, and what one-time bribe could possibly be enough?

You want somebody else to keep the palestinians down, to keep them in their place, to police them and make sure they don't get weapons. Israelis don't like doing it. They tried getting the palestinians to suppress themselves and it didn't work. So you want egypt and jordan to suppress them. Get real.

An offer of 93.6% of the West Bank and an area equivalent to another 5.5% of the area to be carved out of Israel's sovereign territory was reportedly made in August 2008.

Assuming this was real, why do you think it meant anything? Give them what they've got plus a chunk of desert, and you still control their borders and their airspace and bomb them at will, and they're supposed to do something different for that?

The bottom line is that the Arabs will not get it all and neither will the Jews. The Jews have accepted that notion. The Arabs have yet to come to that reality.

The last I saw, what they were asking for was the 1973 borders and a sovereign nation. That isn't a lot to ask. It's just, you guys are strong enough you figure you don't need to give them that.

PM Erdogan delivers his

by bb on Sun, 02/01/2009 - 3:05am

PM Erdogan delivers his message in sober, unhyperbolic tones at Davos, but loses his cool after the old man Peres speaks.

The old man has started off and then immediately has to overcome a gorgeous female whispering in his ear in front of all the cameras that his hair looks like he's an 86 year old geezer who's just got out of bed (much affectionate laughter from Erdo, Ban and Moussa at this mo).

Whereupon the old geezer then stumbles, mumbles and loses his glasses for five minutes (eliciting further affectionate body language from E. B & M) before working up to a towering, impassioned, flawlessly rhetorical defense of Israel mostly addressed personally to Erdo - transfixing the Israel skeptic Davos audience and inspiring them to give the old jew Peres more applause than Erdo, Moussa and Ban got between them. Gawd, Sorkin couldn't have written the scene better. In fact Peres outclassed Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino. Easily.

"You're old!" blurted Erdo when he tried to get the microphone back . Dear oh dear.

The YouTube is a classic.

And the Obama/Mitchell response is to immediately CANCEL Mitchell's visit to Turkey!! So cool, Pres Obama. Honestly.

Erdogon is a Bush/Condaleeza Rice long-cultivated trump card for the ME peace process. At the very least he deserves to have his face saved for everything he's doing on the Syrian track. And also because he is clearly a decent human being and a great face for an Islamic Government to the west and emotionally devasted by the punishment of the Gazaans. But Obama whimps out and makes it that Erdo should be marginilised as a dummy spitter. In contrast, Peres phones Erdo and takes reponsibility for having raised the political temperature beyond what was agreed and expected.

Obama. Middle East. Training wheels. Oh, help.

Trilateral negotiations can succeed

by dsinger2000 on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 7:51am

Negotiations of all kinds have been tried and have failed to solve the Arab-Jewish conflict over the last 70 years.

Trilateral negotiations between Jordan,Israel and Egypt to divide sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between those three existing States seem to me to be the last throw of the dice to peacefully attempt to end that conflict.

Such negotiations may well end up in complete breakdown like those recently conducted under the defunct Roadmap and at Camp David in 2000.

However Jordan,Israel and Egypt share one common factor never possessed by any other previous negotiating parties - signed and sealed peace treaties with each other that have endured through very difficult times of conflict in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

They also happen to be the last three sovereign states to successively occupy the West Bank and Gaza from 1948 till today.

This solid foundation could prove to be the catalyst and inspiration to a successful conclusion of those negotiations.

The Quartet would do well to consider sponsoring such negotiations. I believe they could expect a much more satisfactory outcome than the utter disaster that has plagued the Roadmap since it was first sponsored by them in 2003.

Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative and everyone might be pleasantly surprised.

fake objectivity

by AllanGreen on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 10:12am

The only reasonable policy towards Israel is to help Israel develop, and keep the Gazan's at bay. There is no need for a dialogue - there is a need for defeat - of Hamas, Hezbollah, and all Jihadists.

The day of peace shall come, when the forces of Jihadism, are defeated, when the people of Palestine are liberated from the darkness of Islamists.

AllanGreen, the problem is

by J Thomas on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 12:55am

AllanGreen, the problem is that israel has the wrong approach to defeat hamas hezbollah etc.

They try to kill hamas members, but hamas members agreed to the risk of death when they joined. They think of it as patriotic or something.

What israel needs to do is not to kill the actual hamas members. Israel needs to kill their wives and daughters. Kill their mothers and grandmothers, their nieces and sisters-in-law.

Make them live with the knowledge that they can do nothing to protect their innocent relatives. Then they will surrender.

As Fatah started to surrender after Shatila and Sabra.

Don't do it with airstrikes, make it personal. Send a squad of israeli soldiers into a palestinian house. Point to the hamas member and say "You are in hamas." Then you kill his four-year-old daughter in front of him, and his wife, and his mother, and if she's there his grandmother. Kill every woman in the house. Tell him, "That's what you get for joining hamas." And leave.

Do that in maybe 30,000 houses and hamas will be defeated.

The day of peace shall come, when the forces of Jihadism, are defeated, when the people of Palestine are liberated from the darkness of Islamists.

I told you how, now go do it. Or fail.