Sara Roy: "it is worth putting Hamas to the test."

One factor that prompted Yitzhak Rabin to make a deal with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat was the looming rise of Hamas in the early 1990s.  That was two decades ago, but Israeli leaders still become apoplectic at the notion of dealing with Hamas.  The prospect of a Palestinian unity government elicits a variety of threats from Israel, including cutting off water and electricity to Gaza, as Sara Roy notes in her incisive op-ed.  Of course, given the coming rise of Islamically-oriented governments in Tunisia and particularly in Egypt, ostracizing Hamas is no longer a relatively easy matter.  Given the Netanyahu government's territorial agenda, and its mockery of the idea of viable and independent Palestinian state, the isolation of Hamas is integral to its policy.  None the less, it is time for U.S. policymakers to re-examine their assumptions about Hamas, and Roy's essay provides some points to ponder.

Compare Roy's piece to the latest advice from Dennis Ross who believes that Israel and the PA should get back on the bike and keep pedaling.  His comment invites images of a stationary tandem exercise bike, not one that might actually cross a finish line.  Among other things, Ross argues that Israel should reduce its activities in area "A", which is to say those parts of the West Bank where the PA is supposed to exercise civil and security authority under the Oslo agreements.  (It is curious that Ross fails to note that President G.W. Bush, for whom he worked, demanded, in 2002, that Israel pull its forces back from area "A", only to be stiff-armed by Ariel Sharon).  Read the Ross piece for a sample of the sort of well-practiced advice that plays right into the hands of Israel's hardline government.  Just keep on pedaling....

Of continuing relevance: Boston Study Group report on an Israeli-Palestinian peace

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu meets President Obama on July 6, 2010

Netanyahu was to meet Obama a month ago, but he curtailed his North American visit to return to Israel to deal with the crisis created by Israel commandeering the Gaza aid flotilla on May 31.

Expect little of substance from the meeting on the peace-seeking front, notwithstanding claims by Bibi-enablers that the Israeli leader "wants to be a peacemaker".  Netanyahu will try to gain credit for adjustments to the punitive blockade of Gaza, adjustments necessitated by the resounding condemnation that Israel confronts for its collective punishment of Gaza.  Key elements of the blockade continue, including prohibiting Gazan exports.

George Mitchell's laconic efforts to move Israel-PA proximity negotiations along have borne little fruit.  This is no surprise.  Netanyahu has no interest in a viable two-solution. He never has had such an interest.  Recall that in his earlier tenure as Prime Minister, he played much the same game with Bill Clinton that is playing with Obama today: prevaricate then negotiate over petty concessions while demanding recompense and approval from the U.S.

As I have noted here, he may be opportunistic and crass, but Netanyahu operates within an ideological vector that has no room for an independent Palestinian state, particularly one premised on the end of Israel's colonization of the West Bank.

As the expression goes: the fruit does not fall very far from the tree.  Here is a discussion with Netanyahu's father.  Benzion Netanyahu, now 100 years old, was secretary to Ze'ev Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism.  As you read his words, ponder the discussions around the Netanyahu kitchen table of Bibi's youth.

And here is the Prime Minister as a young man, in 1977.  He was then known as Ben Nitay.  He is questioned by a young Fouad Ajami.

Link. 

Netanyahu's National Security Adviser is a former Mossad man named Uzi Arad, who was previously barred from entering the US as a security risk.  Azad is a hardliner whose views are in synch with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.  Azad's bottom line on negotiations with the Palestinians?  Concessions by Israel encourage Palestinian rejectionists.  For Azad, Israel's strategic priority is confronting Iran.  Meantime, you kick the two-state can down the road, placating the Americans without making serious concessions or ceasing the dispossession of Palestinians from their land.  Do you think that Netanyahu chose a National Security Adviser who contradicts his own views?

What to expect from the July 6 meeting?  Very little that will lend even a modicum of vitality to Mitchell's mission and lots of talk about the need to confront Iran.

Perhaps Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon directed protocol

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu welcome #1 to Joe Biden (who pledged America's undying commitment to Israel):

"I also appreciate the Administration’s effort to advance peace in the region. I know that this has been difficult and has required a great deal of patience, but I’m pleased that these efforts are beginning to bear fruit and we have to be persistent and purposeful in making sure that we get to those direct negotiations that will enable us to resolve this conflict.

"I look forward to working with President Obama, and with you and your entire Administration to forge an historic peace agreement in which the permanence and legitimacy of the Jewish State of Israel is recognized by our Palestinian neighbors and in which Israel’s security is guaranteed for generations to come.

"Again, Vice President, my friend Joe, it’s a pleasure to welcome you to Jerusalem. Welcome."

Welcome #2:

As Biden arrives in Israel, the government that Netanyahu heads announces 1,600 new apartments will be built in occupied East Jerusalem, notwithstanding the declared ten-month suspension of new settlement construction. Of course, there is plenty of weasel room because the suspension only deals with "new permits and new construction", whereas anything that was discussed, debated, considered, mooted, considered, delayed, contemplated is not considered new construction.

Still wiping the diplomatic spittle from his face, Vice President Joe Biden showed some appropriate backbone. Let's hope that the White House does not, once again, go all weak at the knees when the predictable circles declare that the U.S. denunciation unfairly criticizes "our only democratic ally...." The intial White House statement anticipated Biden's remarks.

Biden's apt March 9, 2010, statement:

"I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem. The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I've had here in Israel. We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them. This announcement underscores the need to get negotiations under way that can resolve all the outstanding issues of the conflict.The United States recognizes that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue for Israelis and Palestinians and for Jews, Muslims and Christians. We believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem and safeguards its status for people around the world. Unilateral action taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations on permanent status issues. As George Mitchell said in announcing the proximity talks, "we encourage the parties and all concerned to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks."

[More info in follow-on Wapo coverage, in contrast to the limp coverage by NYT. Also see Biden interview.]

[Danny Ayalon: It is all about timing.

"The criticism was mainly about the timing of the announcement, and I told (U.S. officials during his visit to Washington) that it was poor timing, but it was not planned and it was a serious mistake which is currently being probed in Israel."]

Stephen Walt's dour assessment of the prospects for a two state solution in Israel-Palestine

Stephen M. Walt -- Will Obama Settle for Failure in the Middle East? - washingtonpost.com

Walt is no doubt correct that the Israeli Prime Minister is playing a familiar string-along game, while the colonization of the West Bank continues relentlessly. For all the hopeful predictions of Netanyahu's "pragmatism" there is no reason to doubt either his deep-seated committed to Zionist Revisionism or his hostility to the premise of an independent Palestine existing side-by-side with Israel.

Walt is also correct to suggest that President Obama is going to have to turn up the heat considerably to attain his stated goal of a two state solution. Will Obama be willing to pay the political price, and is the political price quite as high as Walt suggests? As for the former, we don't know yet. Obama has played his hand very coolly. As for the latter question, might it be that, notwithstanding the formidable AIPAC, the political price has come down a bit. Pro-peace supporters of Israel have supported Obama's firm stance on the settlements. There is evidence to suggest that Israel's image in the eyes of its liberal U.S. supporters has suffered over the past few years. People who freely support to Israel in the past, are now raising questions about Israel's commitment to peace and human rights. (This article in Forward is illustrative of a shift.)

Despite the predictable knee-jerk condemnations of the Goldstone commission's important report, Israel's credibility as a state ready to respect Palestinian rights is in question. Notwithstanding sharp official U.S. comments on the document, the hard-hitting report further diminishes Israel's claims to a morally superior vantage point (remember Barak: "the IDF is most moral army in the world.") The Gaza war report also underlines Israel's dependence on U.S. diplomatic protection, which Netanyahu might be well briefed to remember.

In terms of the dynamics of U.S.-Israeli relations, no Israeli government can afford to jeopardize its relationship with the United States. Although Obama may be unpopular in Israel, there is little doubt that his pressure on Israel has caused many Israelis to worry about the consequences of defying the U.S. president.

Off script with Uzi

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has tried to downplay his impasse with President Obama, which makes it all the more important that members of his government hew to the storyline. Over the weekend, his advisor (former) Mossad agent Uzi Arad, infamous in Washington for his role in handling convicted spy Jonathan Pollack, got off the farm in a revealing interview with Haaretz Magazine.

Arad has a cynical, even dismissive take on the prospects for making peace with Palestinians, and he insists that while Israel might reach it agreement with Syria, doing so would entail keeping much of the Golan for its wine, its land, its water and its view. He is intent that Arabs should not only acknowledge the fact of Israel's existence, but its legitimacy as a Jewish state. That Arad, like Netanyahu, should insist that Arabs validate Israel's moral legitimacy suggests an utter obsession with injustice inflicted upon Jews and a deafness to injustice visited upon Arabs by Israel. One need look no further than Gaza to see Israel's barbarism in practice.

Arad is also generously critical of the two former prime ministers--Olmert and Sharon--for fiddling with silly peacemaking while the threat from Iran grew. He is, like many Israelis, very much preoccupied with the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and he embraces the idea of a complete naval blockade of Iran (which, one infers, would provide a justification for an attack on Iran, should it lash out in retaliation).

He has apparently been threatened with being posted to the Court of St. James in retaliation for his deviation from script. Lucky Brits!

Jordan's 'Abdullah--The Times: Israel has the opportunity to make peace

In a piece that fills much of the front page of The Times, 'Abdullah argues for a series of bilateral negotiations that would culminate in a comprehensive peace. Israel would not be only be making peace with Arab enemies, but it would be gaining acceptance by the Muslim world (one-third of humanity by his inflated count). The alternative, as he sees it, is another war as soon as a year or eighteen months from now.

The monarch claims that he has been giving shape to the bargain on offer in hand with President Obama. Whether or not 'Abdullah is exaggerating his own role, he certainly speaks accurately in noting the widespread hopes associated now with U.S. diplomacy. Obama will have to tamp down expectations, but he will need to also show evidence of progress during the upcoming meeting with Prime Minister Netanyau.

Meanwhile, on Sunday Netanyahu declared that he would not relinquish control of the Golan Heights. This is no surprise, but it is consistent with his earlier pledges, for instance in 1997, that the Golan belongs to Israel "forever". This is not simply posturing before Netanyahu meets Obama next week, but a position from which Netanyahu has wavered a bit but never deserted.

King Abdullah of Jordan's ultimatum: peace now or it’s war next year - Times Online

Brzezinski on the new Haass book.

A Tale of Two Wars | Foreign Affairs

The book title refers to the U.S.-led wars against Iraq in 1990-91 and 2003. The first is described by Haass as a "war of necessity" and the second as a "war of choice". For anyone who has followed the debate over the merits of invading Iraq in 2003 the arguments will be familiar. Haass offers, and BZ endorses a realist critique of the 2003 as a war launched by conviction and fear-mongering rather than by a careful weighing of evidence and defining of objectives.

I find the comments on the Israeli-Palestinian more directly relevant to the challenges facing the Obama administration today. Haass argues that the first Bush administration made a key decision to assert U.S. leadership to reach a settlement in the core conflict. Of course, Bush failed to win re-election and rather than the peacemaking momentum being sustained by the subsequent Clinton administration "waffled" (BZ's term) until the last year in office. As for Bush II, he endorsed a vague roadmap that offered Israel license to do pretty much what they pleased and he failed to lend the weight of is office to reach a settlement, notwithstanding face-time with Mahmoud 'Abbas. George W. Bush promised a settlement by the time he left office, but instead the hapless Condoleezza Rice gained ownership of a U.S. effort that earned derision in both Palestinian and Israeli circles.

Those of you who have read my Current History essays over the years, will recognize the critique.

In his review, Brzezinski builds on Haass's critique to argue that President Obama has to lead if there is to be a settlement:

"President Barack Obama should draw an important lesson from Haass' insightful memoir. If the new president is to avoid in the Middle East not only the gross errors of his immediate predecessor but also the much too long-lasting passivity of the Clinton years, he truly has to lead. Admittedly, making matters more difficult for him is the legacy of the last 16 years, when a subtle shift took place in the U.S. approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the United States moved from being a genuine mediator seeking to nudge both sides toward peace to holding a posture of thinly veiled partiality in favor of one of the parties to the conflict. The result has been detrimental to the prospects for peace -- for without engaged and genuinely forthright U.S. mediation, the two parties to the conflict have shown themselves to be unable to reach a genuine compromise."

Added:
And there is little time left on the clock...as this BBC piece on Bethleham illustrates.

Prime Minister Netanyahu addresses AIPAC in 1997 (revised with additional links)

As you read this twelve year old speech in which then as now Prime Minister Netanyahu rejects the idea of a Palestinian state ponder how much he has grown or changed over the course of a dozen years. My guess is not very much, notwithstanding reassurances by none other than the President of Israel.

Addressing AIPAC Policy Conference today, May 4, 2009, in Washington, D.C., President Shimon Peres argues that Netanyahu "knows history and wants to make history. In our tradition, making history is making peace, and I am sure that peace is his priority." We'll see. Peres is seen by his admirers as a man of vision, but he has an established record for offering soft-hued assessments of hardline Israeli policies.

By my reading, it was notable that Peres reiterated (in contrast to Foreign Minister Lieberman) Israel's committment to honor agreements signed by previous governments, that he referred positively to the Arab League initiative, and that he referred to the 1947 Partition resolution and the vision of two states living side by side. What is not clear is that Peres' words accurately anticipate the stance that Netanyahu and his government will reveal in the coming days and weeks, except perhaps Peres' emphasis on the threat posed by Iran's "fanatic leaders".

In contrast, Lieberman's words are roughly hewn, but they are reminiscent of the first Netanyahu government with their emphasis on "concrete results," which are understood to mean that the Palestinians will be expected to meet a variety of pre-conditions before Israel adopts politically difficult concessions. In practice, this is a way to placate the U.S. while the colonization of the West Bank continues at a brisk pace. [The full extent of the settlement project is revealed in this previously secret Israeli government database, which was leaked in January 2009. The database details the extent of "illegal" or unauthorized settlements.]

That approach worked in the late 1990s when Bill Clinton and company did not hide their annoyance at Netanyahu's impolitic obdurance but did little to obstruct his active efforts to undermine the Oslo process. Recall the crowning glory of that period, namely the 1997 Hebron protocol, which was supposed to mark the beginning of final status negotiations that were to be completed by May 1999.

Bio of Frederic C. Hof who joins Special Envoy George Mitchell

My January 2009 post where I analyzed the importance of the Mitchell appointment and anticipated that Hof would be tapped by Mitchell.

Another test for Obama

Those Innocent Israelis . . .

From Lionel Goldfarb

Adam Shatz is to be congratulated for admitting his infatuation with Obama, but it leads him into some dangerously wishful thinking, particularly when it comes to US Middle East policy (LRB, 12 February). Obama has made a ‘beguiling’ overture to Tehran, but his promise to extend the olive branch to Iran if it ‘unclenched its fist’ carries a hint of the usual American conditions on dialogue. It is apparently Iran, not the US, whose fist is clenched in this image, and it is up to Iran (but not Israel) to renounce its nuclear programme and end its support of resistance groups in Palestine and Lebanon if it is to be removed from the ‘axis of evil’. Obama’s much heralded praise of the Saudi peace initiative was followed by a speech at the State Department on 22 January in which he urged the Arab states to normalise relations with Israel immediately, unilaterally – the only card the Arabs have in their hands to force an Israeli withdrawal from occupied land. On Israel-Palestine, Obama has sounded no different from his predecessors, deploring ‘the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis’ and insisting that Israelis ‘will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side’: the usual cant, but delivered more eloquently. Now that the Israeli people have voted decisively against what they call ‘sacrifices’ and others call international law, we’ll see how serious Obama is about pursuing a peace settlement in Israel-Palestine.

Lionel Goldfarb
Philadelphia

David Grossman: Eloquent call for talking to the Palestinians, even Hamas

The empty Golan

Realism must rule in engaging Syria - The Boston Globe

There is not much new here except the revelation that there is not "an occupied population" on the Golan Heights. The author served for six years as an IDF artillery officer and was involved as an advisor with Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign for president.

For the record, there are about 18,000 Druze living in four villages. Some of them, about ten percent, have accepted Israeli citizenship, while the remainder are Syrian citizens. There are also less than 1,000 non-Druze Muslims, mostly Arabs but also some "Gypsies" in Ghajjar.

Israeli colonists number less than 18,000 according to 2004 data, and they live in 32 settlements.

Adrift (revised)

I once asked a friend, who was then an editor at the NYTimes, to contribute an essay on the foreign policy of the New York Times to a book that I was editing. The editor's reply: "Do you want to get me to get me fired?" Editorial comment by the paper is carefully vetted, especially when the conclusions are likely to controversial. I would like to have been a fly on the wall when "Adrift in the Middle East" was discussed.

You may be sure that there was plenty of internal discussion on this one, in which the paper advises the Bush administration to adopt the December 2000 Clinton parameters and calls for the U.S. and Israel to find ways of talking to Hamas. Where the editorial breaks important new ground is by calling for talks with Hamas. To be sure, it would have been more impressive is the self-regarding Times had adopted this position long ago, and before Israel and the U.S. government began to recognize the obvious. Nonetheless, given the importance of the paper in influencing elite opinion, the editorial is noteworthy.

As readers here know, my position has been that pretending that U.S. diplomacy can expunge, bypass and ignore Hamas is a fool's game. This does not excuse Hamas for the reprehensible things that it has done, but it suggests that a sensible policy would create incentives for Hamas to cease its violence. That is not going to happen without a dialogue. (The U.S. has already signalled it support for Egypt's efforts to construct a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel.)

Adrift in the Middle East - New York Times

Excerpts:

"If Washington doesn’t make clear its own commitment to this kind of peace, it cannot expect weak Israeli and Palestinian leaders to take the political risks needed for a realistic compromise.

"They, as well as Washington, would also have to deal with the disruptive reality of Hamas, which broadcasts anti-Semitic propaganda and encourages deadly rocket fire into Israeli towns. The essential first step is to encourage efforts by Egypt and other Arab nations to press Hamas toward a complete cease-fire.

"If that can be achieved, the United States and Israel should start exploring the possibilities of talking directly with Hamas, though not in a way that excludes the far more statesmanlike Mr. Abbas.

"Doing so does not imply approval of Hamas’s past methods or future goals. It does acknowledge that Hamas has a strong constituency — and a lasting peace would have to include these Palestinians as well."

Herb Kelman-one of the doyens of Arab-Israeli peacemaking--thinks about the fundamental principles for an Israeii-Palestinian peace

I was surprised that the word "Palestine" does not appear when Kelman talks specifically about a two-state solution, a strange oversight for a piece that reflects great sensitivity and understanding of the two sides, their goals and their anxieties.
A 'declaration of principles' for the Mideast - The Boston Globe

Agha and Malley on a feasible three-way deal in the Palestine-Israel conflict

Hussein Agha and Robert Malley - Middle East Triangle - washingtonpost.com: "The truth is, none of these two-way deals is likely to succeed. In tandem, no two parties are capable enough to deliver; any one party is potent enough to be a spoiler. There can be neither Israeli-Palestinian stability nor a peace accord without Hamas's acquiescence. Intra-Palestinian reconciliation will not last without Israel's unspoken assent and willingness to lift its siege. Any agreement between Hamas and Israel over Abbas's strong objection is hard to imagine."

Also see this earlier post.

Jackson Diehl on "peace process"

Jackson Diehl - If This Peace Process Fails - washingtonpost.com