President Obama has lived up to his campaign promises to move quickly, from day one, to engage in the Middle East. His actions and rhetoric have signaled a clear break with the approach and policies of the Bush administration. He has used words like “respect for the views of Middle Easterners” and “listening to their point of view even if we disagree”. His first media interview as President was on the Dubai based Arab television network Al Arabiya. (An extended excerpt is here.)
His appointment of George Mitchell as his special envoy has been well received in the region. The appointment, however, has not been uniformly acclaimed by the Israel Lobby. Abe Foxman, President of the pro Israel Anti Defamation League said in a news conference “Senator Mitchell is fair. He’s been meticulously even-handed. So I am concerned.”
This is clearly not going to be any easy road to follow. It took sixty years of bad policy to get to this point and it not going to change in a short period of time. As has been pointed out, President Obama is an American politician and not a messiah. Following the road towards peace and stability in the region will be two steps forward and one step back. It will require political courage, perseverance, patience and engagement with all parties.
Last year, following the Annapolis Conference, I wrote that George Bush would be tested right away to see if he was serious about each side living up to their obligations under the so called “Road Map”. Shortly after the conference Israel announced a large number of new tenders to build settlement units in the occupied territories. (This article is here.) George Bush failed the test, demonstrating that he was not serious, and in the 12 months following the conference three times as many settlement units were built as in the previous 12 months.
During the Presidential campaign Vice President Biden stated that he believed that Obama would be tested right away in the foreign policy arena. I think that he expected that the test would come from al Qaeda, Russia, China or some other adversary. Turns out that the test is coming from Israel.
Following the tenuous cease fire in Gaza, Obama called for the border crossings to be opened for humanitarian and reconstruction aid. Israel has said no, taking the position that reconstruction material, such as cement and pipes, could be used by Hamas to rearm. All players in the region will be watching closely to see if Obama passes the test. Will he be able to exert the pressure necessary to insure that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is relieved? His job will be made even more difficult by the likelihood of a Likud victory in the February 10th Israeli elections.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
An Open Letter to President Obama
Dear President Obama:
Congratulations on your election and inauguration as the 44th President of the United States and thank you for being willing to take on what must, at times, seem like the world’s worst job and for being willing to help lead us through these difficult times.
I have recently returned from a political tour of Israel and its neighbors during which I was able to meet with political leaders in the region including Hezbollah and Hamas.
I applaud your rapid engagement in a region whose stability is crucial to US national interests. The appointment of Senator George Mitchell as your special envoy sends an important message that you are serious. Among the people that I talked to, he was on everyone’s short list of envoys that could make a difference.
I know that you would have preferred to wait to engage the Israeli/Arab issues and dealt first with the economic problems, Iraq and Afghanistan, but reality is something that happens while you are making plans. The Israeli attack on Gaza, which has created a dramatic escalation of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, has forced immediate action.
It will be impossible to deliver humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Gaza without cooperation with Hamas. I encourage you not to accept the conventional wisdom about Hamas without sending someone you trust, like George Mitchell, to talk to them.
There are three things that can be done immediately to move the process forward. A Palestinian unity government needs to be established. We can help by making it clear that we will work with whatever government the Palestinians decide on, including one in which Hamas participates.
We also need to make it clear that building in the Jewish settlements in occupied territory needs to stop. We need to say to the Israelis “what part of stop building don’t you understand”.
Everybody in the region knows that the parameters of a settlement are contained in the Arab Peace Initiative. These parameters need to be enshrined in a policy statement. This is perhaps best done through a UN Security Council resolution endorsing the parameters. Without a vision of an end point the “Peace Process” will continue to be process with no peace.
The two state solution is clearly on life support and some, like myself, argue that it is already dead. We only keep going because the alternative is too ugly to contemplate. Reaching a solution will require enormous political will on all sides. I hope that you will spend some of your political capital to bring about a peaceful solution.
Sincerely,
Don Liebich
Congratulations on your election and inauguration as the 44th President of the United States and thank you for being willing to take on what must, at times, seem like the world’s worst job and for being willing to help lead us through these difficult times.
I have recently returned from a political tour of Israel and its neighbors during which I was able to meet with political leaders in the region including Hezbollah and Hamas.
I applaud your rapid engagement in a region whose stability is crucial to US national interests. The appointment of Senator George Mitchell as your special envoy sends an important message that you are serious. Among the people that I talked to, he was on everyone’s short list of envoys that could make a difference.
I know that you would have preferred to wait to engage the Israeli/Arab issues and dealt first with the economic problems, Iraq and Afghanistan, but reality is something that happens while you are making plans. The Israeli attack on Gaza, which has created a dramatic escalation of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, has forced immediate action.
It will be impossible to deliver humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Gaza without cooperation with Hamas. I encourage you not to accept the conventional wisdom about Hamas without sending someone you trust, like George Mitchell, to talk to them.
There are three things that can be done immediately to move the process forward. A Palestinian unity government needs to be established. We can help by making it clear that we will work with whatever government the Palestinians decide on, including one in which Hamas participates.
We also need to make it clear that building in the Jewish settlements in occupied territory needs to stop. We need to say to the Israelis “what part of stop building don’t you understand”.
Everybody in the region knows that the parameters of a settlement are contained in the Arab Peace Initiative. These parameters need to be enshrined in a policy statement. This is perhaps best done through a UN Security Council resolution endorsing the parameters. Without a vision of an end point the “Peace Process” will continue to be process with no peace.
The two state solution is clearly on life support and some, like myself, argue that it is already dead. We only keep going because the alternative is too ugly to contemplate. Reaching a solution will require enormous political will on all sides. I hope that you will spend some of your political capital to bring about a peaceful solution.
Sincerely,
Don Liebich
Thursday, January 15, 2009
From Neo-conservatism to Neo-liberalism
For the past 8 years of the George W. Bush administration the neo-conservative project has been the dominant force shaping American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. The project is grounded in the philosophical worldview of intellectuals and pundits such as Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol. It was implemented at the political level by adherents such as Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Douglas Feith and Dick Cheney.
The worldview of this group, largely Jewish, was shaped by the Jewish Holocaust and the failure of the western democracies, particularly the US and UK, to intervene aggressively to prevent the extermination of millions of Jews by Nazi Germany. They see an obligation for the world’s economic and military hegemonic power to intervene, militarily if necessary, to spread western culture and values around the world with the goal of making the world a better and safer place. They see diplomacy as “we make demands, you agree to them and then we talk about what you want”. If you don’t agree then “preventive war” is justified.
With the election of Barack Obama we are shifting to neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism, while not a twin brother of neo-conservatism, is certainly a cousin. Its adherents such as Dennis Ross, Martin Indyck, Aaron David Miller, Daniel Kurtzer, Richard Holbrooke and Hilary Clinton, again largely Jewish have a similar worldview as their neo-conservative cousins. They see the road to peace and stability, particularly in the Middle East, as depending upon the “backward, unenlightened” nations of the region embracing, by force if necessary, western culture, free market economics and western style democracy.
They differ from neo-conservatives in their emphasis on “statecraft” as a preferable option, but at the end of the day if “statecraft” does not achieve the desired result, military force is justified.
One could see the dynamic that will shape US policy in the Obama administration during the Hilary Clinton confirmation hearings.
She expressed her support for so called “smart power”, but when it came to specific issues, like Iran and Hamas, the verbiage came right out of the neo-conservative’s “play book”.
With respect to Iran she said that the United States will “do everything we can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state” and “no option is off the table”. With respect to Hamas she said “Hamas must recognize Israel, renounce violence and agree to abide by all previous agreements”. These are “conditions … that would lead to any kind of negotiations.”
With this group making up the Obama foreign policy team it doesn’t look to me like “change you can believe in”
The worldview of this group, largely Jewish, was shaped by the Jewish Holocaust and the failure of the western democracies, particularly the US and UK, to intervene aggressively to prevent the extermination of millions of Jews by Nazi Germany. They see an obligation for the world’s economic and military hegemonic power to intervene, militarily if necessary, to spread western culture and values around the world with the goal of making the world a better and safer place. They see diplomacy as “we make demands, you agree to them and then we talk about what you want”. If you don’t agree then “preventive war” is justified.
With the election of Barack Obama we are shifting to neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism, while not a twin brother of neo-conservatism, is certainly a cousin. Its adherents such as Dennis Ross, Martin Indyck, Aaron David Miller, Daniel Kurtzer, Richard Holbrooke and Hilary Clinton, again largely Jewish have a similar worldview as their neo-conservative cousins. They see the road to peace and stability, particularly in the Middle East, as depending upon the “backward, unenlightened” nations of the region embracing, by force if necessary, western culture, free market economics and western style democracy.
They differ from neo-conservatives in their emphasis on “statecraft” as a preferable option, but at the end of the day if “statecraft” does not achieve the desired result, military force is justified.
One could see the dynamic that will shape US policy in the Obama administration during the Hilary Clinton confirmation hearings.
She expressed her support for so called “smart power”, but when it came to specific issues, like Iran and Hamas, the verbiage came right out of the neo-conservative’s “play book”.
With respect to Iran she said that the United States will “do everything we can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state” and “no option is off the table”. With respect to Hamas she said “Hamas must recognize Israel, renounce violence and agree to abide by all previous agreements”. These are “conditions … that would lead to any kind of negotiations.”
With this group making up the Obama foreign policy team it doesn’t look to me like “change you can believe in”
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Avoiding a Middle East Regional Conflict
As Israel continues its assault on Gaza a number of diplomatic initiatives, led by the French, are in process to bring about a cease fire. As in Lebanon in 2006, Israel appears determined to press its assault until international pressure becomes so great that they will need to declare victory and withdraw. The US is supporting this effort by instructing its UN representatives to block all UN efforts to demand a ceasefire.
It is not clear to anyone, including the Israelis, what victory means in this case. The goals of the invasion have been variously described by Israeli leaders as a new ceasefire with Hamas that reflects Israel’s terms, to regime change in Gaza, to eradication of the Islamist movement.
The effort to destroy Hamas has been supported, not only by the western powers, but also by so called moderate, conservative regimes in the region such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These are undemocratic countries in which the major opposition groups are Islamist and, like Hamas, affiliated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The last thing these conservative governments want to see is a successful, prosperous, democratic Islamic state in Gaza that their opposition can use as a model.
Although Israel is trying to delay any ceasefire in order to give its military time to accomplish its “goals”, January 20th is the drop dead date. One of the contributing factors to the timing of this war was the imminent end of a Bush administration that gave Israel carte blanche. Israel is worried by the unknown of an Obama administration’s policies and doesn’t want to anger him right from the beginning.
One question is can Israel succeed in destroying Hamas in the short time remaining. Another is can Hezbollah, Hamas’ ally, afford to remain on the sidelines if it appears Hamas will be destroyed. Several rockets were fired today into Israel from Lebanon. Hezbollah has denied responsibility and it is likely they were the work of Palestinian groups in Lebanon. It is also possible that Hezbollah is sending a message. If Hezbollah becomes engaged, will Iran, its sponsor, be content to stay on the sidelines?
Iranian parliamentary leader Ali Larijani met for many hours this week with Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal. Hopefully they were trying to find a way out of this conflict that has the potential to create $200 per barrel oil and make the current economic crisis look like a walk in the park.
It is not clear to anyone, including the Israelis, what victory means in this case. The goals of the invasion have been variously described by Israeli leaders as a new ceasefire with Hamas that reflects Israel’s terms, to regime change in Gaza, to eradication of the Islamist movement.
The effort to destroy Hamas has been supported, not only by the western powers, but also by so called moderate, conservative regimes in the region such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These are undemocratic countries in which the major opposition groups are Islamist and, like Hamas, affiliated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The last thing these conservative governments want to see is a successful, prosperous, democratic Islamic state in Gaza that their opposition can use as a model.
Although Israel is trying to delay any ceasefire in order to give its military time to accomplish its “goals”, January 20th is the drop dead date. One of the contributing factors to the timing of this war was the imminent end of a Bush administration that gave Israel carte blanche. Israel is worried by the unknown of an Obama administration’s policies and doesn’t want to anger him right from the beginning.
One question is can Israel succeed in destroying Hamas in the short time remaining. Another is can Hezbollah, Hamas’ ally, afford to remain on the sidelines if it appears Hamas will be destroyed. Several rockets were fired today into Israel from Lebanon. Hezbollah has denied responsibility and it is likely they were the work of Palestinian groups in Lebanon. It is also possible that Hezbollah is sending a message. If Hezbollah becomes engaged, will Iran, its sponsor, be content to stay on the sidelines?
Iranian parliamentary leader Ali Larijani met for many hours this week with Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal. Hopefully they were trying to find a way out of this conflict that has the potential to create $200 per barrel oil and make the current economic crisis look like a walk in the park.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Gaza violence
Violent conflict and war are appealing options for politicians, particularly in democracies and particularly before elections. The conflict tends to rally citizens against a common enemy. This effect can be seen in the high popularity ratings of George W. Bush following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defense Minister and Labor Party leader, has been rescued from a political death by the attacks on Gaza.
These politicians, however, frequently ignore the longer term issues in favor of short term political gain. (This leaves out a discussion of the morality of the Bush Doctrine of preventative war.) These issues include: who is the enemy, where is the enemy, what are the objectives, can the resources be mobilized to achieve the objectives or do the objectives need to be modified to meet the resources.
In Gaza it is not clear that any of this has been considered. Besides electoral considerations, the stated Israeli objective is to stop Hamas rocket fire into Israel. How this attack will achieve this objective given the resources that can realistically be brought to bear is unclear to me.
There are a number of possible outcomes to the Israeli military attack on Gaza. Among them are:
One: Hamas accedes to Israel’s demands and meekly accepts the occupation. (Not likely)
Two: Israel ceases military operations and withdraws, threatening to return and bomb, and the cycle of violence continues.
Three: Israel succeeds in killing the Palestinian leadership and destroying the security infrastructure and Gaza deteriorates into a Somalia like failed state dominated by criminal gangs and tribal rivalries and is a fertile ground for al Qaeda.
Four: Israel invades and physically reoccupies Gaza. (Not likely as Israel would then be responsible for 1.5 mm Palestinians.)
Five: Israel invades, and, as in Lebanon in 2006, gets its nose bloodied (Like Americans, Israelis have a high tolerance for enemy deaths and a low tolerance for their own.) and agrees to a ceasefire that stops the rocket fire and opens the border crossings. (In my opinion this could have happened without the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people.)
In my recent conversation with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal he talked about Hamas’ commitment to the resistance, resistance only within Palestine (no cross border operations) and stopping the resistance when the occupation ends. (An excerpt from his comments is here)
It is likely that his view today would be different. (An interesting article on the internal politics of Hamas is here)
These politicians, however, frequently ignore the longer term issues in favor of short term political gain. (This leaves out a discussion of the morality of the Bush Doctrine of preventative war.) These issues include: who is the enemy, where is the enemy, what are the objectives, can the resources be mobilized to achieve the objectives or do the objectives need to be modified to meet the resources.
In Gaza it is not clear that any of this has been considered. Besides electoral considerations, the stated Israeli objective is to stop Hamas rocket fire into Israel. How this attack will achieve this objective given the resources that can realistically be brought to bear is unclear to me.
There are a number of possible outcomes to the Israeli military attack on Gaza. Among them are:
One: Hamas accedes to Israel’s demands and meekly accepts the occupation. (Not likely)
Two: Israel ceases military operations and withdraws, threatening to return and bomb, and the cycle of violence continues.
Three: Israel succeeds in killing the Palestinian leadership and destroying the security infrastructure and Gaza deteriorates into a Somalia like failed state dominated by criminal gangs and tribal rivalries and is a fertile ground for al Qaeda.
Four: Israel invades and physically reoccupies Gaza. (Not likely as Israel would then be responsible for 1.5 mm Palestinians.)
Five: Israel invades, and, as in Lebanon in 2006, gets its nose bloodied (Like Americans, Israelis have a high tolerance for enemy deaths and a low tolerance for their own.) and agrees to a ceasefire that stops the rocket fire and opens the border crossings. (In my opinion this could have happened without the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people.)
In my recent conversation with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal he talked about Hamas’ commitment to the resistance, resistance only within Palestine (no cross border operations) and stopping the resistance when the occupation ends. (An excerpt from his comments is here)
It is likely that his view today would be different. (An interesting article on the internal politics of Hamas is here)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)