Obama and the Arabs
There have been a spate of reports about President-elect Obama's contacts with the Arab world. A report was published in the London Arabic newspaper, Al-Hayat, by Hamas operative Ahmed Youssef, that Obama and Hamas have had secret contacts throughout the election campaign. Both the Obama team and Hamas in Gaza have denied this, but the denials are routine. It is unlikely that Youssef would have published this without Hamas permission, although it may merely be a smokescreen.
There are other reports, published in the Times of London and elsewhere, that Obama recently sent Robert Malley as an emissary to Pres. Assad of Syria to discuss bilateral relations. Malley was a junior advisor on the Middle East to the Clinton Administration. He is deeply antagonistic to Israel, and his view, similar to that of Zbignew Bryzinski, is that US foreign policy is too closely related to Israeli interests. Both Malley and Bryzinski were "informal" advisors to the Obama election campaign.
While these stories have not been confirmed and may only be straws in the wind, nevertheless there is some concern in pro-Israel circles that once again a US President bent on "solving" the Middle East situation, will be tempted to do so by currying favor with the Arabs and pressuring Israel to make concessions to them. Instead of having a "new" foreign policy, the make-up of the Obama Middle East expert team, including Rahm Emanuel, David Ross, and two former US Ambassadors to Israel, Martin Indyk and Daniel Kurtzer, looks suspiciously like the Clinton crew, and in addition this time we may have Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State. None of these people are anti-Israel, but like many American Jews they tend to the liberal view that peace is possible only if Israel were more prepared to talk to the Arabs and give them what they want. The problem is that each time Israel has done that, for example the Oslo Accords, the Lebanon withdrawal, and the Gaza disengagement, our situation got worse, with the intifada, Hizbollah attacks and missiles onto the Negev, respectively. This accumulated experience has made Israelis punch drunk, we don't want any more counter-punches, so we the majority prefer to wait until the Arabs themselves are prepared to make some concessions.
Recently the UN held an interfaith convention in NY that was proposed by Saudi King Fahd. That he would do this is in itself extraordinary, and indicates some change in the situation. He also shook hands with Israeli President Shimon Peres and none of the Arabs walked out when Peres spoke. May I be cynical and suggest that this change in attitude has been engendered by the Iranian thrust for hegemony in the Middle East and particularly their race to develop nuclear weapons. Even if Israel were not on the scene this would be a deep threat to the Sunni Muslim Arab majority, who are in no position to counter the Iranian Shia threat themselves.
Both the Bush Administration and the Obama team have indicated their tacit support for the so-called Saudi Peace Plan, which is nothing more than the Arab plan for Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders, or put another way, to the "borders" that resulted from the 1949 armistice agreement. Not only were they not borders but ceasefire lines, but that would also represent a deep show of weakness by Israel that is a sign to them that their policies are working, without direct military confrontation with Israel. If anyone needed a sure sign that this policy is working you had only to listen to PM Olmert's speech at the Rabin memorial ceremony recently, when he said that Israel must be preapared for deep withdrawals on all fronts and the division of Jerusalem. In other words the plan is "give them what they want and they'll be satisfied"! This will undoubtedly empower them to subsequently demand more, as they always do. What will they then demand for recognition?
The irony is that this process results from the threat of Iranian Shia Islam that forces them into a more pro-American stance, depending on US protection, for which they demand in return the price of Israel's surrender. And finally the irony is compounded by the fact that while the Arabs and the US will be trying to weaken Israel, at present Israel is the only power in the Middle East capable of countering Iran.
There are other reports, published in the Times of London and elsewhere, that Obama recently sent Robert Malley as an emissary to Pres. Assad of Syria to discuss bilateral relations. Malley was a junior advisor on the Middle East to the Clinton Administration. He is deeply antagonistic to Israel, and his view, similar to that of Zbignew Bryzinski, is that US foreign policy is too closely related to Israeli interests. Both Malley and Bryzinski were "informal" advisors to the Obama election campaign.
While these stories have not been confirmed and may only be straws in the wind, nevertheless there is some concern in pro-Israel circles that once again a US President bent on "solving" the Middle East situation, will be tempted to do so by currying favor with the Arabs and pressuring Israel to make concessions to them. Instead of having a "new" foreign policy, the make-up of the Obama Middle East expert team, including Rahm Emanuel, David Ross, and two former US Ambassadors to Israel, Martin Indyk and Daniel Kurtzer, looks suspiciously like the Clinton crew, and in addition this time we may have Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State. None of these people are anti-Israel, but like many American Jews they tend to the liberal view that peace is possible only if Israel were more prepared to talk to the Arabs and give them what they want. The problem is that each time Israel has done that, for example the Oslo Accords, the Lebanon withdrawal, and the Gaza disengagement, our situation got worse, with the intifada, Hizbollah attacks and missiles onto the Negev, respectively. This accumulated experience has made Israelis punch drunk, we don't want any more counter-punches, so we the majority prefer to wait until the Arabs themselves are prepared to make some concessions.
Recently the UN held an interfaith convention in NY that was proposed by Saudi King Fahd. That he would do this is in itself extraordinary, and indicates some change in the situation. He also shook hands with Israeli President Shimon Peres and none of the Arabs walked out when Peres spoke. May I be cynical and suggest that this change in attitude has been engendered by the Iranian thrust for hegemony in the Middle East and particularly their race to develop nuclear weapons. Even if Israel were not on the scene this would be a deep threat to the Sunni Muslim Arab majority, who are in no position to counter the Iranian Shia threat themselves.
Both the Bush Administration and the Obama team have indicated their tacit support for the so-called Saudi Peace Plan, which is nothing more than the Arab plan for Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders, or put another way, to the "borders" that resulted from the 1949 armistice agreement. Not only were they not borders but ceasefire lines, but that would also represent a deep show of weakness by Israel that is a sign to them that their policies are working, without direct military confrontation with Israel. If anyone needed a sure sign that this policy is working you had only to listen to PM Olmert's speech at the Rabin memorial ceremony recently, when he said that Israel must be preapared for deep withdrawals on all fronts and the division of Jerusalem. In other words the plan is "give them what they want and they'll be satisfied"! This will undoubtedly empower them to subsequently demand more, as they always do. What will they then demand for recognition?
The irony is that this process results from the threat of Iranian Shia Islam that forces them into a more pro-American stance, depending on US protection, for which they demand in return the price of Israel's surrender. And finally the irony is compounded by the fact that while the Arabs and the US will be trying to weaken Israel, at present Israel is the only power in the Middle East capable of countering Iran.
posted by Jack Cohen at 9:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home