HOW SYRIA DODGED A NEO-CON BULLET - JIM LOBE (ASIA TIMES, DECEMBER 20): While hardliners such as Cheney's office still have the upper hand on Syria policy, the administration is also finding itself under growing pressure to rethink its strategy there, as in Iraq.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL20Ak06.html

A REAGAN STRATEGY FOR IRAN AND SYRIA - ABRAHAM D. SOFAER (WALL STREET JOURNAL, DECEMBER 20): The Iraq Study Group's recommendation that the Bush administration drop its preconditions and negotiate with Syria and Iran has been praised as a "no-brainer" -- and condemned as an improper effort to reward rogue regimes. Neither reaction is correct. Negotiating with enemies can be a useful aspect of effective diplomacy.
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB1166...8080955371.html
PAID SUBSCRIPTION

THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST LEBANON: US OFFICIALS MUST MAKE CLEAR THAT THEY ARE NOT SELLING OUT LEBANON TO SYRIA - ADIB F. FARHA (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, DECEMBER 19)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1219/p09s02-coop.html

WORSE THAN APARTHEID CHRIS HEDGES (TRUTHDIG, DECEMBER 19/COMMON DREAMS): Israel, with no restraints from Washington, despite the Iraq Study Group report recommendations that the peace process be resurrected from the dead, has been given the moral license by the Bush administration to carry out what is euphemistically in Israel called ?transfer? and what in other parts of the world is called ethnic cleansing.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1219-23.htm

END OF THE STRONGMEN: DO AMERICA AND ISRAEL WANT THE MIDDLE EAST ENGULFED BY CIVIL WAR - JONATHAN COOK (COUNTERPUNCH, DECEMBER 19): The era of the Middle East strongman, propped up by and enforcing Western policy, appears well and truly over. A chaotic and feuding Middle East, although it would be a disaster in the view of most informed observers, appears to be greatly desired by Israel and its neocon allies.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook12192006.html

REITERATING THE KEYS TO PEACE - JIMMY CARTER (BOSTON GLOBE, DECEMBER 20): ?As recommended by the Hamilton-Baker report, renewed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are a prime factor in promoting peace in the region. Although my book concentrates on the Palestinian territories, I noted that the report also recommended peace talks with Syria concerning the Golan Heights. Both recommendations have been rejected by Israel's prime minister.?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...o_peace?mode=PF

THE OTHER ISRAEL LOBBY: A NEW ALLIANCE, INCLUDING FINANCIER GEORGE SOROS AND FORMER BILL CLINTON ADVISOR JEREMY BEN-AMI, AIMS TO TAKE ON THE POWERFUL LOBBYIST GROUP AIPAC -- AND RESHAPE U.S. POLICY - GREGORY LEVEY (SALON, DECEMBER 19): The fact is that most American Jews, and many other American supporters of Israel, do not see eye-to-eye on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the most hawkish, knee-jerk Israel supporters in the US government -- even if their presumed leadership, represented by AIPAC, often appears to do so.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/...obby/print.html

NATION BUILDING: PALESTINIAN-AMERICAN HISTORIAN RASHID KHALIDI EXPLAINS WHY PALESTINIANS HAVE FAILED TO CREATE A NATION AND DISCUSSES THE GRAVE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST - JONATHAN SHAININ (SALON, DECEMBER 18): Khalidi: ?In terms of the Palestine issue, Bush ... has done an enormous disservice to the Palestinians and the Israelis by advocating a policy of force -- throughout the region and the world, but in particular in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon.?
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/12/18/khalidi/print.html

ANOTHER MIDEAST CIVIL WAR EDITORIAL (BOSTON GLOBE, DECEMBER 19): The Bush administration, in cooperation with its European and Arab allies, should be working to prevent the outbreak of a full-blown Palestinian civil war.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...vil_war?mode=PF

A 'VICTORY' PLAN THAT EMPOWERS EXTREMISTS - TRUDY RUBIN (BALTIMORE SUN, DECEMBER 19): In the Mideast we have, moderates are losing ground to extremists, and American policy has strengthened the Islamists' hand.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/o...-oped-headlines

71. MIDEAST RULES TO LIVE BY - THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN (NEW YORK TIMES, DECEMBER 20): Among updated rules of Middle East reporting, which also apply to diplomacy, are Rule 12: The Israelis will always win, and the Palestinians will always make sure they never enjoy it. Everything else is just commentary; and Rule 13: Our first priority is democracy, but the Arabs? first priority is ?justice.?
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/opini...agewanted=print
PAID SUBSCRIPTION

Israel praises U.N. Security Council decision to impose sanctions on Iran:

Israel on Saturday praised the U.N. Security Council's decision to impose
sanction on Iran, saying it's an important step toward preventing Iran from
obtaining nuclear weapons.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/23/...Israel_Iran.php

===
Abbas rejects temporary truce with Israel:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has rejected the idea of a Palestinian state
with temporary borders in return for long-term truce with Israel.
http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Lan...amp;DSNO=936942

===
Hamas views Abbas-Olmert meeting as insignificant:

The Palestinian Islamic group Hamas on Saturday played down significance of a
meeting that grouped Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert with Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas in Jerusalem today.
http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Lan...amp;DSNO=937001

===
'What would happen if the Virgin Mary came to Bethlehem today?' :

Johann Hari on the plight of pregnant women in the West Bank, where babies are
dying needlessly
http://news.independent.co.uk/appeals/indy...icle2097790.ece

===
Islamic Courts seek to "expand war" :

A Somali Islamic Courts defence chief has for the first time called on foreign
Muslim fighters to join his movement's war against Ethiopia.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AE1...AEF40B5BAF7.htm

This compelling analysis is by Gary Sick, one of our most able and best known experts on Iran. He is a retired US Navy Captain, who served on the NSC staff under Ford, Carter, and Reagan, and now teaches at Columbia University.

It is commonly said that the United States has no Middle East
strategy. That may not be true much longer. The United States has
begun to establish the framework of a new coalition strategy in the
Middle East that could rebuild tattered alliances, shift attention
away from the Iraqi catastrophe, and provide a touchstone for
policymaking that could appeal across party lines.

The organizing principle of the new strategy is confrontation with
and containment of Shia influence – and specifically Iranian
influence – wherever it appears in the region. US allies in this
endeavor are Israel and the traditional (and authoritarian)
governments of predominantly Sunni Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.
One unique feature of this otherwise unremarkable set of
long-standing friendly governments is the possibility that the Arab
states may subordinate their hostility to Israel at least
temporarily out of their even greater fear of Iranian/Shia
dominance of the region.

One of the products of the U.S. armed intervention in the Middle
East since 9/11 has been a shift in the fundamental balance of
power. In the name of fighting terrorism, the United States
empowered Iran. By removing the Taliban, Iran's greatest threat to
the east, and then removing the government of Saddam Hussein, its
deadly enemy to the west, and finally installing an Iran-friendly
Shia government in Baghdad for the first time in history, the U.S.
virtually assured that Iran – essentially without raising a finger
-- would emerge as a power center rivaled only by Israel. It is one
of the great ironies that U.S. policy would inadvertently make it
possible for these two non-Arab states on the eastern and western
flank of the Arab Middle East to dominate the traditional Arab
heartland. The process was further accelerated by U.S.
democratization policies that put its traditional Arab allies on
the defensive.

Although these were unintended consequences of U.S. policy, the
effects dismayed friends and foes alike. From Iran's perspective,
it was a strategic gift of unparalleled proportions, tarnished only
by the fact that its two major enemies had been replaced by a
pugnacious U.S. military giant looking for new worlds to conquer.
That tarnish was gradually removed as the United States found
itself increasingly bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, with a
public fast growing disillusioned with the ugly realities of empire
building in a hostile and unforgiving environment. Erstwhile U.S.
allies in the Persian Gulf, Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere privately
viewed U.S. actions as a failure at best and a betrayal at worst.
They were ripe for a change.

The origins of the new cooperative undertaking are murky, but they
appear to have been galvanized by the Israel-Hezbollah war in
Lebanon the summer of 2006. This event was perceived by Israel, the
United States and the Sunni Arab governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt
and Jordan as an Iranian attempt to extend its power into the
Levant by challenging both Israel and the Sunni Arab leadership.
Whether Iran in fact had any direct control over the decision by
Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, to kidnap Israeli
soldiers is far from clear; however, the perception of growing
Iranian strength and reach – a fundamental shift in the Middle East
balance of power – was unquestioned and hugely menacing to the
traditional power brokers of the region. Initially they had to
swallow their words of discontent as Hezbollah acquitted itself
very creditably and entranced the Arab "street." But once the war
was over and Hezbollah began challenging the predominantly Sunni
and Christian Lebanese government of Fouad Siniora, initial
misgivings reemerged.

In the following months we have seen a number of indicators of a new
coordinated policy approach. Senior Saudi officials met privately
with equally senior Israeli officials, which was itself a
remarkable new development. The content of the discussions has not
been revealed, but one of the participants was rumored to be Prince
Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi Ambassador to Washington and
presently Secretary-General of the Saudi National Security Council,
one of the architects of the U.S.-Saudi collaboration against the
Soviets in Afghanistan, and a wheeler-dealer of legendary
reputation. During the same time period, Bandar began a series of
private visits to Washington, meeting with U.S. officials at the
highest level. Apparently these meetings occurred without the
knowledge of the present Saudi ambassador who abruptly resigned
after the information became public.

The United States successfully shepherded a resolution through the
United Nations Security Council denouncing Iran's nuclear program
and imposing limited sanctions. It was adopted unanimously, and it
gives Iran 60 days to change its policies or the issue will be
revisited. In the speech by President Bush announcing a troop
increase in Iraq, he focused a surprising amount of attention on
Iran. The announced increase of U.S. naval presence in the Gulf
region together with the supply of Patriot anti-missile batteries
to the Gulf were widely interpreted as warning signals to Iran. The
United States is taking an expansive view of the UNSC sanctions by
prohibiting a major Iranian bank from operating in the U.S. and
leading a campaign to persuade others to do the same. In the
meantime, Israel has maintained a drumfire of criticism of Iran's
nuclear program, including suggestions that if no one else is
willing to act, Israel may be called upon to launch a strike
against Iran on is own.

Some of these developments were spelled by Deborah Amos of NPR in a
special report on January 17
< http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...yId=6888930>

There have not been (and probably will not be) any formal
announcements, but the accumulating evidence suggests that a major
new strategy is being pursued. What are its moving parts? It is
still early days, but here is my own interpretation of the division
of labor that seems to be emerging:

United States:

-- Drop any further talk about democratization in the Middle East;
-- Use its influence in the United Nations Security Council to keep
the pressure on Iran (and to a lesser extent Syria) with sanctions
and coordinated international disapproval;
--Provide military cover for the Arab Gulf states as they take a
more confrontational position vis a vis Iran (Patriot missiles,
additional naval aircraft, etc.);
-- Undertake a more vigorous diplomatic effort to find a settlement
of the Arab-Israeli dispute, recognizing that even limited visible
progress will provide diplomatic cover for the Arab states if they
are to cooperate more closely with Israel;
-- In Lebanon, provide covert support for efforts to support the
Siniora government and to thwart Hezbollah, probably in close
cooperation with Israeli intelligence;
-- Organize dissident movements in Iran, primarily among ethnic
groups along the periphery or other targets of opportunity, to
distract and potentially even destabilize the Tehran government;
-- In Iraq:
(1) keep attention focused on Iran, including raids and general
harassment of its representatives;
(2) keep U.S. forces in country to prevent the situation from
descending into full scale civil war or a breakup of the country
(or, as Henry Kissinger presents it in a recent article, combining
both points: "They [U.S. troops] are there as an expression of the
American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of
imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on
which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend");
and
(3) consider engineering a more Sunni-friendly government,
especially if Prime Minister Maliki is unwilling or unable to
control the Shia militias;

Arab States (the six Gulf Cooperation Council states plus Jordan and
Egypt – 6+2):

-- Provide major funding and political support to the Siniora
government in Lebanon and work to undercut Hezbollah's influence
and image;
-- Attempt to woo (or threaten) Syria away from its alliance with
Iran with promises of money and support of Syrian efforts to regain
the Golan Heights;
-- Provide facilities and funding to assist the various U.S.
initiatives above;
-- Attempt to bring down the price of oil, which will remove some
political pressures on Washington and make life more difficult for
Iran.

Israel:

-- Provide intelligence support to U.S. (and potentially Arab)
anti-Hezbollah efforts in Lebanon;
-- Keep international attention focused on the Iranian threat as a
uniquely dangerous situation that may even demand Israeli military
intervention;
-- Use long-standing Israeli contacts, especially with the Kurds in
Iraq and Iran, to foment opposition to the Tehran government;
-- Be prepared to make sufficient concessions on the Palestinian
issue and the Golan to provide at least the perception of
significant forward motion toward a comprehensive settlement.

A tripartite strategy of this sort has a number of appealing
qualities. By keeping attention focused as fully as possible on
Iran as the true threat in the region, it tends to change the
subject and distract public attention from the Iraqi disaster. It
provides something of real value to each of the participants, but
most of the distasteful parts of the plan are plausibly deniable so
they will not have to be explained or justified in great detail to
skeptical observers in any of the countries involved. In the
United States, the antipathy to Iran as a result of the hostage
crisis in 1979-81, inter alia, is so strong that such a strategy is
likely to have widespread appeal to Democrats and Republicans alike,
with enthusiastic endorsement from pro-Israel lobbying groups.

Perhaps most important of all, it provides a single, agreed enemy
that can serve as the organizing point of reference for policies
throughout the region. Like the cold war, this can be used to
explain and rationalize a wide range of policies that otherwise
might be quite unpopular. The Holy Grail of U.S. Middle East policy
has always been the hope of persuading both Arab and Israeli allies
to agree on a common enemy and thereby relegate their mutual
hostilities to a subordinate role. Trying to get the Arabs to
conclude that the Soviet Union was a more immediate threat than
Israel was always a losing proposition, though it did not prevent
several U.S. administrations from trying. But Iran, as a large,
neighboring, non-Arab, radical Shia state, may fulfill that role
more convincingly.

The advent of Mr Ahmadinejad in Iran, with his extravagant rhetoric
and populist posturing, makes that a much easier sell than it was
under President Khatami. More than anyone else, Ahmadinejad is
responsible for the appeal of this strategy. He has done immense –
and perhaps irreparable – damage to Iran's image in the world and
its genuine foreign policy objectives. The fact that Iranian
parliamentarians are banding together in opposition to him and his
policies is evidence that this has not gone unobserved in Tehran,
but it may be too late.

Will the strategy work? Well, it does NOT necessarily mean an
immediate recourse to military conflict, as some are predicting.
The underlying fundamentals have not changed: none of the
tripartite protagonists stand to gain by an actual war. Especially
after the Iraqi experience, it is widely understood in Washington
that a war with a country as large and as nationalistic as Iran
would be immensely costly and almost certainly futile. Moreover,
there is no halfway house. You can't do a quick air strike and
realistically expect it to end there. The situation would
inevitably escalate and ultimately require boots on the ground.
That is a bridge too far for the United States at this juncture.
However, the strategy is deliberately provocative and risks
prompting a belligerent Iranian response (or perhaps it is
deliberately looking for a belligerent response} that could quickly
escalate into an armed exchange. So the threat of military action is
not insignificant.

Will the new policy persuade Iran to change its policies? Probably
not, although knowledgeable Iranian political observers say Iran is
actually ripe for a deal that would deal with both the nuclear and
the Iraqi issues. Iran will have a celebration in a few weeks about
its initial success in running a linked series of centrifuge
cascades. That would be the moment when they could accept at least
a temporary suspension of enrichment activities without renouncing
their national "right to enrich." If the Europeans (and Americans)
are interested in moving to a settlement of the nuclear issue, that
would be the moment to revisit and/or creatively reformulate the
array of proposals – Iranian and European – that are already on the
table.

The new tripartite strategy, however, is not really about Iran but
about the three protagonists. It brings them together, gives them a
common purpose, offers an alternative to the current misery of
reporting about Iraq, and provides a focus for future planning that
might gain a wide measure of support. Unfortunately, that suggests
that actually finding a negotiated solution with Iran is very much
a secondary priority.

The word "new" keeps popping up. This is the same old set of delusions.

There was a popular song several years ago titled " It seems to me I've heard that song before. "

It seems very appropiate when one hears the words of our leaders in Washington.

Although this post is written before the State of the Union Speech is delivered, there has has been enough dialogue about
this for all of us to have a pretty good idea of his ' new plan' for Iraq.

When 'new' plans are for Iraq are presented to us, one of my first thoughts is almost always what part in this has Cheney devised? Whether or not he still wields as much influence as ever with Bush and U.S. policy, is not known by me but it seems reasonable to assume that he does have a great deal.

The following article deals with some of that.

A.B.

Dick Cheney: stand-up guy or political black hole?
By David Ignatius
Daily Star staff
Saturday, January 20, 2007


Six years on, it remains one of Washington's enduring mysteries: How does Vice President Dick Cheney shape decisions in the tight inner circle of the Bush administration? There's a sense that Cheney's influence is on the rise again, at least with Iraq policy, but that's after many months in which his allies say his role has been diminished.

To outside observers, Cheney has been the political equivalent of a black hole - exerting a powerful but mostly invisible force on decisions. The office of the vice president has had a gravitational weight that sucked in other personalities and entire branches of the government, without emitting light or heat that would explain the decision-making process.

During Bush's first term, the "OVP," as it's known in Washington, functioned as a kind of parallel national security staff. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was a strong chief of staff for Cheney, and he hired talented foreign policy experts - Eric Edelman and then Victoria Nuland - to act, in effect, as Cheney's national security advisers. During Bush's second term, that role was taken on by John Hannah, a former policy researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. But insiders say that after Libby's departure in 2005, the OVP has had less impact on foreign policy.

"What has defined the OVP since Scooter left is listlessness," says one Cheney ally. "For 18 months, it was defined by its torpidity. That was deeply distressing" to Cheney's conservative supporters, who feared that Bush had become captive of overly cautious advice from his senior military commanders, Gen. John Abizaid and Gen. George Casey.

This month's change in Iraq policy, in which Bush turned away from the patient strategy his military commanders had advocated, may have marked a return of Cheney's influence. But insiders caution that it's a mistake to see Cheney as some kind of puppet master on Iraq policy, and that the key decisions have been made by Bush himself.

The thrust of Cheney's views - in urging the president to ignore politics and maintain a tough course on Iraq - surfaced in an interview he gave last weekend to Chris Wallace of Fox News. Wallace noted that Iraq was a big issue in the November elections, and that exit polls showed only 17 percent of voters supported sending in more troops. What followed was this remarkable exchange:

Question: "By taking the policy you have, haven't you, Mr. Vice President, ignored the expressed will of the American people in the November election?"

The Vice President: "Well, Chris, this president, and I don't think any president worth his salt can afford to make decisions of this magnitude according to the polls. The polls change."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

Question: "This was an election, sir."

The Vice President: "Polls change day by day, week by week."

Those remarks captured what Cheney's friends say is his crucial contribution to internal decisions - a conviction that much of the political debate in Washington is just noise, and should be ignored in favor of the country's long-term interests. "Over the years, he got tired of suffering fools," says one longtime Cheney friend. "He thinks it's all BS." This contempt for Washington developed when Cheney was a top White House aide in the Ford administration during the cacophony that followed Watergate, this friend says, and it ripened when he made enough money as chief executive officer of Halliburton that he didn't have to care what people in Washington thought.

The danger is that in encouraging Bush to ignore polls, and even elections, Cheney has helped set up a confrontation between Congress and the executive branch that could undermine any hope of gaining a bipartisan approach on Iraq.

While Cheney seems to have prevailed on Iraq, he appeared to suffer a defeat in this week's White House decision to submit the warrantless surveillance program to the oversight of the FISA court. Many administration lawyers had urged that course over the past several years, but it was strongly resisted by Cheney's current chief of staff, David Addington, who argued that the president had inherent authority to authorize the program under his war-making powers.

"Addington clearly lost this round," says one official who met with him about the NSA program.

The mystery of how Cheney operates may finally be clarified in the coming trial of Libby. The vice president will be called to testify on behalf of his former chief of staff, whom he described to Wallace last week as "one of the finest individuals I've ever known." That was pure Cheney - the stand-up guy from Wyoming.

Cheney's testimony, in person or by affidavit, about the use of classified information will go to the heart of the Cheney puzzle: How does the most important but elusive presidential adviser in modern history use his power behind the scenes?


Syndicated columnist David Ignatius is published regularly by THE DAILY STAR.

I'll tell you what not to do...

What Israel did on Christmas...



The Palestinians had just earned themselves more ire from the Muslim world as al Qaeda had been doing in Iraq killing innocents when an errant missile killed some Arab children...and then Israel...for more political reasons than anything I believe with Netanyahu leading in the polls...attacked Hamas which was isolating itself...and got the Muslim world behind them...and made the US look like just a supportive observer again...powerless to do anything...

A damn shame if you ask me...

Now it is highly unlikely there will be peace in the region any time soon IMHO -- not with a new intafada coming.

Very sad.

bitterlemons-international.org
Middle East Roundtable

Edition 14 Volume 7 - April 16, 2009

Obama's initial regional deployment: Turkey

• Converging regional policies - Bulent Aras
Under Obama, Turkey will serve as a short-cut for American policy coordination in the region.

• Fixing anti-Americanism in Turkey - Soner Cagaptay
Lately, the United States has done the right things to win Turkish hearts and minds.

• Restoration of US-Turkey relations? - Fadi Hakura
Obama seems to prefer a Turkish foreign policy of the quiet and constructive type.

• Aims beyond Turkey - Mustafa Kibaroglu
No other country than Turkey could better suit the expectations of the Obama administration in appealing to the Islamic world.

Converging regional policies
Bulent Aras

During a visit to the United States that preceded President Barack Obama's visit to Turkey, Ahmet Davutoglu, chief advisor to Turkey's prime minister, stated that "Our approach and principles are almost the same, very similar to the US on issues such as the Middle East, Caucasus, Balkans and energy security. Therefore, we hope that there is a golden era ahead in cooperation." That sentiment was based on converging developments in the Turkish and American approach to foreign policy issues, particularly the Middle East. Obama's subsequent visit to Turkey signaled that this new golden era had indeed begun.

It can be inferred from Hillary Clinton's remarks during her delegation's stay in Turkey that the US regards Turkey as an effective negotiator in the region. Turkey's relationship with Iran, Syria and Hamas is critical to the foreign-policy-through-diplomacy approach of the Obama administration: Turkey can act as a conduit through which America communicates with these countries and actors. Despite outspoken criticism in Washington of Turkey's open dialogue with America's enemies, the Obama camp regards Turkey's relationship with Iran, Syria and Hamas as positive.

Several issues marked the agenda during the Obama visit to Turkey. He addressed the Muslim world, arguing that the gap between the West and the world of Islam is not insurmountable. He extended an olive branch to the Muslim world with a strong declaration that "the United States is not, and never will be, at war with Islam." Obama's speech in the Turkish Parliament continued with words of friendship and the promise of seeking "broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect". His speech was broadcast live on al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya, the two most important Arabic satellite TV channels.

He placed his support for Turkey's inclusion in the European Union in the same context. In Prague, just before his visit to Turkey, he argued that Turkey's membership would make the EU a truly multi-cultural entity and help to bridge the gap between Islam and the West. He added in Turkey that the EU would be stronger with its inclusion. In addition, he sent a strong message of rapprochement to Iran from Turkey, implicitly honoring Ankara's offer to mediate between Tehran and Washington.

He proposed a "model partnership" between Turkey and the US. He wants Turkey to continue to contribute to Syrian-Israeli peace talks. Obama also satisfied Turkish concerns over his involvement in the Armenian genocide issue, noting that if Turkey and Armenia "can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic history, then I think the entire world should encourage that."

Under the Obama administration, America's foreign policy vision converges with Turkey's on democracy, human rights, peace and international legitimacy. This convergence is more about values than considerations of realpolitik. The Obama administration needs regional allies to implement its foreign policy through multilateral diplomacy. The way forward for the US toward positive bilateral relations with Turkey and a more effective engagement with the Muslim world is to firmly establish its foreign policy priorities in alignment with Turkey's. A review of the Obama delegation's agenda for his visit to Turkey reveals that the president did indeed present proposals for addressing such Turkish foreign policy problems as normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations, associating this requirement with Turkey's leading role as a peacemaker in the region.

Obama called for further reform and democratization in Turkey, with strong reference to improvement of minority rights. He made it clear that there will be consistent support for Turkey's government as long as it moves in the direction he outlined. This should contribute to democratization in Turkey. Ankara's civilian elite is currently expending a great deal of energy to eliminate the Cold War-style illegal apparatus popularly known as Ergenekon that was deeply rooted within the state. US support for democratization and EU membership will anchor Turkey on this path.

The positive atmosphere of rapprochement that emerged with the Obama presidency will soon overturn the bitter legacy of the Bush era. One can easily foresee a rapid improvement of America's standing in Turkey and the Middle East. Obama with his new image will narrow the gap between East and West and establish sustainable friendships in the region. Considering the new foreign policy orientation of the US, under Obama Turkey will serve as a short-cut for American policy coordination in the region.

Obama pledged during his election campaign to enter into cooperation with Turkey; his visit proves that he will keep his word. Obama underlined Turkey's democratic, western, secular and Muslim charters and classified Turkey as an influential western country with multiple identities in the Middle East and its environs. The current Turkish administration promotes a domestic and foreign policy orientation that accommodates cooperation, as demonstrated by Turkey's recent peace-brokering in the region. It is only a matter of time before we witness the effects that a positive Turkish-American relationship has on the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world.- Published 16/4/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org

Prof. Bulent Aras chairs the Department of International Relations at Isik University, Istanbul.

Fixing anti-Americanism in Turkey
Soner Cagaptay

President Barack Obama's visit to Turkey could not have gone better in terms of winning Turkish hearts and minds. Obama did all the right things, visiting Ataturk's mausoleum, the Blue Mosque and the Turkish parliament, capturing the complexity of a country that is Turkish by birth, Muslim in culture and western in its political identity.

Yet Washington still faces a challenge among the Turks: after a debilitating downturn in recent years, America's favorability rating is at rock bottom. Obama should be concerned about this phenomenon that, if ignored, will eat into the foundations of the new US-Turkish relationship he wants to promote on key issues, including Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. As serious as the problem is, though, Turkish anti-Americanism can be fixed.

Obama cannot and should not ignore anti-Americanism in Turkey, because as a democracy, Turkish politics are ultimately accountable to public opinion. Washington can sustain cooperation with all sorts of authoritarian Muslim states, such as Egypt, despite pervasive anti-Americanism in those countries, because these authoritarian regimes do not care for public opinion. In Turkey, though, these sentiments will sooner or later erode, reshape and then cripple governmental cooperation with the United States. Anti-Americanism in Turkey presents a larger, more immediate challenge to Obama than it does in other Muslim majority societies.

Obamania will help face this challenge. According to a recent poll by Infacto, whereas only 9 percent of Turks thought favorably of the US president four years ago, today 39 percent have a positive view of Obama. However, this jolt has not lifted America's standing in Turkey to match political ambitions for long-term and grand cooperation with Ankara as laid out by Obama's speech to the Turkish parliament on April 6. The Infacto poll also shows that 44 percent of the Turks view the United States as the biggest threat to Turkey.

Lately, the United States has done the right things to win Turkish hearts and minds. First, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during her March visit to Turkey, and then President Obama gave the Turks a needed bear hug, emphasizing that the United States likes the Turks, respects their faith and supports their western vocation. Washington is assisting Turkey in its struggle against Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) terror attacks, a key security concern for many Turks. Obama has even shied away from his campaign promise to support the "Armenian Genocide" bill in the US Congress, which many Turks find extremely offensive.

At this stage, there is little more Washington can do to charm the Turks. As I learned during a recent sabbatical in Turkey, the Turks form their views of the world based upon what they hear from their leadership. Turkey is a rare fence-sitting country between East and West, in which pro-American and western statements have the same weight in shaping public views as do views that oppose the United States and the West.

Since the Justice and Development Party (AKP) assumed power in 2002, the Turks have not heard anything positive about the West from their leadership. In fact, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has often lambasted the West, suggesting, for instance, that "the West uses terrorism to sell Turkey weapons" or that "Turkey has borrowed only immoral stuff from the West." Anti-Americanism has become pervasive in Turkey as not just the AKP but even secular and nationalist leaders now vehemently voice such views.

The United States cannot stop entrenched anti-Americanism altogether; only the Turkish leadership can do that. Hence, the first step toward combating anti-Americanism would be zero anti-American and anti-western rhetoric from opinion makers in Turkey, government and opposition alike. By avoiding anti-American rhetoric, the Turkish leadership could demonstrate that it is ready to receive Obama's extended olive branch.

The next step is targeting existing anti-Americanism, which can be alleviated precisely because the Turks are a fence-sitting people. What the Turks hear about the United States and the West shapes their views. In battling anti-Americanism, the Turkish leadership needs to highlight for the Turks the common interests of Turkey and the US, such as a stable Iraq; shared institutions, such as NATO; and shared values, such as democracy. Ankara should also give Washington major credit for intelligence assistance to Turkey in its attempt to stop terror attacks launched by the PKK. Many Turks are not only unaware of this fact, but also think that the United States supports the PKK, as many news reports and government allegations insinuate. The situation on the PKK shows best how Turkish views of the United States can be distorted.

President Obama should not despair when faced with evidence of anti-Americanism in Turkey. This is indeed an immediate and big problem, but it can be fixed, for there is a Turkish solution to anti-Americanism in Turkey.- Published 16/4/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org

Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the author of "Islam, Secularism and Nationalism in Modern Turkey: Who Is a Turk?"

Restoration of US-Turkey relations?
Fadi Hakura

President Barack Hussein Obama swooped into Turkey on April 6 for two days of fence-mending bilateral relations with erstwhile, if sometimes prickly, ally Turkey while disseminating a message of friendship to the wider Muslim world. Obama cut a dashing figure, mesmerizing the normally skeptical Turkish public with self-deprecating references to his inspirational life story of struggle and achievement.

This trip can be characterized as a success in terms of public diplomacy. Opinion polls indicate that Turks have a growing favorable attitude toward Obama. Turkey's media was also mostly upbeat, bringing into sharp focus the contrast between the positive vibes toward Obama and the negative perceptions of former President George W Bush. Meanwhile, President Obama heaped praise on Turkey's European perspective, democratic and secular traditions, and regional aspirations in the Middle East. He deftly maneuvered around the hot Armenian issue without conceding on his points of principle.

Obama also awed audiences beyond Turkey. After all, the visit was not just about Turkey but additionally about the Muslim world. His speech to the Turkish parliament--in which the sound bite that the US is not at "war with Islam" was interpreted as a radical break with Bush's "war on terror" rhetoric--attracted the close attention of the Arab media.

Now that the party is over, a more sober assessment of the ultimate impact of the Turkey jamboree is needed. For starters, it is fair to say that US-Turkey relations witnessed a rapid turnaround before Obama, during the tail end of previous administration, after President George W. Bush agreed to actively cooperate with the Turkish military against Kurdistan Workers' Party combatants infiltrating Turkey from northern Iraq.

But Obama's charm offensive has generated heightened expectations of a substantive shift in US foreign policy, specifically targeting the Middle East. Turkey welcomes Obama's current desire to open dialogue with Iran and Syria, as well as the ongoing plan to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010 and all troops by the end of 2011. But, as always, the real litmus test will be the US stance on the dispute between Israel and its neighbors, particularly the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon. How the US handles the new government in Israel and the glaring divide between Palestinian groups will be closely watched by Turkey and the Muslim world.

Naturally, heightened expectations are not just a one-way street. Obama expects Turkey to deliver on its promises to improve ties with Armenia by re-opening the border that has been closed since 1993 and establishing diplomatic relations. Whether Turkey can re-open the border in the absence of a resolution to the Azerbaijani-Armenian dispute over the enclave of Nagorno Karabakh is open to debate. Yet, there is a serious risk of disappointment in Washington if promises fall short or flat.

Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan's increasingly abrasive style of diplomacy, displayed in full during his adamant opposition to Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's candidacy to take the helm at NATO, could eventually irk US policymakers. Obama seems to prefer a Turkish foreign policy of the quiet and constructive type rather than one based on emotional gestures and religious undertones. So the ground exists for some disappointment here as well.

Despite the pitfalls, there is no doubt that US-Turkey relations are, at least for now, on a firmer, realistic footing. Gone are the poisonous atmospherics, in come greater mutual cooperation and respect. However, the present mood cannot be taken for granted. That the stability of instability in the Middle East and Caucasus could provoke events that scuttle relations with Turkey is possible, perhaps resulting from the Israel-Arab bifurcation, Iran's nuclear endeavors, Iraq, Afghanistan or Armenia, to name just a few examples. Public diplomacy was the easy part. Delivery is a far harder prospect.- Published 16/4/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org

Fadi Hakura is the Turkey analyst at Chatham House in London.

Aims beyond Turkey
Mustafa Kibaroglu

Why did President Barack Hussein Obama visit Turkey so soon? Considering that Turkey and the United States have a long history of strategic relations both at the bilateral level and in the context of the North Atlantic alliance, the opening question may seem redundant. However, it is not. What is unusual in Obama's state visit to Turkey is its timing.

US presidents traditionally pay their first visits to their northern neighbor Canada, and Obama did not make an exception to this rule. Then, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Washington Treaty that established NATO, Obama stopped in Europe. In the aftermath of this important summit meeting, Obama chose Turkey for his first state visit to a foreign country.

Despite the degree of deterioration in Turkish-American relations during the better part of the two Bush administrations and the need for a quick recovery, Obama would still not have visited Turkey on day 76 of his term in the White House had there not been urgency to fulfill another important mission.

The accomplishments of US presidents in their first 100 days in office are carefully scrutinized by the world's media. Needless to say, putting in place a series of comprehensive measures to effectively deal with the economic as well as financial crisis in the United States, which has had far-reaching consequences worldwide, was assigned the highest priority by the Obama administration.

A second and equally important priority of the new administration in its first 100 days, however, was to appeal to the Islamic world with a view to repairing the severely damaged relations since 9/11. Political observers were quick to place bets on which country Obama would choose as the podium to appeal to the hearts and minds of more than a billion Muslims around the world.

Countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan were all touted in this context, while Turkey was rarely mentioned. A few on the list, such as Egypt and Indonesia, were seen as the most likely candidates for such a mission by virtue of the strategic relationship between the United States and the former, and the close personal connection of President Obama with the latter.

Turkey was not seen as a likely candidate mainly because of strong opposition from secular circles in Turkish society, including the powerful military, who are very keen on the secular character of the republican regime founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1923, and not so keen on being perceived as a role-model for the Islamic world. These circles had reason to be suspicious of possible hidden intentions behind such a role for Turkey, given the fact that the United States was not successful in mitigating their fears with several reckless statements to this effect from the higher ranks of the Bush administration.

Thus Obama's address on April 6 to the Turkish Grand National Assembly was delicately balanced with respect to the role that the new US administration had in mind for Turkey. His speech incorporated carefully placed references to "Turkey's strong and secular democracy" being Ataturk's "greatest legacy", as well as statements about America's "partnership with the Muslim world" being "critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject". Obama on the one hand emphasized that "the United States [was] not at war with Islam and [would] never be," and, on the other hand, underlined the fact that he was "one of [the Americans]" who had "Muslims in their family".

In hindsight, no other country than Turkey could better suit the expectations of the Obama administration in appealing to the Islamic world. There are two reasons for this. The first is Obama's strong emphasis on the co-habitation of the virtues of secularism and democracy with the Islamic faith in the Republic of Turkey, which are clearly acknowledged and appreciated by the western world.

Second is the rising profile of Turkey in the public domain of Islamic nations across the globe, especially since the critical involvement of Turkey in efforts to stop the Israeli Gaza offensive, and also due to the growing popularity of Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan following his strong reaction to Israeli President Shimon Peres at the Davos summit in January.

Decades-old strategic relations between the United States and Turkey aside, the early-bird visit of Obama to Turkey owes much to the secular, democratic character of Muslim Turkey and also aims at fulfilling an urgent mission, long overdue: to capture the broken hearts and the confused minds of Muslim populations around the world, including those of secular Turks.- Published 16/4/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org

Dr. Mustafa Kibaroglu teaches courses on arms control and disarmament in the Department of International Relations at Bilkent University in Ankara.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bitterlemons-international.org is an internet forum for an array of world perspectives on the Middle East and its specific concerns. It aspires to engender greater understanding about the Middle East region and open a new common space for world thinkers and political leaders to present their viewpoints and initiatives on the region. Editors Ghassan Khatib and Yossi Alpher can be reached at ghassan@bitterlemons-international.org and yossi@bitterlemons-international.org, respectively.

Obama is on the right track relative to Turkey if he can deal with Isarel and the International Financial Oligarchy (?) ?.

TPM CAFÉ 5/24/09

Pattern Recognition: Why Israel's favorite rhetorical device is no longer effective

Liel Leibovitz

As a former pawn in Israel's foreign ministry, stationed in New York, the one thing I miss most is not the diplomatic visa, the corner office overlooking the United Nations, or the ability to park anywhere in Manhattan with impunity. What I find myself yearning for is something far more ephemeral and wonderful: the official state visit.

Every few months, when a government official made his way to our golden shores, my colleagues and I would take a few days off from our numbing desk-bound routine, and accompany the visiting dignitary to meetings with other dignitaries. There, facing each other, would sit two grown men in muted charcoal suits who, for an hour or two, would speak voluminously yet somehow, like communication magi, avoid saying anything at all. When the official would return to Israel, I'd be expected to write a report summing up the meeting. Unable to make sense of the hailstorm of drivel I'd witnessed, I would resort to the following beautifully ambiguous sentence: "the discussion revolved around the challenges and opportunities lying ahead in the future." It worked every time.

I thought about these heady days this week, as I watched Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, arrive at the first visit of his current term and meet with President Barack Obama. The meeting, as could be expected, was widely covered. Yet most reporters seemed to have missed Netanyahu's most important locution, a sentence so slippery it could only be captured by a highly trained former Israeli press officer.

"Mr. Netanyahu," reported [i]The New York Times[/i], "told Mr. Obama that he was ready to resume peace talks with the Palestinians immediately, but they would only succeed if the Palestinians recognized Israel as a Jewish state."

Behold the beauty of the prime minister's words. Peace, he insists, could only be viable were the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the home of the Jews. This, of course, implies that they do not, which in turn suggests that the Palestinians belong in the historical pantheon of Jew-hating villains, slightly to the right of Haman, the biblical genocidal maniac, and just to the left of Hitler.

But Netanyahu's words are sinister not just rhetorically, but politically first and foremost. His strange plea for recognition neatly packs within it a wilderness of bad intentions. To understand them, and the potential threats they pose for the struggling peace process, a brief detour is necessary.

For decades, Israeli leaders reluctant to engage in serious discussions with the Palestinians, needed only to look up to the Palestinian National Charter, the 1964 document that birthed the Palestinian Liberation Organization, for proof of the futility of negotiations. The charter describes Israel as an "entirely illegal" state, and therefore does not recognize its right to exist. And how, clucked Israeli politicians from 1967 onwards, are we expected to sit at the table with foes who won't even grant us the most primal privilege, that of existence?

Sensing, perhaps, that the charter was a bit too odious for western ears, the PLO's perennially pragmatic leader, Yasser Arafat, sprang into action. In a speech in 1988, Arafat announced that he recognized "the right of all parties concerned in the Middle East conflict to exist in peace and security... including the state of Palestine and Israel and other neighbors." A few months later, he went even further, telling a French journalist that the Palestinian charter was, essentially, null and void.

Neither statement impressed Israel much. Arafat, went the line out of Jerusalem, could say whatever he wanted, but it was the charter itself that spoke volumes, and the charter needed to change before peace was ever possible.

It was the charter, then, that was high on prime minister Yitzhak Rabin's list of priorities when he launched the Oslo peace process in 1993. Israel, he said, would only consider territorial concessions if the offensive document was amended to recognize the Jewish state's right to exist. Arafat was easily convinced, promised to submit the changes to the Palestinian National Council, and did so a few years later. The council was overwhelmingly in favor of the proposed changes, with 504 members voting in favor, 54 against, and 14 abstaining.

Rabin, however, was assassinated, and his successor, the very same Benjamin Netanyahu, focused on the charter like a hound on a wounded fox. The changes Arafat made, he claimed, were too legalistic, too murky, not sufficiently clear. The Palestinians, he declared, had to speak unequivocally and state their good intentions. Again, Arafat did just that, writing a letter to President Bill Clinton and assuring him that all of the anti-Israel clauses had been removed from the charter. In 1998, Clinton travelled to Gaza, and in a speech to the gathered Palestinian leadership put the matter to its final rest.

"I thank you for your rejection--fully, finally and forever--of the passages in the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of Israel," Clinton said. "For they were the ideological underpinnings of a struggle renounced at Oslo. By revoking them once and for all, you have sent, I say again, a powerful message not to the government, but to the people of Israel. You will touch people on the street there. You will reach their hearts there."

And while the hearts of Israel's leaders may not have been touched, their minds had no choice but to admit that the Palestinians did recognize - fully, finally, and forever - Israel's right to exist.

Which bring us back to this week in Washington. The newly elected Netanyahu, presiding over a precarious coalition that seats the centrist Labor party with the right-wing zealots of Avigdor Lieberman's Israel Beytenu party, needed some ploy to stall re-engaging the Palestinians, an untenable prospect considering his hawkish campaign promises and the unstable alliance that is his cabinet. Looking back in time, he found the same canard he touted a decade ago, that of demanding some sort of recognition as a precondition to negotiations.

But whereas the old demand - recognizing Israel's right to exist - was understandable, the new one - recognizing Israel as a Jewish state - is ludicrous. Writing in Ha'aretz, Israeli columnist Gideon Levy captured the demand's idiocy in full glory when he suggested mockingly that Netanyahu might as well have thrown in a demand for the Palestinians to recognize the Sabbath as the Jewish people's day of rest, or recognize the religious laws that prohibit Jews from eating leaven during Passover.

As funny as Netanyahu's new demand may sound, however, its implications are dead serious. In reverting back to the recognition game, the Israeli leader is saying, much more clearly than any of his official statements ever could, that he has no intention of seriously committing himself to resolving the conflict with the Palestinians, ending the occupation and heralding peace.

Americans - in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere - should take Netanyahu at his word. While Clinton indulged Netanyahu's rhetorical romps and travelled to Gaza to bring about resolution to the spectacularly unimportant matter of the Palestinian National Charter, Obama needn't display as much patience and goodwill. Instead, the president would do much better if he was to avoid such distractions and tell Netanyahu, when they next meet, that if the Israeli prime minister is to find any sympathy in the White House, he has a few recognitions of his own to make, namely that empty political maneuvers will not be tolerated and that actions, not words, are the key to remaining on the administration's sunny side.

The alternative is to continue holding such empty, ceremonious meetings, in which both sides do little save for discussing, to paraphrase my favorite phrase from my years in the foreign ministry, the challenges and opportunities lying ahead in the future. It doesn't take a former diplomat to know that that's not nearly enough.


.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}

Armageddon Now? by Nadia Hijab
Analysis of the Obama-Netanyahu summit by Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy provokes anxiety that Israel might soon “go it alone” and strike Iran’s nuclear energy sites -- impatient with US-Itanian diplomacy.
more...

Why Obama Frightens the Israelis by Patrick Seale
On 18 May, the U.S. President and the Israeli Prime Minister circled each other warily, striving with studied politeness to conceal their considerable mutual antipathy. There was no disguising, however, the wide divergence of their views.
more...

Obama’s Team Moves to Middle Ground by Rami G. Khouri
Obama’s team seems to be making adjustments and signaling that real change may be on the way. The Israeli government for now seems to be the odd man out in a region that seems to be groping towards new relationships and realities.
more...

What Kind of State? by Nadia Hijab
If Obama achieves two states, he may find he is at the beginning rather than the end of the road.
more...

Peacemaking Needs Two Sides by Rami G. Khouri
The Palestinian Paradox by Helena Cobban
Palestinians’ Last Chance? by Patrick Seale
The Israel Boycott is Biting by Nadia Hijab
Deceptive Calm in Gaza by Rami G. Khouri
Colonial Values Rule Again in Palestine by Rami G. Khouri
Obama’s Israel-Palestine Nightmare by Patrick Seale
A Hypocritical ‘Fear’ of Gaza by Nadia Hijab

AMERICAN FOOTPRINTS

5/24/09

WaPo: US pressure to freeze settlements "complicated" by Bush "secret agreement"

Goodness, gracious me! Glenn Kessler and Howard Schneider just posted
a doozy on the WaPo site, which will put the cat among the pigeons!
And why am I not surprised to find the fingerprints of our dear old
friend and pardoned Iran-Contra criminal, Eliott Abrams, on this one.

The story begins when Nentanyahu came to meet Obama a week or so ago
and got an earful wherever he went in DC, especially about halting the
expansion of settlements. It wasn't just at the White House and State
Department. He also got a rude welcome on Capitol Hill among all those
Congresscritters Bibi thought were his old buddies.

You know you're on shaky ground when Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla) tells
you, ""The Palestinians have enormous responsibilities, but the notion
that Israel can continue to expand settlements, whether it be through
natural growth or otherwise, without diminishing the capacity of a
two-state solution is both unrealistic, and, I would respectfully
suggest, hypocritical." Ah, hum.

But! Not to be discouraged by such a cool reception in DC, the
Israelis are trying to push back, restating boldly that they haveno
plan to freeze settlements. You see, according to Bibi's spokesman,
until there are "final status arrangements," of which settlements are
one, "it would not be fair to kill normal life inside existing
communities."

Hmmm. Not fair to kill normal life. Let's stop and think about that
for a moment. Might there be some other folks in the neighborhood who
share a similar sentiment that it's unfair to kill normal life inside
existing communities? Especially given that Israel undertook in Phase
I of the Road Map to "take all necessary steps to help normalise
Palestinian life...[and] also freeze[s] all settlement activity,
consistent with the Mitchell report."

But, but... say the Israelis. George Bush gave Sharon a letter in 2004
that had caveats. And indeed Bush did. Here's what the Wikipedia
article on the Road Map for peace describes about the letter. [Note:
this is a stable part of the Wikipedia Road Map article, so there
seems to be consensus about its accuracy.]

On April 14, 2004, President George W. Bush wrote a letter to Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon seeming to herald two significant changes
or increased specifications to longstanding but ambiguous U.S. policy
which had most recently been embodied in the road map. For the first
time during the road map process, Bush indicated his expectations as
to the outcome of the final status negotiations. The letter was widely
seen as a triumph for Sharon, since Bush's expectations seemed to
favor Israel on two highly contentious issues. Regarding final
borders, the letter stated: "In light of new realities on the ground,
including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is
unrealistic that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a
full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all
previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the
same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status
agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed
changes that reflect these realities...". Second, regarding the
Palestinian refugees' right of return, Bush also stated: "It seems
clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a
solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status
agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a
Palestinian state and the settling of Palestinian refugees there
rather than Israel."

So far, Bush's 2004 letter, though supremely irritating and
disappointing to the Palestinians, nonethless tracks with what most
observers had expected the Road Map process to eventually lead to.
True, the letter may appear to prejudge certain "final status
arrangements." However, the points in the letter don't appear to be
inconsistent with Israel's obligations under the Road Map.

But wait! There's more! Here's the kicker, from Kessler and Schneider:

In an interview with The Washington Post last year, Sharon aide Dov
Weissglas said that in 2005, when Sharon was poised to remove settlers
from Gaza, the Bush administration arrived at a secret agreement --
not disclosed to the Palestinians -- that Israel could add homes in
settlements it expected to keep, as long as the construction was
dictated by market demand, not subsidies.

Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security adviser who
negotiated the arrangement with Weissglas,confirmed the deal in an
interview last week. "At the time of the Gaza withdrawal, there were
lengthy discussions about how settlement activity might be
constrained, and in fact it was constrainedin the later part of the
Sharon years and the Olmert years in accordance with the ideas that
were discussed," he said. "There was something of an understanding
realized on these questions, but it was never a written agreement."

Regev said Israeli and U.S. negotiators are discussing the degree to
which the terms of the 2004 letter will apply under the new
administration, but U.S. officials indicated that Obama wants to move
beyond the 2004 letter and hold Israel to its commitments under the
road map. "The bottom line is we expect all the parties in the region
to honor their commitments, and for the Israelis, that means a stop to
settlements, as the president said," a senior administration official
said.

So let me get this straight. The WaPo has since 2008 been sitting on
the knowledge of "something of an unwritten understanding" or "secret
agreement" -- which was not disclosed to the Palestinians -- that
exempted Israel from commonly understood expectations of Israel's Road
Map obligations.

Just curious. Was this agreement shared with the Quartet? With Middle
East envoys like James Wolfensohn, who had the unenviable task of
trying to get the Israelis to deal with the Gaza withdrawal about the
same time Eliot was negotiating that "unwritten understanding"? Was it
disclosed to other branches of the US government?It certainly wasn't
shared with with the US public, either by the Bush Administration or
the WaPo, even though the issue of Israeli settlements has become the
focus of increasing public disapproval of Israeli actions, and even
though it has even been a factor in US electoral politics. Just how
many folks were in on this little private understanding. Maybe Eliott
shared that tidbit with his friends who hired him at theCouncil on
Foreign Relations

. Who knows!

Still, it seems that the previously undisclosed "understanding" is
rapidly becoming NOL (no longer operative). The last statement quoted
by Gessler and Schneider from a "senior administration official"
doesn't sound like much of a "discussion" is happening between US and
Israeli officials. Let's just review it one more time.

"The bottom line is we expect all the parties in the region to honor
their commitments, and for the Israelis, that means a stop to
settlements, as the president said".

That message is going to elicit howls of outrage and betrayal from Tel
Aviv. One assumes that news of the "unwritten understanding" will also
produce howls from Ramallah, though somewhat offset by Obama's
apparent seriousness to hold the Israelis to their commitments. But it
appears that any Israelii howls aren't going to be met with much
sympathy from the Obama Administration, or even on Capitol Hill.

By the way, tell me again, who got suckered when Bibi met Obama?

Cross-posted at Attackerman

UPDATE: My cynicism about the WaPo's Middle East coverage is high, but
I'm still astonished at how completely they've buried this story. This
story not only isn't on the home page. You have to scroll down six
articles in the "More News" column on the "World" front to find it.
And even on the "Middle East" front, two other articles are showcased,
and this is only one of a number of headlines at the top of "More
News". Maybe they're hoping it stays buried until the Sunday shows are
over.

_______________________________________________

LOS ANGELES TIMES

5/26/09

Israeli legislation raises issue of loyalty

An ultranationalist party introduces a bill requiring an oath of allegiance to Israel, and another barring the traditional Arab day of mourning over the Jewish state's birth.

Richard Boudreaux

Reporting from Jerusalem — The ultranationalist party led by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has unveiled two bills targeting Israel's Arab minority, one that would outlaw the Arabs' traditional day of mourning over the birth of Israel and another that would require an oath of allegiance to the Jewish state.

Both bills face opposition within Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's governing coalition and uncertain prospects for approval in the Knesset, Israel's parliament.

But in the meantime, they are provoking vigorous debate over free expression, internal security and Israel's sense of international isolation.

Palestinian Arabs who remained in Israel after its independence and their descendants make up about one-fifth of the citizenry. Hundreds of thousands of other Arabs fled or were driven into exile in the war surrounding Israel's founding in 1948. Each May 15, Arabs inside and outside Israel gather for public expressions of grief over what they call the Nakba, or catastrophe.

A bill approved by a Cabinet committee Sunday would end Israel's tolerance for these annual demonstrations on its soil, making participation in them punishable by up to three years in prison.

Lieberman's party, Israel Is Our Home, announced Monday that it had prepared a separate bill requiring an oath of allegiance from anyone applying for a national identity card, a document essential for almost any transaction with the state, the school system or financial institutions. The oath would profess loyalty to Israel as "a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state."

The bill does not explicitly target Arab citizens but stems from Lieberman's campaign message that they pose an internal security threat. It would allow the government to revoke the citizenship of anyone who refuses to perform some kind of military or national service.
Parliament defeated a similar initiative by Lieberman's party in 2007, but its campaign on the loyalty issue propelled Israel Is Our Home to a strong third-place finish in this year's election.

Unlike Palestinians in the neighboring West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel's Arabs hold full citizenship rights. But they complain of discrimination and have little identification with a country that defines itself as Jewish.

Arab citizens are exempt from military service, which is compulsory for Jews, and few volunteer for it.

Arabs, a small minority in the parliament, reacted with fury to both pieces of legislation.

Jamal Zahalka, head of the Balad party, called the attempt to outlaw Nakba demonstrations "a crazy bill by a crazy government." He said the Jews "drove away our people and now they want to deny us even our cry of pain. This is record-breaking Israeli chutzpah."

Alex Miller, a member of Lieberman's party, said it would be inconceivable for Americans to hold protests against their country's independence. "It's time for us to be proud of our country," he said.

Dissent within the right-leaning governing coalition could trip up the Nakba bill, which faces several hurdles in parliament.

After it cleared a Cabinet committee, 8 votes to 3, three lawmakers from Netanyahu's conservative Likud party asked the Justice Ministry to overturn the decision. One of them, Michael Eitan, said Israel must combat security threats "not by limiting freedom of expression, but rather through belief in the justice of our path."

"This is the last thing this government should be sending out as a message to the democratic world," declared Avishai Braverman of the left-leaning Labor Party, a junior partner in the coalition. He said Israel was isolated enough by Netanyahu's refusal to endorse the goal of an independent Palestinian state.

Netanyahu has taken no position on either bill. In assembling his coalition, his party rejected Lieberman's demand to make a loyalty oath requirement part of the government program. Instead, a written agreement by the two parties said the judiciary should be given power to withdraw government assistance from anyone found to have engaged in terrorism or espionage.

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish members of the ruling coalition might also oppose a loyalty oath because some of their constituents object to the establishment of a Jewish state before the arrival of the Messiah.

Netanyahu Willing to 'Give Up Outposts' Yana Dlugy, Agence France-Presse Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is willing to tear down settlement outposts in the occupied West Bank in return for US backing on its stance on arch-foe Iran, local media reported on Tuesday.

MIDDLE EAST

US-Israel Rift Becomes an Unusually Public One - Paul Richter and Christi Parsons and Richard Boudreaux, Los Angeles Times. President Obama and top Israeli officials staked out sharply opposing positions over the explosive issue of Jewish settlements Thursday, propelling a rare dispute between the two close allies into full public view just days before the US leader is due to deliver a long-awaited address in Egypt to the world's Muslims. Speaking after a White House meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Obama reiterated that he had been "very clear about the need to stop building settlements, to stop building outposts" on Palestinian territory. Only hours earlier, the Israeli government said it would continue to allow some growth in the settler communities in the West Bank.

Israel Rebuffs US on Settlements - Charles Levinson, Wall Street Journal. The divide between the United States and Israel over West Bank settlements deepened Thursday after Israel rebuffed the Obama adminstration's strongest demands yet that it freeze all building there. After meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House on Thursday, President Barack Obama stressed that Israel's obligations toward peace include "stopping settlements" and supporting a Palestinian state. His comments followed a bluntly worded statement Wednesday evening by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements - not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions," Mrs. Clinton said, in the administration's most explicit renunciation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's West Bank policies. Her comments appeared to leave Mr. Netanyahu no alternative but to choose between his right-wing base and Washington.

Obama Pushes Israel On Settlement Issue - Glenn Kessler, Washington Post. President Obama yesterday continued to press his administration's tough stance on Jewish settlements in the West Bank, telling reporters after a meeting with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that Israel must halt all settlement activity to build momentum for peace. Obama, who met last week with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, said, "In my conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I was very clear about the need to stop settlements, to make sure that we are stopping the building of outposts,,, to alleviate some of the pressures that the Palestinian people are under in terms of travel and commerce." Obama noted that Palestinians also must improve security as part of their commitments under the 2003 "road map" for peace, though he added that the Palestinian Authority had made "great progress" with the assistance of a US general.

Obama Calls for Swift Move Toward Mideast Peace Talks - Helene Cooper, New York Times. President Obama called on Israelis and Palestinians on Thursday to move swiftly toward peace talks, as his administration embarked on its first public dispute with Israel. Speaking to reporters at the White House after talks with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, Mr. Obama said that the absence of peace between Israelis and Palestinians was clogging up other critical issues in the Middle East. "Time is of the essence," Mr. Obama said. "We can't continue with the drift and the increased fear on both sides, the sense of hopelessness that we've seen for too many years now. We need to get this thing back on track."

Israeli Military Kills Hamas Operative - Howard Schneider and Debbi Wilgoren, Washington Post. A longtime Hamas leader accused of plotting fatal attacks in Israel was killed during an exchange of gunfire Thursday after Israeli forces surrounded his West Bank home, an Israeli military official said. The clash came on the same day that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is to meet President Obama at the White House to discuss Israel's control of the West Bank and other aspects of the troubled Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Abed al-Majid Dudin, 45, helped plan and execute two fatal bus bombings in Israel in the mid-1990s, an Israeli military spokesman said. He is believed to have continued plotting attacks after his release from a Palestinian prison in late 2000 and had been on Israel's wanted list for years.

Misery Hangs Over Gaza Despite Pledges of Help - Nathan Bronner, New York Times. Dozens of families still live in tents amid collapsed buildings and rusting pipes. With construction materials barred, a few are building mud-brick homes. Everything but food and medicine has to be smuggled through desert tunnels from Egypt. Among the items that people seek is an addictive pain reliever used to fight depression. Four months after Israel waged a war here to stop Hamas rocket fire and two years after Hamas took full control of this coastal strip, Gaza is like an island adrift. Squeezed from without by an Israeli and Egyptian boycott and from within by their Islamist rulers, the 1.5 million people here are cut off from any productivity or hope.

Abbas's Waiting Game - Jackson Diehl, Washington Post opinion. Mahmoud Abbas says there is nothing for him to do. True, the Palestinian president walked into his meeting with Barack Obama yesterday as the pivotal player in any Middle East peace process. If there is to be a deal, Abbas must (1) agree on all the details of a two-state settlement with the new Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu, which hasn't yet accepted Palestinian statehood, and (2) somehow overcome the huge split in Palestinian governance between his Fatah movement, which controls the West Bank, and Hamas, which rules Gaza and hasn't yet accepted Israel's right to exist.

web haaretz.com

Israel to U.S.: 'Stop favoring Palestinians'
By Barak Ravid

Tensions between Washington and Jerusalem are growing after the U.S. administration's demand that Israel completely freeze construction in all West Bank settlements. Israeli political officials expressed disappointment after Tuesday's round of meetings in London with George Mitchell, U.S. President Barack Obama's envoy to the Middle East.

"We're disappointed," said one senior official. "All of the understandings reached during the [George W.] Bush administration are worth nothing." Another official said the U.S. administration is refusing every Israeli attempt to reach new agreements on settlement construction. "The United States is taking a line of granting concessions to the Palestinians that is not fair toward Israel," he said.
Advertisement


The Israeli officials attributed the unyielding U.S. stance to the speech Obama will make in Cairo this Thursday, in which he is expected to deliver a message of reconciliation to the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Mitchell was joined at the London talks by his deputy David Hale, Daniel B. Shapiro (the head of the National Security Council's Middle East desk), and State Department deputy legal adviser Jonathan Schwartz.

The Israeli delegation consisted of National Security Adviser Uzi Arad, Netanyahu diplomatic envoy Yitzhak Molcho, Defense Ministry chief of staff Mike Herzog and deputy prime minister Dan Meridor.

Herzog spoke to Mitchell and his staff about understandings reached by former prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon with the Bush administration on allowing continued building in the large West Bank settlement blocs. He asked that a similar agreement be reached with the Obama government.

Meridor spoke of the complexities characterizing the coalition headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and said Washington's demands of a complete construction freeze would lead to the dissolution of the Netanyahu government.

The Israeli delegates were stunned by the uncompromising U.S. stance, and by statements from Mitchell and his staff that agreements reached with the Bush administration were unacceptable. An Israeli official privy to the talks said that "the Americans took something that had been agreed on for many years and just stopped everything."

"What about the Tenet Report, which demanded that the Palestinians dismantle the terror infrastructure?" said the official, referring to former CIA director George Tenet. "It's unfair, and there is no reciprocity shown toward the Palestinians."

The Israeli envoys said the demand for a total settlement freeze was not only unworkable, but would not receive High Court sanction. Tensions reportedly reached a peak when, speaking of the Gaza disengagement, the Israelis told their interlocutors, "We evacuated 8,000 settlers on our own initiative," to which Mitchell responded simply, "We've noted that here."

Defense Minister Ehud Barak will travel to Washington today in an attempt to put further pressure on the Obama administration.

"We want to reach an agreement with the United States on ways to advance the peace process," said a senior Jerusalem official. The U.S. stance, he said, "will stall the process and bring about tension and stagnation, which will hurt both Israel and the United States."

Israel stages biggest-ever war drill
updated 7:37 a.m. EDT, Sun May 31, 2009

JERUSALEM (CNN) — Israel started its biggest emergency drill in the nation’s history Sunday to prepare civilians, soldiers and rescue crews for the possibility of war, the defense force said in a statement.

The five-day drill, nicknamed Turning Point 3, comes amid the nation’s rising tensions with Iran.

It will be conducted in public facilities, including schools, military bases and government offices. Students, soldiers and other civilians will practice how to gather at protected places during an emergency.

Officials said the drill will include simulated rockets, air raids and other attacks on infrastructure and essential facilities, and use of weapons on civilians.

Everyone is expected to go to a protected place at the sound of sirens, the defense force said, adding that more instructions will be broadcast on a public channel.

“It is of great importance that every civilian, institute and workplace will seriously practice in order to improve our preparedness and national resilience,” Maj. Gen. Yair Golan of the Home Front Command said in a news statement.

More…

Losing Ground in the Middle East

Last week, Secretary Clinton reiterated President Obama's call for Israel to halt the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. As Prime Minister Netanyahu has indicated, however, the White House's plea will go unheeded, just as previous Israeli administrations ignored similar requests from previous U.S. administrations.

If Palestinian statehood is an eventuality, as many Israelis believe, then grabbing decent land in the occupied territories, although wrong, is understandable, according to Ivan Eland, director of the Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty. But the more fundamental issue for Americans is why the United States continues to meddle in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, given its intractability and the array of other issues of greater importance for Americans.

U.S. policy toward Palestine "is costly, a waste of time, and of no help to the real interests of the Palestinian or Israeli people," writes Eland. "The United States should follow the physician's motto of 'do no harm' and withdraw from the field."

"The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict--Why the U.S. Should Care Less," by Ivan Eland (6/1/09))

The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, by Ivan Eland

Ivan Eland on C-SPAN2. Interview by Rep. Ron Paul

Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, by Ivan Eland

Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty, by Ivan Eland

Netanyahu Cites Secret Deal with Bush to Justify more Settlements

Full Text of Barack Obama's Speech to the Muslim World - Wall Street Journal.

Obama Addresses World's Muslims - Paula Wolfson, Voice of America. US President Barack Obama says it is time for a new beginning in relations between America and the world's Muslims. The president said they should unite to confront violent extremism and promote the cause of peace. President Obama says, after decades of frustration and distrust, it is time for candor ... for dialogue ... and a fresh start. "I have come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition," the president said. He spoke in a packed auditorium on the sprawling campus of Cairo University. But his intended audience was far broader: more than one-billion Muslims around the world. "I am convinced that in order to move forward we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors," President Obama said. "There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, and to seek common ground." The president spoke of his own perspective as a Christian with Muslim relatives who spent part of his youth in predominantly Muslim Indonesia. "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it is not," he said. " And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." President Obama said problems must be dealt with through partnership, and tensions must be faced head on. He said extremists are playing on their differences, and are killing people in many countries of many faiths. "The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few," President Obama said. "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism, it is an important part of promoting peace."

Obama Cites Shared Principles in Reaching Out to Muslim World - Donna Miles, American Forces Press Service. President Barack Obama reached out to the Muslim world today, urging a new beginning that rises above historical tensions and is built on commonly held principles that reject violence and promote cooperation and stability. Obama, speaking at Cairo University in Egypt, told a predominantly Muslim audience that violent extremists have exploited longstanding tensions and misunderstandings to further divide the United States and Muslims around the world. “The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile, not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights,” he said. “This has bred more fear and distrust.” Emphasizing that the United States “is not – and never will be – at war with Islam,” Obama said it will “relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security.” Obama dismissed any notion that the 9/11 attacks were justified. “Let us be clear: al-Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody,” he said. “And yet, al-Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale.” With affiliates around the world, Obama said, these extremists are trying to expand their reach. “These are not opinions to be debated,” he said. “These are facts to be dealt with.” Obama said his first duty as president is to protect the American people, and said he won’t compromise that responsibility as he works to promoting international cooperation in standing up to violent extremists. The president pointed to the situation in Afghanistan as an example of America’s goals and the need for the United States and the Muslim world to work together.

Obama Chides Israel, Arabs In His Overture to Muslims - Laura Meckler and Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal. President Barack Obama waded into the heart of the Middle East conflict Thursday by forcefully reiterating his support for a Palestinian state and admonishing the Arab world to pursue peace with Israel as he made his long-awaited appeal to mend the rift between America and the Muslim world. In a wide-ranging speech before students at Cairo University that celebrated the common values of the two cultures, Mr. Obama called for a "new beginning" in the relationship. "I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear," he said to repeated applause in the ornate-domed Great Hall. "But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. " Most notable in the hourlong address was Mr. Obama's reiteration of his support of a state for Palestine, and his rejection of continued construction by Israel of new settlements on disputed land. The policy puts Mr. Obama in direct conflict with the new government in Israel, led by Benjamin Netanyahu. The president also demanded that Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, recognize Israel and renounce violence.

Obama Calls for End to Discord with Muslim World - Christi Parsons and Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times. President Obama's sweeping call Thursday for a "new beginning" between the United States and the Islamic world was greeted by Muslims of many countries as a conciliatory gesture aimed at setting aside suspicion and moving ahead on problems that include terrorism and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The 55-minute address at Cairo University, which was widely translated and sent across the Internet, did little to sway hardened enemies such as Iran. But it did find qualified support from unexpected voices, such as members of the Hamas militant group in the Gaza Strip and Islamist intellectuals in Pakistan. Many listeners were disappointed that Obama did not lay out detailed changes in US foreign policy. Nevertheless, interviews from Egypt to Turkey and Iraq suggested that they believed he was distancing himself from the George W. Bush era and was prepared to engage the Islamic world with openness and trust.

Obama Calls for New Beginning With World's Muslims - Scott Wilson, Washington Post. President Obama asked Thursday for a "new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world" in a speech that urged Islamic nations to embrace democracy, women's rights, religious tolerance and the right of Israel to coexist with an independent Palestinian state. In an address designed to change perceptions of the United States in the Arab Middle East and beyond, Obama reviewed the troubled historical legacy between Islam and the rest of the world, from colonialism through the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the uncertainty surrounding cultural and economic globalization. "So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity," Obama told an audience of hundreds gathered in a domed hall at Cairo University. "This cycle of suspicion and discord must end." Even as Obama spoke, however, the Arab satellite network al-Jazeera aired new excerpts of an audiotape message issued yesterday by al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, urging Muslims to "brace yourselves for a long war against the world's infidels and their agents."

Addressing Muslim World, Obama Pushes Mideast Peace - Jef Zeleny and Alan Cowell, New York Times. In opening a bold overture to the Islamic world on Thursday, President Obama confronted frictions between Muslims and the West, but he reserved some of his bluntest words for Israel, as he expressed sympathy for the Palestinians and what he called the “daily humiliations, large and small, that come with occupation.” While Mr. Obama emphasized that America’s bond with Israel was “unbreakable,” he spoke in equally powerful terms of the Palestinian people, describing their plight as “intolerable” after 60 years of statelessness, and twice referring to “Palestine” in a way that put Palestinians on parallel footing with Israelis. Mr. Obama’s speech in Cairo, which he called a “timeless city,” was perhaps the riskiest of his presidency, as he used unusually direct language to call for a fresh look at deep divisions, both those between Israel and its neighbors and between the Islamic world and the West. Among his messages was a call for Americans and Muslims to abandon their mutual suspicions and do more to confront violent extremism. But it was Mr. Obama’s empathetic tone toward the Palestinians that attracted the most attention in the region and around the world.

Obama: 'New Beginning' with Muslims - Christina Bellantoni, Washington Times. Seeking no less than a restart of relations with the Islamic world, President Obama on Thursday conceded past wrongs, quoted from the Koran and even invoked his full name - all in an appeal to Muslims from Indonesia to Morocco to unite around common ideals of rights, freedom, security and respect. In calling for a "new beginning," he singled out some Islamic nations as examples of religious tolerance, he delivered a stern lecture to Holocaust deniers, doubters of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Palestinian terrorists, and he harked back to the glory of Islamic civilizations through the centuries. Using his 55-minute speech - the longest of his young presidency - to about 2,500 people at Cairo University, Mr. Obama said that rather than a fundamental disagreement, the U.S. has always held deep respect for and good will toward Islam, dating back to one of the nation's earliest documents, the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli.

Obama Delivers Strong Attack on Israeli Settlements in Speech to Muslim World - James Hider, The Times. Before a crowd of robed Muslim clerics, dissidents who have served time in jail, students from across the region and besuited government officials from authoritarian regimes, President Obama made an historic speech yesterday to try to mend America’s battered ties with the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims. From such a diverse audience he received as many cheers for espousing women’s rights as he did for quoting the Koran or championing the principle of a free Palestinian state. Mr Obama made obvious attempts to win Muslim hearts and minds - reminding them that Thomas Jefferson taught himself Arabic, and praising the Islamic world as a beacon of learning during Europe’s Dark Ages - but refused to shy away from the difficult issues of religious extremism, human rights abuses and nuclear proliferation that plague the region.

Barack Obama Attempts to Recast Image of America in Muslim World - Richard Spencer, Daily Telegraph. In a speech given to an audience at Cairo University but directed at more than 1 billion Muslims around the world, he said a "new partnership" would stress common principles between civilisations. "So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the co-operation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity," he said. "This cycle of suspicion and discord must end. "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect." The speech, which he had promised to make even before he was elected, was the centrepiece of his tour of the Middle East which also included talks with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He met the long-serving President Hosni Mubarak before going on to the university, and ended the day with a trip to the Pyramids. Some even compared his mission to the celebrated Cold War speeches of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan in Berlin.

Barack Obama Reaches Out to Muslim World - John Lyons, The Australian. Barack Obama vowed last night to forge a "new beginning" for Islam and the US in a landmark speech to Muslims around the world, evoking a vision of peace after years of "suspicion and discord". In what may be a defining moment of his administration, the US President laid out a new blueprint for US Middle East policy, vowing to sweep away mistrust, forge a state for the Palestinians and defuse a nuclear showdown with Iran. In the domed Great Hall of Cairo University, Mr Obama warned that the US bond with Israel, the source of much Arab distrust of Washington, was "unbreakable". And he rejected "ignorant" rants by those who deny the Nazi Holocaust. But in a sharp break from the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush, Mr Obama - who was greeted with a standing ovation as he stepped up to the podium - rebuked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's refusal to halt the expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

In Obama's Speech, A New Approach to Middle East: Candor - Peter Grier, Christian Science Monitor. Did President Obama in his Cairo speech signal a new toughness towards the Arab-Israeli peace process? Past presidents have opposed Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In Cairo, Mr. Obama said plainly that the US will not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. Past presidents have supported the two-state solution, with Israel and a Palestinian nation living side by side. In Cairo, Obama insisted that each side needs to recognize the other's right to exist. With these and other points, Obama was not so much making new policy as forcefully explaining the implications of policies that exist, says Frederick Barton, codirector of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "His speech had this element of candor that his immediate audience [in the Middle East] is not familiar with," says Mr. Barton. Obama's 55-minute address was heavily promoted by the White House, both in the US and the Middle East. Given its importance, it is almost certain that Obama and his speechwriters considered carefully every phrase, nuance, and emphasis.

Obama Hints Acceptance of Elected Islamists - Eli Lake, Washington Times. President Obama hinted Thursday that the United States would for the first time accept the results of Middle East elections won by Islamist parties. In contrast to the Bush administration, which boycotted groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah even after they performed well in elections, Mr. Obama said, "America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people." Those words carry particular significance because on June 7 Lebanon is expected to hold an election where Hezbollah, an Iran-backed group, could win a plurality of votes. It was also a message to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, whose members running as independents won 88 seats - 20 percent of the Egyptian national assembly - in 2005 despite widespread cheating on behalf of the government.

Using New Language, President Shows Understanding for Both Sides in Middle East - Glenn Kessler and Jacqueline L. Salmon, Washington Post. There was no mention of "terrorists" or "terrorism," just "violent extremists." There was the suggestion that Israeli settlements are illegitimate and the assertion that the Palestinians "have suffered in pursuit of a homeland." There were frequent references to the "Holy Koran" and echoes of Muslim phrases. President Obama, who aides say spent many hours "holed up" in the past week revising his Cairo speech, clearly believes in the power of his oratory to win people to his point of view. In many ways, he used his address to promote American values, but his efforts to use new language to recast old grievances have already prompted debate and consternation in some quarters. At the same time, he avoided specific complaints about the lack of freedoms in the Muslim world. Instead, he spoke of the need to obtain concrete political goals, such as the fair administration of justice. He made no mention of his host, President Hosni Mubarak, a snub surely noticed by Egypt's autocratic ruler of nearly three decades.

Varying Responses to Speech in Mideast Highlight Divisions - Michael Slackman, New York Times. On one level, President Obama’s speech succeeded in reaching out to Muslims across the Middle East, winning widespread praise for his respectful approach, his quotations from the Koran and his forthright references to highly fraught political conflicts. But Mr. Obama’s calibrated remarks also asked listeners in a region shaken by hatred to take two steps that have long been anathema: forgetting the past and understanding an opposing view. For a president who proclaimed a goal of asking people to listen to uncomfortable truths, it was clear that parts of his speech resonated deeply with his intended audience and others fell on deaf ears, in Israel as well as the Muslim world. Again and again, Muslim listeners said they were struck by how skillfully Mr. Obama appropriated religious, cultural and historical references in ways other American presidents had not. He sprinkled the speech with four quotations from the Koran and used Arabic greetings. He took note of longstanding historical grievances like the stain of colonialism, American support for the Iranian coup of 1953 and the displacement of the Palestinian people. His speech was also embraced for what it did not do: use the word terrorism, broadly seen here as shorthand for an attack on Islam.

Divided Region, Diverging Reviews for Obama - Dale Gavlak and Joshua Mitnick, Washington Times. President Obama's much-heralded speech on US relations with the Islamic world provoked sharply differing reactions on both sides of the Middle East's great divide. Many Israelis worried that the president had said too much, while many in the Muslim world cautioned that Mr. Obama's talk Thursday of a "new beginning" is less important than what his administration will do to reshape America's image and policies in the region. The Muslim world wants to see "implementation, not just talk on the Palestinian issue," said Jamil Abu Bark, spokesman for Jordan's powerful Islamist Muslim Brotherhood movement. "It doesn't need a speech, but action. We want action on the ground." But Mr. Obama's call for an even-handed treatment of Israeli and Palestinian grievances brought a wary response from the government of conservative Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and outright rejection from the Israeli settlers on disputed lands, whom Mr. Obama again singled out for criticism in Cairo.

Many Muslims Praise Tone of Speech, but Call for Action - Maragret Coker, Wall Street Journal. Muslims in the Middle East and beyond praised US President Barack Obama for the tone of his speech Thursday, but they had more of a mixed reaction to the substance of the address. Mr. Obama won over many Muslims for delivering what many viewed as a respectful address - peppered with the moral message Muslims receive at weekly homilies and the straightforward talk they rarely get from their own leadership. "The Holy Quran tells us, 'Be conscious of God and speak always the truth,' " said Mr. Obama, quoting the Muslim holy book in his hour-long speech at Cairo University. "That is what I will try to do." Ahmed Farouk, a 25-year-old movie producer, listened in an Egyptian coffee house near the university. He pumped his fists when Mr. Obama quoted the Quran and smiled when the president talked of the need to cooperate in the battle against extremists, the quest for democracy and women's rights, and the need for respect and understanding between Americans and Muslims.

Muslims Not Sure President Obama's Speech Means Real Change - Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times. He came with goodwill and pretty sentences, but the question kept echoing: Were they enough? President Obama's much-anticipated speech Thursday to the Muslim world sought to dissolve the mistrust between Islam and the West by highlighting his personal appeal as he called for an end to intolerance and violence and a move toward a shared future. It was a carefully textured blend of history, the president's experience with Islam and the need to quell religious extremism. Few world leaders today can match Obama's eloquence and charisma, and it was clear that the president wanted the world's 1.5 billion Muslims to see America through the prism of his enormously popular image. The words were a start, but the question here remains: Is Obama the face of genuine change in US foreign policy or will he merely offer a sparkle of promise before he is overwhelmed by troubles from the bombed alleys of the Gaza Strip to the mountains of Afghanistan?

In Cairo, Praise for Obama's Remarks - Howard Schneider, Washington Post. The fact that Barack Obama chose Egypt as the location for Thursday's address to the Muslim world endeared him to the locals, who are always proud to host a foreigner and even prouder when it shows off their history. The fact that he came to downtown Cairo, instead of heading to the Sinai beach resorts where diplomatic gatherings are often held, told them he was serious about connecting on a personal level. And when he started sprinkling his speech with words from the Koran, and balanced support for Israel with a strong call for a Palestinian state, the deal was closed. "I didn't expect him to go this far" in confronting the region's core problems, said Tarek Ali, 44, a driver for a government agency. "He really seems to want to move forward." That initial conclusion seemed unanimous among the crowd of men gathered at a local coffee shop to watch Obama's Thursday speech. Although Obama was blunt about the United States' "unbreakable bonds" with Israel, that statement was quickly followed with others about Palestinian "suffering" since Israel's founding in 1948 and the need to curb Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and establish a Palestinian state.

Palestinians, Israelis Have Mixed Reactions to Obama Speech - Luis Ramirez, Voice of America. It was a speech to which many Israelis were not looking forward to. President Barack Obama had stepped up his calls for a total freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank and for Israel to allow Palestinian statehood - things that Israel's leadership refuses to do. In the end, the speech had something for everyone. He pleased many Israelis by calling for Palestinians to abandon violence, saying the Islamist militant group Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exist, and calling for the prevention of a nuclear standoff with Iran. Many Palestinians were pleased to hear the US leader repeat his call for an end to Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories, and for Israel to realize the only way to resolve the conflict is - in his opinion - the two-state solution. A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said the speech was a good start towards a new policy that recognizes the suffering of the Palestinians. Political analyst Mahdi Abdel Hadi, director of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs in East Jerusalem says the speech contained no new ideas, but went a long way to making people feel good about the new US administration's policy in the Middle East.

'Israel Shares Obama's Hope for Peace' - Herb Kienon, Jerusalem Post. Israel cautiously applauded US President Barack Obama's sweeping speech in Cairo Thursday, even as it was gearing up for tough negotiations with the Americans in the coming days over how to transform some of the rhetoric into a program. During the 56-minute address to some 3,000 invited guests at Cairo University, Obama reconfirmed and pledged continued US support for Israel, but was uncompromising in his demand for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and called for a "stop to settlements." Regarding the settlements, Obama - to perhaps the loudest applause he received during his address - said, "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

President's Words Worry Israel's Backers - Barbara Slavin, Washington Times. During a major address in Egypt on Thursday, President Obama reached out in friendship to Muslims around the world and distanced himself from Israeli policies more than any other president in decades. Although Mr. Obama said the US bond with Israel is "unbreakable," analysts pointed to subtle but significant shifts in language that indicated that Mr. Obama was not in lock step with the Israeli government on issues including Iran and Palestinian grievances. "This is a very different approach than other presidents have used," said Lee H. Hamilton, president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and co-chairman of the 2006 Iraq Study Group. Mr. Obama won praise from many analysts, including Mr. Hamilton, for speaking out in Cairo against Muslims who deny the Holocaust or indulge in anti-Semitic behavior.

Supreme Leader of Iran: Muslim Nations 'Hate America' - Thomas Erdbrink and William Branigin, Washington Post. Iran's supreme leader dismissed President Obama's speech at Cairo University Thursday, saying the Muslim world continues to "hate America." And he criticized the United States and its allies for asserting that Iran seeks nuclear weapons, which he insisted are forbidden under Iran's brand of Islam. Speaking shortly before Obama delivered his address, in which he called for a "new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that "beautiful speeches" could not remove the hatred felt in the Muslim world against America. "People of the Middle East, the Muslim region and North Africa - people of these regions - hate America from the bottom of their heart," Khamenei said at a gathering to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the father of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution and Khamenei's predecessor as the predominantly Shiite Muslim country's supreme religious leader.

The Cairo Speech - New York Times editorial. When President Bush spoke in the months and years after Sept. 11, 2001, we often - chillingly - felt as if we didn’t recognize the United States. His vision was of a country racked with fear and bent on vengeance, one that imposed invidious choices on the world and on itself. When we listened to President Obama speak in Cairo on Thursday, we recognized the United States. Mr. Obama spoke, unwaveringly, of the need to defend the country’s security and values. He left no doubt that he would do what must be done to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban, while making it clear that Americans have no desire to permanently occupy Afghanistan or Iraq. He spoke, unequivocally, of the United States’ “unbreakable” commitment to Israel and of why Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. He was also clear that all of those listening - in the Muslim world and in Israel - must do more to defeat extremism and to respect the rights of their neighbors and their people.

Barack Hussein Bush - Wall Street Journal editorial. One benefit of the Obama Presidency is that it is validating much of George W. Bush's security agenda and foreign policy merely by dint of autobiographical rebranding. That was clear enough yesterday in Cairo, where President Obama advertised "a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world." But what he mostly offered were artfully repackaged versions of themes President Bush sounded with his freedom agenda. We mean that as a compliment, albeit with a couple of large caveats. So there was Mr. Obama, noting that rights such as "freedom to live as you choose" and "the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed" were "not just American ideas, they are human rights." There he was insisting that "freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together," and citing Malaysia and Dubai as economic models for other Muslim countries while promising to host a summit on entrepreneurship. There he was too, in Laura Bush-mode, talking about the need to expand opportunities for Muslim women, particularly in education. "I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles," he said. "But it should be their choice." Mr. Obama also offered a robust defense of the war in Afghanistan, calling it "a war of necessity" and promising that "America's commitment will not weaken." That's an important note to sound when Mr. Obama's left flank and some Congressional Democrats are urging an exit strategy from that supposed quagmire.

The Cairo Appeal - Washington Post editorial. President Obama was the first to say yesterday that one speech cannot erase the accumulated hostility and mistrust between many of the world's Muslims and the United States. But his address in Cairo offered an eloquent case for American values and global objectives - and it looked to be a skillful use of public diplomacy in a region where America's efforts to explain itself have often been weak. Mr. Obama uttered verses from the Koran, spoke about the success of US Muslims, debunked extremists' claims and defended the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. He returned repeatedly to the theme that most of the differences between Muslims and the West can be eased by "a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another and to seek common ground." That idealistic sentiment, which lies at the heart of the president's political ideology, may or may not prove true with respect to challenges such as the Israeli-Arab conflict and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. But Mr. Obama's address - which was broadcast live on al-Jazeera and other popular satellite channels - offered a stout defense of core US interests while managing to sound very different from the post-Sept. 11 Bush administration. Mr. Obama said that "the first issue we have to confront is violent extremism," but he did not use the word "terrorism" and exonerated Islam from responsibility.

Obama Gives a Bush Speech - Washington Times editorial. President Obama sounded like he was channeling President George W. Bush during his Cairo speech yesterday. Much of the substance of Mr. Obama's address, titled "A New Beginning," sounded like the same old song. One could easily remove the biographical references, redact a few of the sentences that are clearly critical of specific Bush administration policies, and pass it off as old Republican talking points. Check Mr. Bush's remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington on Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, in which he said, "America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country." Likewise, Mr. Obama stated, "Let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America." Mr. Bush believed that, "Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes." Mr. Obama upped the ante, noting that "the US government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab,and to punish those who would deny it."

Obama in Cairo: Something Old, Something New - Christian Science Monitor editorial. President Obama billed his Cairo speech to the Muslim world as a "new beginning." In some important ways, it did signal a fresh start. But there's also no getting around the "old" work that needs to be done or the abiding principles that must guide that work. Mr. Obama's speech had almost the feel of an inaugural address – historic sweep, lofty idealism, American vision, and a call to action, but aimed at an audience of more than a billion Muslims. His very biography lends a fresh credibility to ideas and policies that are actually not so fresh. It's hard to imagine any of his predecessors, for instance, quoting and referencing the Koran so extensively and being so enthusiastically applauded for it. Obama attempted to blow away the cobwebs of blame and finger-pointing that have collected on the Middle East peace process. "Privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true," he said. That includes the United States, which needs to reclaim its role as an honest broker, including applying pressure to Israel that it has been reluctant to use in the past.

Obama in Cairo - Los Angeles Times editorial. Rhetorically, at least, President Obama moved mountains in the land of Muhammad. Speaking from Cairo University to the world's estimated 1.5 billion Muslims, the American president made a frank appeal for a new relationship based on mutual respect. Language matters, and this was an eloquent address of historic and moral importance meant to turn the page on strong-arm politics and ultimatums. The first US president of color and the son of a Muslim, Obama brought his personal credibility to the podium, not to apologize but to acknowledge the country's past mistakes and to set an agenda for the future. Certainly words alone will not bring peace to the Middle East or persuade America's enemies to abandon their anger. As Obama noted, "recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task." Still, this was a new beginning. In recent years, US relations with Muslim nations have been shaped largely by hostilities, from the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington to the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been an open wound bleeding distrust and anger. While vowing to confront violent extremism and defend Americans, Obama sought to end that era with a declaration: The United States is not at war with Islam.

America and Islam - The Times editorial. Few speeches have been as eagerly awaited in the Middle East as President Obama's address in Cairo University to the Muslim world. And few speeches have been as carefully crafted, as powerfully delivered or as comprehensive in charting a new beginning between civilisations locked for the past decade in destructive mutual incomprehension. If the President's promises could be delivered, if his aspirations could be achieved and if his respectful tone could be adopted across the region, many of the toxic issues roiling the Middle East might become less intractable. One speech, as he acknowledged, cannot alone remove the obstacles or soften the animosities that have built up over decades. What it can do is to lay out intent, demonstrate engagement and win the respect of an audience that has come to expect only the worst from America. Mr Obama has shown extraordinary strength and sensitivity in understanding how America's soft power must be used to achieve what eluded the use of military might. From the opening traditional Muslim greeting to his final and apposite quotations from the Koran, the Torah and the Bible, he showed himself at ease with Islamic culture and customs. He referred to his own name, Muslim forebears and personal memories of Muslims in Indonesia and Chicago; he reminded his audience - and the West - of civilisation's debt to Muslim learning; and he dismissed the crude stereotypes that America and the Islamic world now have of each other with telling examples of past tolerance and engagement.

A Masterly Speech from Barack Obama, But was Anyone Listening? - Daily Telegraph editorial. Mr Obama sought to shake both sides out of their self-pitying trough of prejudice and despair. His speech amounted to a blast of militant common sense. But will it make any difference? He identified some glaring ills of the Muslim world, particularly anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and an absurd view of America as a pantomime villain. Tragically, these are not the preserve of an extremist fringe: they have entered the mainstream. An ordinary visitor to Egypt soon finds that many people genuinely blame the CIA or Mossad for the terrorist attacks on September 11 2001, a crackpot conspiracy theory that is widely believed across the Muslim world. The American leader has shown his willingness to repair his country's relations with Islam. He has spelled out the steps that both sides must take to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. But Israel's hardline government has already spurned his call for a freeze in settlement expansion. Will Mr Obama quietly accept this veto - or exert direct pressure on Israel? The harshest question of all, however, is for the Middle East itself: does this region have the capacity for rational dialogue?

Obama's New Era in International Diplomacy - Daily Star editorial. Barack Obama's long-awaited address to the Muslim world has proven to be an event of global magnitude, and a dramatic, international projection of the bully pulpit of the American presidency. Obama's speech in Cairo was an unprecedented display of rhetorical power, coming in an important context: the last eight years of neoconservative policy based on the clash of civilizations mentality. This week, the leader of "the free world" projected his country's peaceful side, to around 1.5 billion people in 50 countries. The address was totally in line with Barack Obama's personal history; it was also a significant departure with traditional politics, just like the precedent-setting choice by the American electorate last November. Obama has committed his country to solving the Arab-Israeli struggle and its own long-simmering confrontation with Iran, as part of an agenda that includes confronting violent extremism and boosting democracy, religious freedom and women's rights. This can constitute a new era in international diplomacy, provided that Washington follow up with determination and evenhandedness.

Great Expectations - Jerusalem Post editorial. It was with mixed feelings that we watched President Barack Obama deliver his extraordinary speech to the Muslim and Arab worlds in Cairo yesterday. Critics will see the speech as incredibly naive. Yet it was also the most meaningful and coherent attempt by an American leader since 9/11 to dissociate the world's 1.5 billion Muslims from demagogic elites preaching worldwide jihad and hatred of non-believers. It is not insignificant that Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden took the president's power to persuade seriously enough to try to preempt him by issuing fresh rants. It must have galled them to see hard-line imams and Muslim Brothers listening attentively in the audience. A Gallup Poll, taken before the speech, showed 25 percent of Egyptians approving of the US under Obama, compared to 6% under George W. Bush. In A city where Holocaust denial is part of the popular culture, it was good to hear Obama telling Muslims: "Six million Jews were killed," and saying otherwise is "ignorant, and hateful." To no applause, he proclaimed: America's ties with Israel are "unbreakable."

The Chicago View - David Brooks, New York Times opinion. President Obama’s Cairo speech characteristically blended idealism with cunning. At one level, the speech was an inspiring effort to create a new dialogue in the Middle East. Obama came to a region in which the different groups have their own narratives and are accustomed to shouting past one another. Obama, as is his custom, positioned himself above the fray and tried to create a new narrative that all sides could relate to. In the Obama narrative, each side has been equally victimized by history, each side has legitimate grievances and each side has duties to perform. To construct this new Middle East narrative, Obama strung together some hard truths, historical distortions, eloquent appeals and strained moral equivalencies.

The Settlements Myth - Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post opinion. President Obama repeatedly insists that American foreign policy be conducted with modesty and humility. Above all, there will be no more "dictating" to other countries. We should "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," he told the G-20 summit. In Middle East negotiations, he told al-Arabiya, America will henceforth "start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating." An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone - Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imperiously explained the diktat: "a stop to settlements - not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions." What's the issue? No "natural growth" means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining.

Can Barack Obama's Soothing Rhetoric Douse the Muslim Militants' Flames? - Con Coughlin, Daily Telegraph opinion. Short of declaring his intention to convert to Islam, it is difficult to imagine what more Barack Obama might have said during his speech yesterday to demonstrate his seriousness about healing the poisonous rift between the West and the Muslim world. After invoking the traditional Muslim welcome - "Assalaamu alaykum" or "Peace be upon you" - the President proceeded to explain how, despite his being raised a Christian, his father's family came from generations of Muslims. He acknowledged the enormous debt Western civilisation owes to Islam, from the development of algebra to the elegant refinement of calligraphy, and stressed the Islamic faith's espousal of religious tolerance and racial equality. He reminded his audience at Cairo University that John Adams, one of America's founding fathers, wrote that "the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Muslims".

Negotiating for the Other Side - Danielle Pletka, Washington Post opinion. Yesterday in Cairo, President Obama underscored his desire to "move forward without preconditions" and negotiate with Iran "on the basis of mutual respect." So far, no takers from Tehran. But even if there were, the bottom line is that whether it's Iran, North Korea or the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, there has been little to show for years of jawboning. Worse, the history of such negotiations should give pause to the public and to Congress. Too often, US negotiators have become unwitting advocates for their adversaries, getting so caught up in the negotiating process that they cannot countenance its collapse - or their own failure - even in the face of undeniable evidence that the discussions are not succeeding. Consider the task of Dennis Ross, Obama's "special adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia." From 1993 to 2000, as President Bill Clinton's "special Middle East coordinator," Ross brought enthusiasm and deep knowledge to the job. But the peace process he hoped to facilitate was constrained by US laws that reasonably required the Palestine Liberation Organization to abandon terrorism and to recognize Israel before receiving aid from the United States.

Israel's settlement setback
Obama's anti-settlement stance is giving the Israeli right a taste of its own medicine and its howls of protest ring hollow
Seth Freedman
Monday June 8 2009
guardian.co.uk

President Obama's anti-settlement stance has, unsurprisingly, prompted an outpouring of wailing and teeth-gnashing among supporters of Israel's irredentist policies. His unequivocal demand for settlement expansion to come to a grinding halt has dominated headlines in both Israel and the diaspora, with many outraged by his assertion that "natural growth" of settlements be proscribed as well.

In his opponents' eyes, to call for an end to natural growth is ? as Charles Krauthammer put it ? to "strangle to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line", as though Obama's views are as insidious as those of a serial killer hellbent on leaving a trail of corpses in his wake. "It means no increase in population", Krauthammer continues. "Which means no babies. Or if you have babies, no housing for them ? not even within the existing town boundaries. Which means for every child born, someone has to move out. No community can survive like that".

There's no denying he has a point. If more children are born than elderly residents die in a particular settlement, a dearth of accommodation will, in time, undermine the settlement's ability to function as a living, breathing town. Its pattern of natural expansion and contraction will be utterly usurped by external pressures that will crush the life from its lungs, with potentially terminal results.

So far, so bleak. But what Krauthammer and his co-conspirators fail to point out is that Israel has for decades been implementing just such a restrictive policy against Palestinian towns and cities. One way or another, the Israeli authorities have sucked the lifeblood out of the Palestinian people as a whole, refusing them any kind of opportunity for "natural growth", cloaking their decision in a nebulous haze of security concerns for both regular Israelis and ? of course ? Israel's legions of settlers dwelling illegally in the West Bank.

For years, settlers have been cosseted and coddled by both the heads of Israel's parliament and military, who have reacted to their behaviour with a mixture of turning a blind eye and out-and-out complicity with their crimes. The settlement enterprise could never have got off the ground without explicit support from the upper echelons of Israeli power. Given Israel's undisputed military might, to suggest that the settlers were too powerful to resist when they first set up shop in Judea and Samaria is a fallacy; rather, their insistence on expropriating Palestinian land and "Judaising" the area played right into the hands of successive Israeli governments who needed the settlers' physical presence to justify an occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Today, the Israeli authorities are reaping what they sowed. The settler movement has spiralled out of control: the gun-toting residents of the wild West Bank have become a law unto themselves, who have no qualms about meting out threats and violence against Israeli security personnel if they don't agree with decisions laid down by the state and enforced by the army. The dismantling of settlement outposts engenders reprisals against both Israeli troops and Palestinian townsfolk; religious fervour and nationalist rage combining to create a heady concoction in the minds of law-defying thugs who won't take no for an answer: not from Israeli politicians, not from Obama, not from anyone short of God Himself.

Meanwhile, the separation wall, the maze of checkpoints, the economic blockades, and all the other restrictions imposed on the Palestinian populace deny the original residents of the West Bank any chance of natural growth or development. In East Jerusalem, communities are dying out in just the manner Krauthammer spells out ? except that those affected are Arab rather than Jewish, so instead of speaking out against the situation, pundits and politicians alike sit back smugly and watch the devastating effects of their chokehold policies kick in.

The disaffection with Obama's stance is not confined simply to those living illegally beyond the Green Line. According to polls, over half of Israelis are "disappointed" with Obama's policies. Regarding settlements, 70% called for removing outposts, but only 52% were prepared to call for a freeze on growth in existing settlements ? demonstrating just how deeply the "facts on the ground" element of the settlement enterprise has penetrated the collective Israeli psyche.

Settlements that began life as outposts ? and that weren't "strangled at birth" ? have now become too large to even consider dismantling, thus cementing their status as corners of a foreign land that must remain forever Israel. Disregarding the fact that these settlements are key to the policy of denying natural growth to Palestinian communities, more than half of Israelis polled are prepared to overlook the negative impact of the settlements' existence, so long as it's not their fellow Israeli citizens whose lives are affected as a result.

Whether Obama is able to live up to his strong statements in the coming months and years remains to be seen; while he has certainly dispensed with previous administrations' softly-softly approach towards Israel's misdeeds, there is a long way to go to turn his words into actions. In the interim, however, it is of great interest how the Israeli right cope with being given a taste of their own medicine: their howls of protest ring all too hollow, given their own dubious approach towards loving their neighbours over the preceding years.

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2009

Not surprisingly, this report favors the Israeli interpretation of what previous US administrations agreed to with respect to settlement expansion and "natural growth." What is clear from this version is that Israeli governments constantly tried to shift the ground rules of what they were proposing, with the net effect that settlements greatly expanded over the years. "Natural growth" in effect was a code word for the massive expansion of settlements.





Web Bug from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif
What exactly was U.S.-Israel agreement on settlements?
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: Israel News, U.S., West Bank

West Bank settlements have long been a bone of contention between Israel and the United States, which views them as an obstacle to peace. Over the past few years, however, Israel tried to reach a tacit understanding with Washington on settlement expansion, which is now put to the test: President Barack Obama demands a complete and utter construction freeze, whereas Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists on building in settlement blocs, as his predecessors Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert during George W. Bush's term in office.

The settlement controversy reached its zenith at the twilight of Yitzhak Shamir's government in 1992. Israel had asked for loan guarantees to help fund the absorption of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the recently collapsed Soviet Union. Then U.S. President George H.W. Bush conditioned the aid on a complete settlement freeze. Shamir was defiant, and Bush remained firm.
Advertisement

Yitzhak Rabin, who succeeded Shamir as prime minister, reached an oral agreement with Bush on the loan guarantees. Rabin promised that Israel would complete the housing units that were under construction and limit future construction in all settlements in the Jordan Valley and the Jerusalem area, which Rabin dubbed "security areas." The New York Times reported that the construction would be for "natural growth" purposes, and would amount to building additional rooms in existing houses and infrastructure. In practice, Israel went far beyond that.

Rabin made a distinction between "security settlements" - those bordering the Green Line - and "political settlements" in the hinterland. These two categories were later renamed "settlement blocs" and "remote settlements," respectively. The exact location of the settlement blocs has never been determined, but it is broadly accepted that Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, Ariel and the settlements around Jerusalem, in which most settlers live, will be annexed to Israel in a future peace agreement.

When Bill Clinton replaced Bush in office in 1993 he adhered to the understandings reached with Rabin over the 'natural growth' of the settlements, and to the Oslo accord, which was signed earlier that year, in which both sides agreed to refrain from unilateral moves that would affect a permanent agreement.

At the beginning of the Intifada, Clinton consented to Yasser Arafat's request and appointed an international committee headed by former senator George Mitchell to probe the roots of the crisis. The Mitchell report, which came out in May 2001, recommended that the Palestinians relinquish violence against Israel and that Israel freeze settlement expansion. The recommendation was unequivocal: Israel must cease all construction in the settlements, including 'natural growth.'

The new prime minister, Ariel Sharon, accepted the report's recommendations and strove toward an understanding with the Bush administration that would enable Israel to continue building in the settlements.

Then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres presented a new formula to his U.S. counterpart, Colin Powel, replacing the concept of 'natural growth,' which Mitchell rejected, with an Israeli promise to build only within the limits of the settlements existing boundaries.

In June 2001, Sharon presented the Israeli position to the American team: no new settlements; no further expropriation of land for building (with the exception of roads); no building in settlements for the purpose of expansion; Israel's adherence to the initiative depends upon the Palestinians' fulfillment of their side of the agreement.

Sharon told the Americans that any new building in the settlements would be done for the purpose of meeting the settlements' "basic needs."

Israel called the formula the "Peres-Powell understanding." The Americans denied ever accepting the Israeli position.

In 2003 the U.S. formulated the road map for the establishment of a Palestinian state, according to which Israel was required to cease all construction in the settlements, including 'natural growth,' and evacuate all of the outposts established under Sharon (since March 2001). Israel refused to agree to a complete freeze on settlement construction.

In April 2003, White House officials Stephen Hadley and Elliot Abrams arrived in Jerusalem on a secret visit, and on May 1, in Sharon's Jerusalem residence, they were told by the prime minister and his senior adviser Dov Weisglass that from that point onward there would be no 'natural growth,' only 'construction within the existing borders of the settlements,' the argument being that such construction would not further infringe on Palestinian land.

In May 2003 Weisglass met with Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in Washington and presented her with Israel's commitments: No new settlements; no expropriation of Palestinian land for the purpose of construction; no government funding of settlement construction; no expansion of settlements beyond their existing boundaries.

In the summer of 2003 the Americans attempted, unsuccessfully, to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process on the basis of the road map. Sharon chose an alternate path: He evacuated all the Gaza Strip settlements and, in accordance with American demands, four West Bank settlements.

In return, Sharon requested and, in April 2004, received a letter from Bush stating that it would be unrealistic to ask Israel to withdraw to behind the Green Line in any future agreement "in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion." The interpretation was that Bush accepted the future annexation of settlement blocs to Israel. But the American's wording was cautious, and spoke of "existing centers" - not future construction.

Alongside his letter to Bush, Weisglass also dispatched a letter to Rice, the first section of which spoke of "the restrictions on the expansion of the settlements" and stated that within the agreed-upon principles of the settlement enterprise, an effort would be made to better define the limits of construction within the West Bank settlements. According to Weisglass' interpretation, this letter proves the there was U.S. consent to further construction within the existing boundaries of the settlements.

Weisglass and Rice decided to form a joint committee charged with mapping the settlements and marking the construction lines - "Blue Lines" - of each one, but could not agree on the exact outlines. The Americans wanted only the large settlement blocs mapped, under the assumption that the isolated settlements would be evacuated; Israel sought to mark only the isolated settlements. In the fall of 2004 the Americans relinquished their demand.

Prior to the disengagement, carried out in the summer of 2005, Weisglass informed Rice that Israel would expand the settlements beyond their construction lines - expand the settlement blocs - but with two constraints: any new construction would be adjacent to existing structures, and according to the balance of supply and demand in the free market. Construction in isolated settlements would be done only within their existing boundaries. For Israel, this was an official understanding. The Obama administration denies this. Either way, there was no written agreement.

Bush convened the Annapolis conference at the end of 2007 in a final attempt to revive the peace process. Ahead of the conference the Americans sought to rearticulate the understandings on construction in the settlements with then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Olmert informed the Americans that any Israeli construction beyond the Green Line would be restricted to four zones: Jerusalem, in which Israel never agreed to any restrictions; the settlement blocs, in which construction would be adjacent, but not confined, to existing construction boundaries; isolated settlements, in which construction would be confined to existing boundaries; and unauthorized outposts, which would be evacuated.

Following the Annapolis conference, in November 2007 Olmert authorized building permits for hundreds of new housing units beyond the Green Line. The American opposition to this was feeble: Rice said that "it was not helpful" to the diplomatic process. Israel interpreted this as a nod of consent. Olmert's made sure his plans for building in the settlements were in line with his promises to the Americans.

Now Netanyahu seeks to continue building in the settlement bloc on the basis of the understandings formulated by Sharon and Olmert. But Sharon evacuated 25 settlements, Olmert proposed withdrawing from most the West Bank, and Netanyahu, who is still unwilling to give anything in return, will have to deal with Obama's envoy, the same Mitchell who issued the report that is at the root of the demand to freeze construction in the settlements.
=

Can Netanyahu Repair the Rift With the US? US Official: Planned Netanyahu Policy Speech 'Not Adequate' Palestinians Begin to See Real Hope

Uri Avnery

13.6.09

Obama Won’t Wink Back

REMEMBER DOV WEISGLASS? The one who said that peace must wait until the Palestinians become Finns? Who talked about preserving the peace process in formaldehyde?

However, Weisglass will mainly be remembered less for his mouth than his eyes. Weisglass is the King of the Wink.

This week, Binyamin Netanyahu called him in for urgent consultations. He needed a lesson in “working with the eyes” (as cheating is called in modern Hebrew slang).

Winking is the main instrument of the settlement enterprise. The wink is the real father of the settlements. The settlers wink. The government winks. Officials don’t issue a permit, but wink. They say no, and wink. Wink and build. Wink and connect to electricity and water. Wink and send soldiers to protect the outposts, and also remove the Palestinians from adjoining fields and olive groves.

The wink is also the main instrument of Israeli diplomacy. Everything is done by winking. The Americans demand a freeze of the settlements – and wink. The Israelis agree to the freeze – and wink back.

Trouble is that there is no printed sign for a wink. The computer has no standard symbol for it. So Hillary Clinton could honestly assert this week that no wink is documented in any agreement signed by the US and Israel. Not in any memorandum of oral exchanges. So there are no understandings. No mention at all of a wink in any file or document.

Worse: it seems that in Afro-American culture the wink is unknown. When Netanyahu came to the White House and winked – Barack Obama did not respond. Winked again, and again Obama did not understand. Winked and winked and winked until his face ached – nothing. Obama thought, perhaps, that Netanyahu had a nervous tic. Really embarrassing.

What can you do with someone who is no winkee? How, for God’s sake, does one get him to wink back?

THAT IS the main problem confronting the Prime Minister of Israel.

Tomorrow he is going to deliver a Great Speech. Not just great, Historic. His resounding response to Obama’s speech in Egypt. Everything has been done to put the two events on the same level. Obama spoke at Cairo University? Netanyahu will speak at Bar-Ilan University, the religious right-wing institution that nurtured the murderer of Yitzhak Rabin.

But that is the only similarity. Obama outlined the contours of a New Middle East? Netanyahu will outline the contours of the Old Middle East. Obama spoke about a future of peace, cooperation and mutual respect? Netanyahu will speak about a past of Holocaust, violence, hatred and fears.

Netanyahu’s biggest problem is to make believe that the old is new. To make yesterday’s tired old clichés sound like the rallying call for tomorrow. But how to do that without using winks, facing a person who does not understand winks?

How to speak about the “natural increase” of the settlers without winking? How to speak about a Palestinian state without winking? How to speak about speeding up peace negotiations with the Palestinians without winking?

The most expert tailors have been called for advice about the emperor’s new clothes. Ministers and Knesset members and professors and magicians and, of course, Shimon Peres.

All of them rallied to the call: to tailor a beautiful robe, fashionable trousers and a colorful tie – such as only the very wisest of people will see.

ONCE WE could rely on the Holocaust. We said Holocaust, and the room fell silent. We could oppress the Palestinians, steal their lands, set up settlements, scatter checkpoints everywhere like the droppings of flies, blockade Gaza and so on. When the Goyim opened their mouths to protest, we cried “Holocaust” – and the words froze on their lips.

So what to do with someone who himself speaks incessantly about the Holocaust and denounces its deniers? A person who actually bothers to visit a concentration camp and drags with him “Mr. Holocaust”, Elie Wiesel, in person?

No wonder that our Prime Minister tosses and turns in his bed and finds no rest for his soul. Netanyahu without the Holocaust is like the Pope without the cross. Netanyahu without a “second Holocaust” – how can he speak about Iran? What can he say about the Existential Danger, which prevents us from dismantling cabins in Judea and sheds in Samaria?

(Thank God for small mercies: at least Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, our main asset in the region, has been reelected.)

SO HOW will Netanyahu pitch his Historic Speech?

He will have to try and hammer a square peg into a round hole. To say Yes when he means No. That is what his predecessors did. Ehud Barak did it. Ariel Sharon did it. Ehud Olmert did it. With one big difference: they did it with a sly wink. Netanyahu will have to do it with a straight face.

He must speak about Two States without mentioning two states. To speak about freezing the settlements while building work there is proceeding at full speed.

In the past, there were many ways of going on with the settlement. “The Jewish brain produces patents”, as a popular Hebrew song goes. New neighborhoods were built under the pretense that they were simply an extension of existing ones – at a distance of ten meters, or a hundred, or a thousand or two, as long as they were in the range of visibility. Or it was said that the building activity was taking place within the boundaries of existing settlements – helped by the fact that the municipal area of Maaleh Adumin settlement, for example, is officially as big as all of Tel-Aviv.

One can also brandish George W. Bush’s famous letter, in which he expressed his opinion that in any future peace agreement “existing Israeli population centers” should be joined to Israel. But Bush did not define the “population centers” nor outline their borders. And he certainly did not say that we are allowed to build there before the signing of a final agreement, including possible swaps of territory. Not that he had any authority to decide such matters in the first place.

One can also talk about “natural increase”. No problem: women can be turned into factories for children, preferable twins and triplets. Also, one can adopt children from the age of 1 to 101. After all, if there is a new child in the family, one needs to build another room, another house, another neighborhood.

(By the way, “natural increase” is, of course, a strictly Jewish matter. Arabs have no natural increase. Their increase is unnatural.)

AND WHAT about the State of Palestine, as projected by Obama?

Israeli TV did a beautiful job this week, when it reminded us what Netanyahu said only six years ago: “A Palestinian state – NO!” because “Yes to a Palestinian state means No to the Jewish state.”

Netanyahu seems to think that it is only a matter of presentation. He can mention that in the past we already accepted the Road Map, which contains something about a Palestinian state. True, we made the acceptance conditional on 14 “reservations” which castrated it and turned it into a meaningless scrap of paper. But perhaps Obama will be content with that.

To sum up: no need to talk about Two States when they have already been mentioned in the Road Map (its name be cursed), which we declared dead a long time ago, but which we now consider alive again, and where something like two states is mentioned, so there is no need to repeat it - enough to allude to it in an oblique way.

But what to do if, in spite of everything, the Americans insist that Netanyahu emit the two words “Palestinian state” from his own mouth? If there is no way out, Netanyahu may mutter them somehow, silently adding phooey-phooey-phooey and loudly adding qualifications that empty them of all content. That is what Barak did, then Sharon, then Olmert.

The declarations of Tzipi Livni and her people produce the impression that they are stuck at the same point. They, too, seem to believe that we can go on speaking about two states and doing the very opposite, about freezing the settlements and go on building there. No new message is coming from this camp, but only criticism of Netanyahu for not changing his style to please Obama.

BUT WHAT Obama is asking for is not a new formulation of old slogans. He demands the acceptance of the principle of Two States as a basis for concrete and rigorous action: achieving an agreement on the establishment of a state called Palestine, with its capital in East Jerusalem, without settlements and all the other paraphernalia of the occupation.

He demands the start of negotiations forthwith, so that within two or three years – before the end of his current term – real peace will be established, a peace that will ensure the existence and security of “the Jewish state of Israel” (as George Mitchell put it this week) and the Arab state of Palestine, side by side.

All this as part of a new Greater Middle Eastern order, from Pakistan to Morocco, and as a part of a world-wide vision.

Against this demand, no winking a la Weisglass or verbal gimmicks a la Peres will be of any avail. In tomorrow’s speech, Netanyahu will have to choose between three alternatives: a head-on collision with the United States, a total change in his policy, or resignation.

The era of winks is over.

From the July 14 Washington Post :

The Settlements Facts

By Daniel Kurtzer
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Faulty analysis of the Israeli settlement issue is being passed off as fact. Charles Krauthammer's June 5 column, "The Settlements Myth," is one example.

Here are the facts: In 2003, the Israeli government accepted, with some reservations, the "road map" for peace, which imposed two requirements on Israel regarding settlements: "GOI [Government of Israel] immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001. Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)."
Today, Israel maintains that three events -- namely, draft understandings discussed in 2003 between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and U.S. deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley; President George W. Bush's April 14, 2004, letter to Sharon; and an April 14 letter from Sharon adviser Dov Weissglas to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- constitute a formal understanding in which the United States accepted continuing Israeli building within the "construction line" of settlements. The problem is that there was no such understanding.

The first event the Israelis cite is the 2003 discussions on a four-part draft that included the notion that construction within settlements might be permitted if confined to the already built-up areas of the settlements. The idea was to draw a line around the outer perimeter of built-up areas in settlements and to allow building only inside that line. This draft was never codified, and no effort was made then to define the line around the built-up areas of settlements. Nonetheless, Israel began to act largely in accordance with its own reading of these provisions, probably believing that U.S. silence conferred assent.

Second, President Bush's 2004 letter conveyed U.S. support of an agreed outcome of negotiations in which Israel would retain "existing major Israeli population centers" in the West Bank "on the basis of mutually agreed changes . . . ." One of the key provisions of this letter was that U.S. support for Israel's retaining some settlements was predicated on there being an "agreed outcome" of negotiations. Despite Israel's contention that this letter allowed it to continue building in the large settlement blocs of Ariel, Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion, the letter did not convey any U.S. support for or understanding of Israeli settlement activities in these or other areas in the run-up to a peace agreement.

In his 2004 letter to Rice, Weissglas addressed the issue of the "construction line," saying that "within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria." However, there never were any "agreed principles of settlement activities." Moreover, the effort to define the "construction line" was never consummated: Israel and the United States discussed briefly but did not reach agreement on the definition of the construction line of settlements. Weissglas's letter also promised "continuous action" to remove all the unauthorized outposts, but Israel removed almost none of them.

Throughout this period, the Bush administration did not regularly protest Israel's continuing settlement activity. But this is very different from arguing that the United States agreed with it. In recent days, former senior Bush administration officials have told journalists on background that no understandings existed with Israel regarding continued settlement activity.

Commentators also focus on the Obama administration's reiteration that a freeze must include the "natural growth" of settlements. Krauthammer says that this "means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line . . . It means no increase in population. Which means no babies." This is nonsense. No one suggests that Israelis stop having babies. Rather, the blessing of a new baby does not translate into a right to build more apartments or houses in settlements. The two issues have nothing to do with each other. Israelis, like Americans, move all the time when life circumstances -- children, jobs, housing availability -- change.

The pattern of population growth in the territories actually undercuts the natural-growth argument. Since 1993, when Israel signed the Oslo Accords, Israel's West Bank settler population has grown from 116,300 to 289,600. The numbers in East Jerusalem increased from 152,800 to more than 186,000. This goes far beyond the natural increase of families already living in the settlements. Inserting the provision of "natural growth" in official documents started with the 2001 Mitchell Report and the 2003 "road map," reflecting recognition that the concept was being abused as a justification for expanding settlements. The Obama administration is pursuing policies that every administration since 1967 has articulated -- that settlements jeopardize the possibility of achieving peace and thus settlement activity should stop. This does not diminish the Palestinians' responsibilities, especially their commitment to stop violence and terrorism and uproot terrorist infrastructure. President Obama emphasized this in his Cairo speech. But Palestinian failures in no way justify Israeli failure to implement their road map commitments with respect to settlements and outposts. It is time for Israel to freeze all settlement activity and dismantle the unauthorized outposts.
The writer, U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005, is a visiting professor of Middle East policy studies at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Jim Sinclair’s Commentary

One of the major criterion for 2009-2011 is that Israel will make a major miscalculation.

Circumstances have gathered whereby Israel may have to make some hard decisions. Israel will never give up its demand for recognition of the right of Israel to exist in trade for anything.

The "Our Crowd" side tells me that literally.

On this part I am prone to say Israel will go it alone disagreeing, respectfully, with Mr. Friedman.

Video: Iranian Elections, Israel and the United States
June 16, 2009 | 1440 GMT

STRATFOR VIDEO
To view additional videos in the STRATFOR Insights series, click here.
RELATED INTELLIGENCE FILE
The Iranian Presidential Elections

In the latest installment of the STRATFOR Insights video series, CEO George Friedman discusses the tense future of the Middle East following the recent Iranian elections.

With Israel offering a Palestinian state on terms that are unacceptable to the Palestinians, and freshly re-elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad expected to continue his hard-line policies, how President Barack Obama moves forward merits close observation.

More…

Published on Tuesday, June 16, 2009 by CNN Carter Decries Destruction in Gaza by CNN Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday on a visit to Gaza that he had to "hold back tears" when he saw the destruction caused by the deadly campaign Israel waged against Gaza militants in January.

<img title="carter_haniya.jpg" alt="[Ismail Haniya ®, the prime minister of the Islamist Hamas, movement presents a souvenir to former US President Jimmy Carter during their meeting in Gaza City. Carter on Tuesday met Hamas leader Ismail Haniya in the Gaza Strip, where he called for a lifting of Israel's blockade, saying Palestinians are being treated " width="275" align="right" height="167"> Carter was wrapping up a visit to the region during which he met representatives of all sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Among the sites he visited was the American school that was destroyed by the bombings Israel initiated in response to rocket attacks launched from Gaza into southern Israel.

"It is very distressing to me. I have to hold back tears when I see the deliberate destruction that has been raked against your people.

"I come to the American school which was educating your children, supported by my own country. I see it's been deliberately destroyed by bombs from F16s made in my country and delivered to the Israelis. I feel partially responsible for this -- as must all Americans and all Israelis," Carter said at a news conference.

"The only way to avoid this tragedy happening again is to have genuine peace," he added, pointing out that many Palestinians are now fighting each other in the West Bank and Gaza because of their affiliations with Hamas or Fatah.

"It's very important that Palestinians agree with each other, to cooperate and stop attacking each other and to build a common approach to an election that I hope to witness and observe next January the 25th."

After the briefing, Carter headed to a graduation ceremony for students who completed a human rights curriculum provided by UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.

"The human rights curriculum is teaching children about their rights and also about their responsibilities," Carter said in his speech to graduates.

In his speech to graduates, Carter said bombings, tanks and a continuing economic siege have brought death, destruction, pain and suffering to Gaza. "Tragically, the international community largely ignores the cries for help, while the citizens of Gaza are treated more like animals than human beings."

"The responsibility for this terrible human rights crime lies in Jerusalem, Cairo, Washington, and throughout the international community," Carter said.

At a news conference later in Tel Aviv, reporters asked the former president about media reports early Tuesday that said Hamas had thwarted a possible assassination plot against him.

The Israeli daily Maariv, quoting a Palestinian source, said explosives had been placed on a road Carter was due to travel on. Citing the source, the newspaper said it was a plot by an al Qaeda-affiliated group based in Gaza.

"I don't believe it's true," Carter said. "I don't know anything about it.

"None of our people were aware of being rerouted. I asked our driver and I asked the others in charge of making the arrangements, (and) they didn't know anything about it."

Carter said some of his staff asked Gaza's minister of interior, who is in charge of security, and he also was unfamiliar with the report.

Also in Gaza, Carter met with Hamas leaders, who he said "want peace and they want to have reconciliation not only with their Fatah brothers but also, eventually, with the Israelis to live side by side.

© 2009 Cable News Network
.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}

18/06/2009
U.S. ups pressure on Israel to end Gaza blockade
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

The United States has stepped up pressure on Israel regarding the Gaza Strip: Three weeks ago it sent Jerusalem a diplomatic note officially protesting Gaza policy and demanding a more liberal opening of the border crossings to facilitate reconstruction.

U.S. and Israeli sources say the note was followed by a verbal communication clarifying that the Obama administration thinks Israel's linkage of the case of abducted soldier Gilad Shalit and the opening of the crossings was not constructive.

U.S. demands on Israel's Gaza policy were also raised Wednesday during talks between Clinton and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who is on an official visit to Washington.

The note focused on a number of issues that have troubled the U.S. administration regarding Israeli policy toward the Gaza Strip.

The note's central message was that if Israel believes that the Palestinian Authority should be strengthened vis-a-vis Hamas, it must take the necessary steps regarding the Strip.

The first task is to allow food and medicine into the territory. A senior political source in Jerusalem said the Americans have noticed some improvement here, but there has been no consistency or transparency on the types of foods permitted in.

Another issue is the transfer of cash to banks in the Strip. U.S. officials have asked that Israel continue to allow the transfer of funds from Ramallah-based banks to Gaza banks to avoid damaging the enclave's banking and financial system.

A third issue in the note was the expansion of the system for opening the border crossings, and permission to import a variety of goods that would enable imports and exports and encourage economic growth.

The note also focused on construction materials such as cement and iron, which would be used to rebuild the damage caused by Israel's three-week Gaza offensive last winter.

The U.S. administration emphasized that in parallel with its demands of Israel, it was willing to assist in establishing an international supervisory mechanism under UN auspices to ensure that the building materials were used for civilian purposes and not Hamas' fortifications.

The diplomatic note was delivered to the Defense Ministry, the Foreign Ministry and the Prime Minister's Office.

Verbally, the Americans relayed a message on Israel's linkage of the Shalit case with a more extensive opening of the border crossings. Israel is particularly insistent that unless there is progress in the negotiations for Shalit's release and a new sign of life is received, there will be no concessions on the crossings.

The United States made clear that it is dissatisfied with this Israeli policy and wants Jerusalem to reevaluate its stance. "Until you change this, it will be impossible to progress," a source quoted the American officials as saying.

"This policy has not led to progress on the Shalit case and we do not think that it is contributing to anything," the U.S. officials were quoted as saying.

bitterlemons-international.org
Middle East Roundtable


Edition 27 Volume 7 - July 16, 2009

US-Israel relations and the settlements

• No decisive shift in US policy - Ali Abunimah
On the outside Israelis may be crying about US "pressure" but on the inside they must be quietly smiling.

• Obama means what he says - Debra DeLee
What the Arabs do or not do doesn't change what Israel should do.

• Is a US-Israel clash inevitable under Netanyahu? - George Giacaman
Does the Obama administration have the political muscle and the political will?

• Obama's calculations were wrong - Amnon Lord
The way Obama fixed upon Israel as an ugly vehicle for rapprochement with the Muslim world was simply too transparent.

No decisive shift in US policy
Ali Abunimah

On July 13, President Barack Obama received 16 leaders of the most prominent pro-Israel organizations at the White House. The gathering was an effort to assuage American Jewish concerns about US pressure on Israel over a settlement freeze in the occupied West Bank.

One participant argued that in the past any progress toward peace had only been made when there was "no light" between American and Israeli positions. "I disagree," the president responded according to one witness, and pointed out that during eight years of the Bush administration, "there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished."

Obama reaffirmed his commitment to achieving a settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict and emphasized the short window and special opportunity that he had to produce one, given his outreach efforts to Arabs and Muslims.

All of this will reinforce the faith of those convinced that Obama's policies mark a decisive shift from his predecessors, a rupture in the Israeli-American relationship, and can produce what has eluded all others: a workable and agreed two-state solution.

Obama has consistently stressed his belief in the "unbreakable" US-Israeli relationship. Considering his actions and words so far, there is little reason to doubt him. But unless he is prepared to go much further than anyone has publicly contemplated in pressuring Israel, his peace initiative has negligible chances of success.

For months, the focus has been on Obama's demand that Israel agree to a complete cessation of settlement construction, including the subterfuge called "natural growth". It was during a similar "freeze" in the early 1990s that Israel built thousands of settler housing units on occupied land. Arab optimism and Israeli anxiety were amplified as Obama and his Middle East envoy George Mitchell said repeatedly that this time they wanted a total halt.

Yet the firmness shows signs of erosion. Israeli press reports speak of a "compromise" taking shape in which Israel would be allowed to complete thousands of already planned housing units. Although those reports were denied by the United States, several participants in the White House meeting said Obama alluded to an unspecified compromise in the works.

Anything short of a complete cessation of settlement construction will mark an achievement for Israel; what is important is not the number of units the United States may approve but the principle that this administration, like its predecessors, will license Israel's illegal colonization. Once that principle is established, Israel may present more faits accomplis and build at will.

And even if Israel does agree to a verifiable cessation, the US has structured the matter as a quid pro quo in which Israel is not required to do anything without receiving a reward. The president has appealed to Arab states to normalize ties with Israel if it freezes settlements, including opening diplomatic missions and permitting overflights by El Al aircraft (recall that when en route to bomb Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981, Israeli warplanes reportedly falsely identified themselves as commercial aviation). Given how little leverage the Arab side has, it would be totally disarmed if it conceded any such gestures in exchange for so little.

Israel's settlements violate numerous UN Security Council resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention. It should no more be rewarded for ending settlement construction than Iraq should have been rewarded for withdrawing from Kuwait. While occupied, war-torn Iraq is still paying Kuwait billions of dollars annually in compensation for a seven-month long occupation that ended almost two decades ago. The US is offering Israel prizes, not for ending a 42-year-old occupation, but merely for ceasing to commit some crimes.

This can hardly be described as anything other than a net gain for Israel, especially since the settlement project is reaching its natural conclusion. There are already 500,000 settlers in the West Bank, who with their infrastructure consume more than 42 percent of the land. Nothing Obama has ever said indicates he will deviate from his predecessors' policy of recognizing these facts and demanding that Palestinians agree to let Israel keep settlements already built.

While all the attention is focused on the freeze, Israel maintains its siege of Gaza--despite Obama's calls to loosen it--and continues to build the West Bank wall five years after the International Court of Justice ordered it torn down. The United States itself continues to undermine chances for intra-Palestinian reconciliation, and therefore credible negotiations, by fueling the smoldering civil war between US-backed militias on the one hand and resistance factions led by Hamas on the other.

On the outside Israelis may be crying about US "pressure" but on the inside they must be quietly smiling.- Published 16/7/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org

Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of "One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse".

Obama means what he says
Debra DeLee

Israeli leaders say they're bewildered by the Obama administration's "obsession" with West Bank settlement growth. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was recently quoted asking/grumbling "what do they want from me?" His aides told reporters and American Jewish leaders that Washington's position on settlements is "childish", "stupid" and "delusional" and that the Obama team should "come to its senses."

I don't think that Netanyahu and his aides are genuinely perplexed or mystified by the administration's demand that Israel stop all settlement construction in the West Bank. They know why settlements are an obstruction to earnestly negotiating a peace deal with the Palestinians. They know that settlements are an obstacle to the implementation of a two-state solution and therefore an impediment to America's policy in the region. They also know that Israel is committed to the roadmap peace plan, which calls for freezing all settlement activity including "natural growth".

What they apparently refuse to understand is that this president, unlike his predecessors in the White House, really means it. He genuinely means it when he says he intends to push vigorously for a comprehensive Middle East peace deal that includes the creation of a Palestinian state. This president means what he says and says what he thinks. President Barack Obama promised Americans to always tell them the truth. He is doing the same with his interlocutors overseas.

Israelis who know about my experience with the Democratic Party and with Chicago politics often ask me what Barack Obama is really trying to achieve in the Middle East and why he insists on an Israeli settlement freeze. What is really behind it, they ask. I tell my Israeli friends that they don't need my expertise. The answer is simple. There is no hidden agenda. There is no need to guess or read the tea leaves. Obama's public policy is his real policy. What you see is what you get. Straight and simple.

Furthermore, Obama resents the politics of winks-and-nods. He resents the years of saying one thing and doing another that characterized Israel-US relations, particularly with regard to the construction of West Bank settlements. He says it. "Part of being a good friend is being honest," Obama recently told National Public Radio. "And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also US interests." Settlements, he said, are a part of that.

In a recent interview with the New York Times' Thomas Friedman, Obama correctly pointed out that "there is a Kabuki dance going on constantly" with regard to Middle East peace efforts. He boldly added: "That is what I would like to see broken down. I am going to be holding up a mirror and saying: 'Here is the situation, and the US is prepared to work with all of you to deal with these problems.'" He then said: "Leaders have to lead, and, hopefully, they will get supported by their people."

Obama is leading. He is doing so boldly and transparently, with the kind of credibility and charisma--both domestically and internationally--that many of his predecessors lacked. I believe that if regional and international leaders rise to the challenge and the promise of President Obama, they may find in him the one who will finally broker lasting peace between Jews and Arabs.

If Netanyahu and his team seriously consider the president's agenda, they may realize--as well they should--that it constitutes a rare opportunity for ending, once and for all, the Arab-Israel conflict, including Israel's conflict with the Palestinians. President Obama clearly stated why a freeze on settlements is imperative. He is seeking meaningful negotiations toward a final resolution of the conflict. For such negotiations to be held in earnest, Israel cannot take measures that prejudge their outcome and should not engage in actions that Palestinians and their Arab brethren throughout the Middle East view as provocative and aggressive.

Obviously, the Palestinians should take steps to show that they are serious about peace negotiations and Arab governments should do their part to support peace efforts, and the president is pushing on these fronts. But what the Arabs do or not do doesn't change what Israel should do.

We at Americans for Peace Now, and our friends at Israel's Peace Now movement, believe that for the sake of its security, stability and long-term wellbeing, Israel should immediately reverse the settlement enterprise. And now, particularly now, instead of seeking "shticks and tricks" to evade a settlement freeze--in the words of New York Congressman Gary Ackerman, a staunch friend of Israel--Netanyahu should do whatever it takes to take advantage of the opportunity that Obama proposes.

As we see it, no Israeli leader can afford to turn his or her back at such an opportunity. Generations of Israelis will demand explanations from leaders who missed opportunities for peace because they insisted, instead, on entrenching Israel's devastating occupation of the West Bank.- Published 16/7/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org

Debra DeLee, formerly chair of the Democratic National Committee, is the president and CEO of Americans for Peace Now.

Is a US-Israel clash inevitable under Netanyahu?
George Giacaman

It was not surprising that the Netanyahu government decided to take a confrontational approach with the US on the question of stopping all building in the settlements. Three reasons account for this: first, there was no actual pressure on the government of Israel other than verbal requests, even if public and seemingly firm. Second, there may be room for "bargaining" to keep at least "natural growth" possible, however it is defined, especially if defined in a way that may keep the present governing coalition intact, a process that is underway. Third, support among pro-Israel lobbies in the US for the present government of Israel has by no means disappeared.

The Obama administration has so far succeeded in isolating the question of the settlements from general support for Israel, as Netanyahu discovered while meeting with members of the US Congress during his first trip to the US after he became prime minister. Even ardent supporters of Israel in Congress were not sympathetic on this issue. But it remains to be seen if Congress will remain silent if actual and tangible pressure is exercised, a red line that most US presidents were not willing to cross in the past.

Only George Bush senior dared cross this line, threatening to withdraw loan guarantees for the state of Israel during the Shamir government just before the Madrid conference of October 1991. Some believe that this was one reason why he lost his bid for a second term.

In the next few months, we will witness a process of maneuvering and an attempt to dilute all the requests of the Obama administration, a process that may well continue into next year. This was evident in all the conditions placed by Netanyahu in his speech in mid-June that have to attend before mentioning the word "state" in relation to Palestinians. It was obvious to all and sundry that what he had in mind was something like the present situation, a form of "self government" for the Palestinian Authority, shorn of sovereignty but nevertheless to be called a state if Palestinians so prefer.

This is the basic challenge facing the Obama administration as well as Palestinians and Arabs, who will also be asked to begin a process of normalization with Israel in conjunction with any progress achieved in the political process if it takes off at all. It is a challenge, but also a responsibility because any possible settlement that does not carry credibility among Palestinians as well as the Arab public will simply ensure that the seeds of conflict remain in place to be re-ignited in the not too distant future.

Freezing all settlement construction is the first test of the credibility and resolve of the Obama administration. In principle, Arab states can also help since several are needed by the US administration given its problems in the region and the economic crisis. The key question is: do they have the political will? Some Arab leaders tried to impress upon the new US administration the need for a determined effort to resolve the conflict. But these efforts, while necessary, are not enough given that states' policies are determined by the balance of concrete interests and not merely by advice, no matter how pressing or sound.

For the PA, this is a critical watershed, possibly the last stage in its life given that Palestinians never entertained the idea that the final outcome of the "peace process" was for the PA to function merely as a large municipality to administer the affairs of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. And after nearly 18 years of "negotiations" since the Madrid conference, the PA cannot endure an additional endless process without result. Its credibility is at stake as is the legitimacy of its continued existence. At various junctures in the past few years following the failure of negotiations, there were public calls for the dissolution of the PA. Such calls will no doubt come back with any future failure.

With the Netanyahu government prospects are not propitious to say the least. And it pains one to contemplate the price of failure: an open-ended conflict that will keep the region boiling. Such is the responsibility that the Obama administration carries. The question is: does it have the political muscle and the political will?- Published 16/7/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org

George Giacaman teaches at Birzeit University and contributes political analysis to Arab and international media.

Obama's calculations were wrong
Amnon Lord

I admit I was mistaken about the direction the relationship between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government would take. From the pragmatic point of view, it seemed consensual that the two-state solution was on its way to the freezer with a tag attached: see under "solutionism". This would have placed the differences between President Barack Obama and PM Binyamin Netanyahu on the level of principle. In view of realities on the ground, Obama would avoid confrontation with Israel and work with Netanyahu to accelerate economic cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis.

Instead, Obama chose to embark on a collision course between the two new administrations in Israel and the US. Among Netanyahu's advisers there are some who believe that those who set Obama on this course of confrontation are close advisers like Rahm Emmanuel who think they understand Israeli society and politics and who detest Netanyahu from the time they served in the Clinton administration. This confrontation apparently started from day one of Netanyahu's tenure; when he visited the White House for the first time a month and a half after taking office he already encountered a chilly reception.

This is unprecedented. Even during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, whom many compare to Obama, the first visits by prime ministers Yitzhak Rabin and later Menachem Begin were warm and friendly, at least on the surface, despite grave disagreements on central issues.

This strategy of confrontation from the outset was a mistake; Obama was misled by his advisers. People like Emmanuel and David Axelrod saw Israel in the context of a problematic domestic policy that is designed to suppress the American Jewish community and silence the so-called Jewish lobby. They had two goals in mind: to contain Israel and deter it from taking any initiative, especially against Iran, and to change Netanyahu's order of priority from Iran first to "peace in our time" in Palestine.

Obama and his people thought that concentrated pressure on the settlements issue would do the trick. It would split the Israeli political system and Israeli society wide open and plunge the country into socio-political crisis. Toward that goal they had access to a vehicle that no ordinary ruler has in a conflict, whether with an adversary or an ally: some of the leading voices and commentators in Israel who harbor pathological hatred toward Netanyahu were willing to collaborate in psychological warfare against the Israeli government. Because the settlements are not a consensus issue either in Israeli society or among Israel's friends in America, the Obama people thought they could create a rift between Israel and American Jewry.

Obama's calculations were wrong. Although the Israeli public is far from unified on the settlements and many would dismantle them if this was needed for a final peace agreement, there is broad agreement with three current Netanyahu positions. First, the nuclearization of Iran is of the utmost urgency and may require military action. Second, the Palestinians have thus far proven incapable of establishing their own state based on the requisite security regime and implementation of the rule of law, meaning that any territory ceded to them will turn into a terrorist base and eventually fall to Hamas. And third, any Palestinian state that is ultimately created must not pose a threat to Israel.

By endorsing Palestinian statehood with all the preconditions, Netanyahu in his Bar Ilan speech closed the last gap that separated him from most of the Israeli public. The public, which is not infatuated with Netanyahu, nevertheless rallied to his support because it perceived as absurd the unique and disproportional pressure directed at Israel at this juncture in its history, which reeks of appeasement. The way Obama fixed upon Israel as an ugly vehicle for rapprochement with the Muslim world was simply too transparent.

Thus President Obama, who initially was much loved and admired by many in Israel, failed in his attempt to create a political crisis here and instead reaped a harvest of hatred. These days he is despised in Israel, with his lack of moral fiber regarding Iran and the elections putsch there adding fuel to the fire. Both his policy toward Iran and that regarding Israel have exposed US weakness.

One outcome that is now emerging is a rapprochement between Israel and Egypt. Both countries are concerned about sharing a border with an Islamist fundamentalist regime in Gaza; both feel threatened by Iran; and both are most disturbed by the destabilizing effect of President Obama's initiatives in the region and elsewhere. Thus one positive outcome of the developments of the last couple of months is Egypt and Israel hugging each other tightly in the dark.- Published 16/7/2009 © bitterlemons-international.org

Amnon Lord is a senior editor and columnist at Makor Rishon newspaper.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bitterlemons-international.org is an internet forum for an array of world perspectives on the Middle East and its specific concerns. It aspires to engender greater understanding about the Middle East region and open a new common space for world thinkers and political leaders to present their viewpoints and initiatives on the region. Editors Ghassan Khatib and Yossi Alpher can be reached at ghassan@bitterlemons-international.org and yossi@bitterlemons-international.org, respectively.

No fix soon on Palestinian question

Arnaud de Borchgrave

October 26, 2009
http://www.washingtontimes.com//news/2009/...question/print/

Unless former Sen. George J. Mitchell, President Obama's special Middle Eastern envoy, is prepared to commute by government executive jet for the next five to 10 years, this isn't a bad time to turn in his badge.

Israel's vice prime minister and minister for strategic affairs in Israel's 32nd government Moshe Ya'alon talked his way through Washington's corridors of power this week, spelling out the Jewish state's refurbished negotiating posture for a Palestinian state. Bottom line: The Nobel Peace Prize will not help Mr. Obama's quest for an independent homeland for the Palestinians by the end of his first term. Even if re-elected, the geopolitical prize would most probably elude him again.

Israel wants to slow down the whole process of negotiations with the Palestinians. Mr. Obama wants both parties to accelerate. But Congress seldom allows any daylight between Israeli and U.S. positions.

Israel has scuttled its from-the-top-down negotiating strategy that had Mr. Mitchell meeting with Israeli and Palestinian leaders who then mouthed platitudes until their next meeting. The new posture is what Israeli topsiders call from-the-bottom-up. In other words, you start with itemized minutia, for which Mr. Mitchell's good offices would be a waste of his manifold talents. Key topics like final borders, the return of refugees, the dismantling of Israeli settlements, the status of East Jerusalem, a security fence along the Jordan River against terrorist infiltrators from Jordan - all would be postponed sine die.

The ostensible reason for the change is the refusal of Palestinian interlocutors to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, a national home for Jews from anywhere (there are about 15 million in the world, including 5.5 million in Israel, 6 million in North America, 2.5 million in Europe and Russia).

Instead, the Israelis want to talk about the details of a truly demilitarized Palestinian entity. Haggling over the number of guns and ammo depots allowed for a non-army military with non-army uniforms would keep negotiators busy for months. Air rights would be disallowed by Israel. But Palestinians want small commuter aircraft that would fly to Amman, Jordan and Damascus, Syria. Israeli settlements now sit astride the West Bank's water aquiver. Palestinians want their share. This would entail dismantling part of the $2.5 billion wall-fence-razor wire that snakes 420 miles in and out of the West Bank. That, too, could stretch months into years.

The more Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud hard-liners think about the strategic dimension of an independent state, the more they conclude it would be a victory for Muslim radicals. Hamas, the radical Palestinian organization that now rules Gaza, is entirely dependent on Iran's Revolutionary Guard-cum-Mullah regime. It also has a strong underground in the West Bank.

As Gen. Ya'alon adjusts his geopolitical specs, he sees nothing but 360-degree trouble for Israel. A revanchist Palestinian state on its borders, staring wistfully at Israel's Mediterranean border, which was once Palestine's, could quickly morph into a hostile entity. Israel's strategic thinkers also see the Sunni-Shia conflict rearing its ugly face in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Yemen. On the mental map, the laser pointer traces an axis of trouble from Afghanistan to Pakistan to Iran, to Iraq, to Egypt, Sudan, Somalia.

The ruling Likud Party sees the entire region divided between "Jihadis and moderates," with radical Islam aligned against the West, a struggle that started with Islamist revolutionaries seizing power in Iran in 1979. Western civilization, say Israel's leaders, is the jihadis' "main enemy." So further territorial concessions in the West Bank, they now conclude, merely empowers jihadis. This alone should convince Mr. Mitchell that he is embarked on mission impossible.

As proof of their latest arguments, Likud leaders say moderate Arab leaders' recognize the main threat to their region is Iran, not Israel. So the core of the Mideast problem is Iran and its nuclear ambitions, not the Arab-Israeli dispute. They hope for tougher sanctions between now and the end of the year. They see the Iranian regime a shambles with the Revolutionary Guards struggling to keep control against the "twitter" revolutionaries. And if Tehran hangs tough into 2010, Mr. Netanyahu plans to reassess the military option - with or without the United States.

For the first time, Israeli leaders concede privately Iran does indeed possess formidable asymmetrical retaliatory capabilities that go from mining the Strait of Hormuz, interrupting 25 percent of the world's oil flow, to mayhem up and down the Gulf, all of which could shoot oil up to $300 or more and plunge Western economies into an outright depression. But they also believe the U.S. Navy would quickly demine Hormuz and silence Iranian missile batteries firing at U.S. warships.

This, of course, would bring the United States into open conflict with Iran. And while Mr. Obama might hesitate to be cast as Israel's only ally in a regional war, Congress would quickly lend support to Israel.

Israel's leaders were stunned by the Goldstone report, commissioned by the U.N., on the Jewish state's 2008 assault on Gaza in which almost 1,400 Palestinians, including 900 civilians, and only 13 Israeli soldiers were killed. Richard Goldstone, the South African Jewish jurist who led the investigation and authored the U.N. report, accused Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Predictably, he was quickly tagged as a "self-hating Jew." But he is one of his country's most respected personalities, at the forefront of the struggle against apartheid and a key legal architect of the new South Africa.

All of which has led some to speculate the two-state solution for the Palestinians and Israel has gone the way of the dodo. Former U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali told this reporter in Cairo last week, "This is now headed for a one-state solution. But it's probably 10 years away."

Does all this mean that Israel has a historically short "shelf life"? Said one ranking Likud official, "We've had 100 years of Zionism, 62 years as a Jewish state, and we're now 6 million. With what we've achieved in science, agriculture, the military, we're not about to disappear."
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1123063.html

Hamas is not the real problem

October 23, 2009

By Henry Siegman

Ha’aretz has courageously and repeatedly exposed the deceitfulness of this and previous Israeli governments’ pretense that their goal is to find a viable Palestinian peace partner. It is therefore important to guard against the implication of the question - whether Israel should engage Hamas in peace talks - posed by the paper, namely that Israeli governments have had an interest in holding peace talks if only they could find a willing partner. Time and again, when presented with a choice between peace and continuing Israel’s expropriation of Palestinian land, Israeli governments have chosen land over peace. Indeed, an American president who shows the slightest signs of taking peacemaking seriously is immediately suspected - not only by Israeli governments but by Israel’s public - of anti-Israel, if not anti-Semitic, motivations.

Israeli governments have avoided dealing with Hamas not because they fear that engaging the organization might not produce a peace agreement, but because they know they could not manipulate Hamas the way they have been able to manipulate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas - namely, by using content-less peace talks as a fig leaf for the continued expansion of the settlement enterprise. Israeli governments have latched onto Abbas as their peace partner of choice not because of his “moderation” - his conditions for a peace agreement are not much different from those of Hamas (after all, Hamas has agreed to allow Abbas to conduct peace talks on behalf of a unity government) - but because negotiations with Abbas shield them from the need to deal with Hamas while at the same time enabling them to claim that he is incapable of delivering popular support for the compromises he needs to make. It is a classic case of having your cake and eating it too.

If an Israeli government were truly interested in reaching a peace accord that would end the occupation and establish a viable Palestinian state, it could do so only with a government that includes both major Palestinian political parties, Hamas and Fatah. It is precisely because Israeli governments know this that they have consistently incited Fatah to engage in fratricidal conflict with Hamas, and threatened to cut off the perks extended to Abbas and his colleagues should he even think of joining it in a unity government.

Undoubtedly, this view of Israel’s various governments, and particularly of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, may be dismissed by some as overly harsh. After all, didn’t Ariel Sharon seek to reverse his earlier rejectionism by turning Gaza back to the Palestinians, and did not Hamas repay his good intentions with rocket assaults on Israel’s civilian population?

The answer to both of these questions is “No.” No, Sharon did not intend the removal of the Gaza settlements to reverse Israel’s settlement enterprise in the West Bank. Its purpose was the exact opposite: to obtain president George W. Bush’s consent for the deepening and widening of Israel’s hold on the West Bank. And no, Hamas did not send rockets into Sderot - a war crime no matter what their purpose - in order to repay Sharon for his generosity, but in response to the prime minister’s strangling of Gaza, also a war crime.

The man in Israel best qualified to know exactly what Sharon had in mind is Dov Weisglass. He was not only Sharon’s closest confidant, political advisor, personal lawyer, and chief of the Prime Minister’s Bureau, but also the one who negotiated the deal with the United States over the removal of the Gaza settlements on behalf of Sharon. Here is how Weisglass described that deal, in an interview in Ha’aretz:

“What I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements [i.e., the major settlement blocs in the West Bank] would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns.... The significance [of the agreement with the United States] is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with [President Bush’s] authority and permission... and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”

That is why the first question should not be, “Should Israel talk to Hamas?” but rather, “Should Israel be allowed by the United States and the international community to continue its settlement enterprise to the point of irreversibility?” Netanyahu has already broken his promise to President Barack Obama regarding a limited moratorium on construction outside the settlement blocs. Construction in those settlements continues stealthily. An appropriate response to this continuing deceit would be an American engagement with Hamas, conditioned on Hamas’ implementation of its promise to allow Abbas to negotiate a peace agreement on behalf of a unity government. This would be a clear indication by the United States and the international community that the answer to that first question is “No.”

Henry Siegman is director of the U.S./Middle East Project and a former national director of the American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Council of America.


_______________________________________________

Exclusive: Khaled Meshal interviewed for Palestine Note

Last week Steve Clemons , director of foreign policy programs at the New America Institute in Washington, DC (and a Palestine Note blogger ), conducted an exclusive interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Damascus. Watch the video below, then scroll...

Read More


http://palestinenote.com/cs/

http://palestinenote.com/cs/blogs/news/arc...stine-note.aspx

Dear Folks, Friends, and Colleagues:

Tonight I am moderating a J Street conference dinner chat with former Senator Chuck Hagel who serves now as Chairman of the Atlantic Council and will be the next Chairman of the President's Federal Intelligence Advisory Board. Two years ago, Senator Hagel showed up at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing just before Halloween wearing a "Joe Biden mask" with a sign saying "vote for me!" Hilarious....I'm just wondering what Hagel will show up as tonight -- will keep you posted.

On other fronts, I have done a set of interviews I want to share. They are mostly under eight minutes -- but my recent interview with Hamas leaders Khaled Meshal runs about 25 minutes. If you follow the link, you can read the transcript of what was for me a fascinating discussion. I'm also sending some links for a couple of outstanding events that you may enjoy -- particularly one with Dan Yergin revisiting his work, "The Prize" as well as some others that either New America Foundation or other groups are sponsoring.

Lastly, I wanted to highlight a new blog that I am supporting in addition to my own (The Washington Note) -- titled www.PalestineNote.com. Check it out.

Recent Video Interviews:

I. Interview with Khaled Mashal -- 17 October 2009

Palestine Note version with short transcript:
http://palestinenote.com/cs/blogs/news/arc...stine-note.aspx

The Washington Note version with commentary and full written transcript:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/...nterviewing_kh/

II. Interview with Kati Marton on new book, Enemies of the People

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/...ook_at_a_nat_1/

book available at:
http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-People-Famil...3247&sr=1-1

What to do is cut off aid to Israel...