Stuck in the Middle East
Obama's go get-'em diplomacy with Israel and Iran is on a collision course
with failure.
BY STEVEN J. ROSEN | SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
Eight months into his presidency, Barack Obama is fast approaching his first
real moment of truth on the Middle East. At the opening of the U.N. General
Assembly session next week, the U.S. president will host a ceremonial summit
between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas in hopes of launching talks to achieve a final resolution of
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then, a week later on Oct. 1,
Undersecretary of State William Burns will join representatives of Britain,
France, Germany, Russia, and China for the first talks with Iran's chief
nuclear negotiator to see whether an agreement can be reached to curtail
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear weapons program.
This is the diplomatic offensive that Obama promised the U.S. public last
year -- the investment in "soft power" that the president's supporters deemed
lacking during the George W. Bush administration. But the White House is
facing tough prospects on both fronts. All that fantastical thinking about
the transformative power of diplomacy is now headed straight for the iceberg
that is the Middle East.
One immovable object is Abbas, who has participated in hundreds of peace
negotiations over 15 years with six previous Israeli governments -- all while
Israeli settlement construction was proceeding at a brisk pace. Now, Abbas
says that he won't accept the partial freeze that Netanyahu has declared;
he'll wait to join peace talks until Israel bows to Washington's
unprecedented demand for a total freeze on construction, including in
Jerusalem. But that is a condition that no Israeli government is going to
accept. Even if Abbas softens his stand and agrees to begin talks,
negotiations will still be in their throat-clearing phase when the
Palestinian president's term ends Jan. 10. With Hamas controlling Gaza there
is no agreed electoral mechanism to empower a successor Palestinian president
to make concessions on behalf of the Palestinians. Far from achieving
transformative success, Obama will be lucky if he can just keep negotiations
alive for more than a few weeks.
The Iranian talks look even more likely to end without resolution. On what
seems like a daily basis, Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei reaffirm their determination to accelerate Iran's nuclear program
and add to the rapidly growing stockpiles of low-enriched uranium. The talks
are not likely to throw them off this path.
When both of these diplomatic initiatives grind down, then, and hopes for
change fade, the U.S.-Israel relationship will face new strains. Obama can
tolerate an impasse on the Iranian front for some time, but Netanyahu cannot.
Although Obama and his advisors certainly do not want to see a nuclear-armed
Iran, some find the prospect of an attack against the Islamic Republic even
more frightening. As the countdown to a nuclear Iran draws ever near, many
top Netanyahu advisors have a different view.
On the Palestinian file, the opposite is true: It is Obama who cannot live
with an impasse and the Israelis who can. Since 2005, when Israel withdrew
every soldier and 8,000 settlers from Gaza, only to be rewarded by a Hamas
coup and thousands of Qassam rockets, Israelis have been skeptical that
further Oslo Accords-type agreements can enhance their security. The idea of
negotiating with the Palestinians to pull the Israeli army out of the West
Bank, for example, doesn't inspire much public enthusiasm. Trouble is, many
Americans do still believe in the Oslo idea. And a breakdown of
Israeli-Palestinian talks would put enormous strains on Washington's
relations with Arab countries like Saudi Arabia that need diplomatic movement
to quiet domestic tensions. Allowing the talks to fail would also be
unacceptable to the European Union and profoundly unsettling to important
parts of Obama's own political coalition. Without a peace process, there will
be more pressure for anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations, leaving
Obama with a bitter choice between using the U.S. veto to prevent them or
allowing them to pass, imperiling an ally and inflaming demands for U.S.
sanctions against Israel.
There is yet one more wild card in all of this: Obama's door is open to
advisors who want to break with Israel. Many on the left of the Democratic
Party believe that Israel is the obstacle to peace and that a breakthrough
could be achieved if Obama just twisted Israel's arm. Of course, this was
always the view of some of the storied Arabists in the State Department, but
today, it comes more influentially from Jewish American critics of Israeli
policy who depict themselves as pro-Israel and pro-peace. Faced with the
reality that only the 3 percent of Israelis who vote Meretz share such views,
and that the dovish camp led by Yossi Beilin has no prospect of winning an
election in the actual Jewish state, the Beilinist Israeli left has moved to
Washington. Their goal is to lobby the U.S. president to "save Israel from
herself" by imposing terms on Israel that the great majority of Israelis
would reject.
Obama is poorly positioned to reach over Netanyahu's head to persuade the
Israeli people to embrace this agenda. A Sept. 12 poll put Bibi's approval
rating at 65 percent, while similar polls by Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post
found that only 12 and 6 percent of Israelis, respectively, think that Obama
is pro-Israel. If elections were held today, Likud would gain five additional
seats, and Bibi's coalition would grow at the expense of the left, which has
already been decimated by a public rebuff.
Some Netanyahu advisors think that Obama is himself a man of the left and
that top aides like Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod are closet J-Streeters in
the White House. Instead, however, Obama and his top advisors are
instinctively drawn to the center-left, like Bill and Hillary Clinton. He is
more likely to take advice from the National Security Council's Dennis Ross
than from more-leftist deputy Mideast peace envoy Mara Rudman or the
ubiquitous peace pundit Daniel Levy.
In short, all that is clear is that Obama's big Mideast moment is coming. Now
the world waits to see what kind of U.S. president he wants to be.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/17/stuck_in_the_middle_east?page=0,1&%24Version=0&%24Path=/&%24Domain=.foreignpolicy.com,%20%24Version%3D0
--
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 59.127.21.59