There have been ample and immediate reactions to US President Barack Obama’s recent speech about the changes in the Middle East. After surfacing from the festivities of Shabbat and Lag B’Omer, I’d like to share my own thoughts.
I appreciate that as the leader of the free world, Obama sees America’s fortunes intertwined with those of people elsewhere in the world. America enjoys a comfortable distance from the countries in turmoil, but at least Obama has absorbed the lesson from 9/11 that even when you don’t got looking for trouble, sometimes trouble has a way of coming to find you. His talk of looking for ways to shore up the economies of the Middle Eastern countries after their changes in government and encourage the expansion of individual liberties (without the delusion of establishing American-style democracies where that is neither conceivable nor the popular will) is appropriate. Whether such investment of time and treasure will prove fruitful remains to be seen.
But Obama has certain blind spots that cannot be ignored. He is very willing to see the evil in Al Qaeda terror, but less willing to recognize that same hate, bloodlust, and will to destroy in the Palestinian Authority. When he said, “Bin Laden … was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate – an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change” and that Bin Laden “rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy – not what he could build,” he could easily have substituted Mahmoud Abbas’s name for Bin Laden’s. Yes, Abbas makes a show of being a “peace partner,” but that has to be seen in context. The PLO has been in the terror business longer than Al Qaeda, invented airline highjacking, and has traditionally responded to concrete offers of peace with refusal and more violence. But since terrorism’s failure to make Israel go away, the PA has adopted new methods. For Abbas, appealing to the international community and double-speak is the new terrorism, made easier by an eager willingness on the part of the West to sympathize with the Arabs based on racist double standards for behavior (dark-skinned people must follow their nature and commit violent acts to express their anger and frustration, while light-skinned people must observe every rule of restraint in handling theirs), belief in the Arabs’ false narrative of victimhood (which in fact is simply the Arabs’ failure to annihilate the Jews), and participation in a campaign intended to cripple Israel economically, politically, and intellectually. And none of this rules out Abbas’s commitment to teaching hatred and inciting violence against Israel, or his willingness to allow terror attacks to resume at any time, claiming that he cannot control the rage of his people or curb their freedom to express themselves through bloodletting. Obama adds that before Bin Laden’s assassination, “al Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life.” Why Obama believes that the PA is still relevant outside the territories inhabited by Palestinians, or that the PA answers the need of its constituents for a better life, is never explained.
Obama has also stubbornly refused to see the corruption and oppression in other Middle Eastern countries before the start of the “Arab Spring,” including that of Bashar Assad in Syria. (Sidebar: See Barry Rubin’s discussion of the term “Arab Spring.” It’s an eye-opener.) After Assad quashed Lebanon’s government (only recently freed of the Syrian yoke after the Beirut Spring of 2005), installing Syrian-supported, Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah in the government and near the border with Israel and assassinating Lebanon’s own democratically elected prime minister, Obama recently reopened an American embassy in Damascus, normalizing relations between the two countries, and Hillary Clinton, just weeks before Assad’s forces opened fire on his own, unarmed civilians, called him “a reformer.” This is not foreign policy, or Realpolitik. It’s delusional.
Obama also stressed in his speech the importance of ensuring freedom of religion and of women to enjoy equal status with men in these turbulent Arab societies. While churches have been burned and Coptic Christians slaughtered in Egypt, and Christians everywhere concerned about their future in these revolutionary Arab states, Bethlehem is no longer a Christian city. Because of Muslim harassment, Christians who have the means have fled the country. And has the PA honored its commitment as part of the Oslo “peace” agreement to allow Jews access to their holy sites? Well, Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem is surrounded by a heavily secure bunker to protect worshipers and pilgrims from attack, there is a long list of Jewish worshipers denied access to Joseph’s Tomb in Ramallah, and just a couple of weeks ago a Palestinian policeman shot and murdered a Jewish worshiper at the tomb (yelling “Allahu akbar!” as he did so), so it’s apparent they haven’t. As for equal rights for women – well, in Arab society, that’s as likely as a peaceful gay pride parade through the streets of Mecca.
And regarding Israel and the Arabs here, Obama repeats the same slogans he has always repeated: the need to cast off “the burdens of the past,” the unsustainability of the status quo, the need of Arabs to “recognize” Israel, and the need of Israel to take “bold” steps for peace. These have been used in speeches so often, I’m not even sure what they mean anymore. The “burdens of the past” seems to be a euphemism for history, and that cannot be changed or ignored by anyone, least of all Jews and Arabs with long memories. (Americans, on the other hand, have a well-earned reputation for forgetting history.) It is undesirable to continue things the way they are, but since they’ve been this way for 44 years (longer, if one’s memory or knowledge of history goes back before 1967), why is davka this year the year things much change, especially when none of the other factors have altered? Arabs could save a huge amount of time by simply saying they recognize Israel, then reneging on that recognition and proceeding with their plans to destroy it. (I’m surprised they haven’t thought of this, since reneging on promises is something they’ve elevated to a fine art.) And Israel’s “bold steps” always involve more territorial concessions and lower security, which result in wars and increased terror attacks.
But when hope springs eternal, and the hopeful have been encouraged by what they believe will be positive changes across the Middle East, it’s hard to contain one’s enthusiasm. When dictators are in peril, it can only mean one thing to hopeful people: the dawn of universal democracy and peace. Simple regime change, from one corrupt, oppressive, power-hungry regime to another, is not part of Obama’s imagined outcome of the Arab Spring, but rather the belief that a “region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible.” “Must” believe it possible – the language of hope, not certainty (or even likelihood).
Where I think Obama nails reality is in a comment he makes about how the “international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome.” That’s really it, isn’t it? I’ve suspected for years that the occasional frenzies of American presidents to solve the problems of the Middle East (using the same language, tactics, demands every time) are really an attempt to get the problem off everyone’s desk. The fact that none of them seems to understand the problems here, and that no one can be bothered to adhere to prior agreements (the San Remo Conference, UNSC Resolution 242, Oslo) is a damper and a side issue which is more comfortable to overlook than to overcome. When talks break down over real issues, the international community chooses to take it as a personal affront, as though Arab incitement and Jewish settlement building take place for no other reason than to undo the international community’s hard work.
In trying to be seen as an impartial broker, Obama may see it as his job to overlook these issues, but from Israel’s perspective, this is irresponsible and flies in the face of his professed friendship for Israel. An effective foreign policy necessitates knowing one’s enemy. I’m sure America turned a cold, analytical eye on Bin Laden, his activities and his movements, and this eventually reaped the reward of finding and killing him. But Israel, too, knows its enemies. It lives next door (and sometimes among) us. We have had long experience with them, some peaceful and fruitful, but much deadly and dangerous. We know what they teach their kids. We know from polls how they feel about suicide bombings (68% support them), Palestinian suffering (71% blame the Jews for Arab suffering after 1948), and Israelis in general (over 62% “believe Jews are a foreign imprint on the Middle East and are destined to be replaced by Palestinians,” with a similar percentage believing that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state). We know how they feel about terrorism (the PA recently named a square in Ramallah for Dalal Mughrabi, a terrorist responsible for the deaths of 37 civilians inside the Green Line, and the PA has just passed a law granting convicted Palestinian and Israeli Arab terrorists in Israeli prisons monthly salaries, with those serving sentences of more than 20 years receiving higher salaries, to be paid from the day of arrest until release). Obama’s call for Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 borders (including land swaps), which was already worked out in 2000 and again in 2008 and still rejected by the Arabs, is simply a return to the borders that led to the 1967 war. With his own statement, that “technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself,” how many more of these wars does he think Israel can survive? (See this video for a tutorial on why the 1949 Armistic lines, aka the June 4, 1967 borders are indefensible; hat tip: Westbankmama). And how does Obama think a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip will be “contiguous” without some arrangement for travel between them through Israeli territory?
The real upshot of Obama’s talk of borders and security as preconditions to talks is more of what bothers me about the whole “peace process”: Arabs get land, and Jews get promises. Land, once given, cannot be taken back. Promises once made are easily broken and, like the San Remo Resolution, forgotten by the rest of the world. Obama talks of “provisions … to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security,” and in the next sentence calls for the “full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces … with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility.” More promises, and more farfetched assumptions. For Israel to trust that the people sworn to its destruction are to be handed control of the borders with Arab states that have so far (at least in Egypt, and weak Jordan could just as easily join in) proved highly cooperative in importing weapons and materiel to Palestinian terrorists to be used against Israel is wildly optimistic at best, mad at worst. And the final two gut-wrenching issues, i.e. the future of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees (using the current UN revised definition which includes all descendents of those displaced by the war), involve, again, the Jews giving the Arabs stuff in exchange for – what? More promises?
There have been alternative peace plans suggested by right-wing Israelis (to annex the West Bank and either make the Arabs there citizens or not) and, of course, there is the Arab longterm strategy, which is to challenge Israel’s legitimacy in international fora with a view toward chipping away at Israel’s territory, rights of self defense, and perhaps very existence. (A body which, they believe, voted a noxious country into existence can just as easily vote it out of existence.)
I don’t have a solution that will please everyone. I don’t necessarily know what would end the conflict forever (short of a major change in the Palestinian Arab narrative, or universal Israeli withdrawal to the Mediterranean). What I do know is that the current peace plans represent concession of too much land for Israelis, and too much peace for the Arabs. Exchanging land for hopes, promises, and “assurances,” as that done with Egypt, Gaza, and southern Lebanon, and their accompanying failures, should be remembered before Israel is pressured to accept any more such arrangements.
Shimshonit 
Shimshonit,
Glad to hear you enjoyed Shabbat and Lag B’Omer. Thank you for your analysis. It is a bit long though :-). The last paragraph sums it up nicely:
“…I don’t have a solution that will please everyone. I don’t necessarily know what would end the conflict forever (short of a major change in the Palestinian Arab narrative, or universal Israeli withdrawal to the Mediterranean). What I do know is that the current peace plans represent concession of too much land for Israelis, and too much peace for the Arabs. Exchanging land for hopes, promises, and “assurances,” as that done with Egypt, Gaza, and southern Lebanon, and their accompanying failures, should be remembered before Israel is pressured to accept any more such arrangements.”
I don’t have any more illusions then you do, but I think Netanyahu is not playing his diplomatic cards wisely with the American president. There is no ‘chemistry’ between them, they say(I can see that on tv), but that is due more to Bibi than Barack. Netanyahu is relying too much on the Republicans and AIPAC while his narrative should convince the broader American public. Also treating the ‘Arab Spring’ only as a treat is completely contrary to what the US and Europe think, let alone the generation of young people in the Middle East(incl. Israël) generally.
Even in the face of danger one should be confident enough to take the initiative when one is strong and knows what one wants. Maybe the lack of that – the status quo ad infinitum seems to be fine with the current Israëli govt. – is what baffles most people. It reinforces the idea that Israël just wants more time to build in Yesh. Then what? Expulsion of the Arabs or continued military rule? Annexation into one state?
Israël itself also came into being in an unilateral move in May 1948. No surprise the Palestinians would like to mirror that in september. But without a ‘haganah’ that can back up the claim it’s useless. In 1948 there was no lack of initiative. Maybe that was because there was clearly something to be gained then while now it’s much more fuzzy withdrawing.
Oh well…water under the bridge, I suppose. Next stop 2012 after the American Presidential elections.
Peter.
Peter: I know it was long. It’s my blog, and I had a lot to say.
Obama’s mind has been made up about Israel since he entered office. There’s no convincing him of anything, and most of the US is generally supportive of Israel (though not necessarily of the settlement enterprise). Doesn’t matter; those who support Israel (the more vocal ones from the Republican side of the aisle) support it; those who don’t, don’t. I don’t know how many are fence-sitters, but Bibi is the democratically elected leader of this country, and more articulate than many who have held that office. He also understands how Americans think, having been partially educated there (M.I.T.).
I’m not sure what sort of “treat” you mean with respect to the Arab Spring. It’s impossible to predict any outcome from these movements, but if the past and the political makeup of these places is anything to go by, wild optimism is seriously premature. My point is that the US and Europe may think what they like, but it won’t necessarily come to pass.
You echo a libelous Time magazine article when you say that the status quo in Israel is considered desirable by Israelis. The intermittent terror attacks, the slandering of Israel at the UN, and the necessity for our children to serve in an army which is the only thing that stands between us and annihilation is anything but popular here. Israel wants peace more than you realize, and the Arabs want there to be no Israel. That’s too high a price for us to pay for peace. And building in Yosh is our right, since until otherwise agreed to, this land belongs to Israel. If the Arabs pulled their finger out and signed any of the peace proposals offered them, they’d have a state now. I have no sympathy for recalcitrant “peace partners.” With Gaza peacefully evacuated to make room for an Arab state — which as you know is just an open air launching pad for missiles and mortars aimed at Israel — It’s perfectly just and fair for the West Bank to be a ticking clock where, the longer they take to come to the table to talk seriously, the less they’ll be able to walk away with. The 1967 lines are as artificial a border as the Arabs’ claims to being Canaanite descendents.
Israel did NOT come into being as part of a unilateral move in May 1948. You see it that way and the Arabs do, but Israel came into being when the Jews successfully fought off a pan-Arab attempt to obliterate them. The vote would have come to nothing if the Jews hadn’t survived. If you want to say the vote touched off the war, you may do so, but it certainly didn’t decide the outcome.
One reason I am skeptical of the “Arab Spring,” and will reserve judgement until things settle down, is that I remember several other major revolutions of the 20th century that overthrew dictators and promised to deliver democracy, but instead brought regimes perhaps worse than before.
In particular we had the “Russian Spring” of 1917 (the February Revolution that overthrew the Tsar was followed by the October Revolution that brought communism to power), the Chinese Revolution that initially looked promising but ended up with Mao in power, and the Iranian revolution of 1979.
So though I truly hope the Arab revolutions bring more “modern” Arab governments to power, but I am not going to hold my breath waiting…
Shimshonit,
I made a typo by forgetting an ‘h’ in t-reat :-). Shows you I’m not an English speaker by birth.
Thanks for your comment. Also the cap’n, I agree that revolutions can go awry.
While the current situation may not be desirable to anyone, neither party is willing to compromise on important issues. That way ideological illusions can survive on both sides, but at a high price in human life. On the other hand, a real peace is different from what Israël got from its previous withdrawals, I agree. Somehow, we should find a model for the 2 states alongside eachother that goes further than what was achieved with Egypt & Jordan.
Regarding the Declaration of Independance(May 14, 1948) you’re right, that came after ‘milchamah ha atzma’ot/kommemi’ut/shichrur'(1947/8). I got confused by the date of the approval by the UN of the partition plan which sparked off the conflict.
I learn something every day :-).
Peter.
Peter: I appreciate your comments, native English speaker or not. (Your spelling of Israel is indicative of that.)
I agree that the Arabs are unwilling to compromise on important issues, i.e. that a Jewish state can be allowed to exist in the Middle East. Or that refugees (and all of their descendents) not be allowed to flood Israel and wreak demographic havoc, destroying the necessarily Jewish nature of Israel from the inside. Or that Jerusalem not be re-divided, denying all faiths (but Islam) access to their holy sites, and making it only rivaled by Berlin (pre-1989) for tension and unsightliness. Israel has offered up its holy sites in Judea and Samaria, the division of Jerusalem, and some refugee absorption in offers made by Barak in 2000 and Olmert in 2008. Both were turned down by the Arabs, who can’t even bring themselves to accept the presence of the Jewish state, much less stop incitement and the teaching of hatred in their schools. As Bibi said in his speech to the US Congress yesterday, it’s the unwillingness of the Arabs to end the conflict once and for all that really stands in the way of Middle East peace.
I’m not sure what other compromises you’re looking for, but I think it’s unfair to speak of the Arabs and Israelis with equivalence (“both sides refuse to compromise,” or the American favorite, “the cycle of violence”). I’m not quibbling here; I’m pointing out serious flaws in the way you see the situation. The truth is, there IS no model for a two-state solution in history. No country has found itself in Israel’s position, in possession of territory conquered in a defensive war that they’re actually expected to give away to an implacable enemy. It’s ridiculous to contemplate — for any other place except Israel.
Shimshonit,
You wrote:
“… there IS no model for a two-state solution in history. No country has found itself in Israel’s position, in possession of territory conquered in a defensive war that they’re actually expected to give away to an implacable enemy…”
This made me think :-). Several territories in Europe, Asia and the Americas have changed ‘ owner’ and thereby changed ‘sovereignty’ . But none was a ‘new’ state, they were incorporated into another – a victorious one. This is the one-state option.
Suddenly I relized that maybe an example lies nextdoor to Holland where I live, it’s called Belgium – which in itself is divided and may split up in the future – between Flemish and French speakers. In 1830 the Dutch king was forced to cede the south Netherlands to it’s citizens who rebelled, thereby creating a new state. It was a matter of religion: Protestants were a majority in the north(in what is now Holland), Catholics in the south. Catholicism was reinforced by Spanish(16th Century) and French rule(19th century) over the Netherlands. The Portestants fought themselves free of these overlords.
Apparently the Dutch reluctantly(like with their colonies Indonsia and Surinam) decided that they were better off without these territories. The two-state option.
Is Israel better of without Judea & Shomron, better off without Eastern Jerusalem?
I think I know what you will say: religion, culture, tradition don’t allow that.
Shabbat shalom!
Peter: Shavua tov. I’m glad to see you’re thinking. (I wish more people were.) Your examples are all interesting, but I think are unique to Europe and its particular religious and political history.
I may be a religious settler, but my worldview of this country does stretch beyond the religious-cultural-traditional. Is Israel better off without Yosh and East Jerusalem? You have only to look at what happened to Israel before 1967 for the answer to that. Constant war, cross-border terrorism, utterly indefensible borders. Only now, with modern weaponry and longer range missiles, to return to those borders could be so much worse. Easy access to the sea at Tulkarm to cut the country in half, proximity to Highway 6, a major north-south motorway, only a few miles to Ben Gurion International Airport, and unmanned borders with an increasingly hostile Egypt and an indifferent Jordan that could turn hostile again. I’d say Israel is — from a strictly strategic perspective — much better off WITH the territories. (Listen to Bibi’s speech to Congress for more on that.) And that’s not taking into account any of the religious significance of the sites within Yosh, and the fact that everyone (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) has access to those sites as long as they’re under Jewish control. (Contrast that with Joseph’s Tomb where, in violation of the Oslo agreement, the PA denies access to all but a trickle of worshipers, and where a Palestinian policeman recently murdered a Jewish worshiper, screaming “Allahu akbar!” as he did so.)
Following that thread, consider divided Jerusalem. There was a de facto “international” (unrecognized) border in place there (with everyone but the Muslims hemmed out of the Old City) for 19 years, during which Jordanian border police sometimes held target practice on Jews living and playing just across the barbed wire border. When a nun’s false teeth fell out of a window in a convent located right on the border, there had to be international coordination for a cease-fire to get them back for her. And if you want a European example, how much fun was divided Berlin for the Germans? No, I think Jerusalem is much better unified, and in Jewish hands. Until very recently, every narrative in the world (including the Muslim one, though you wouldn’t know it from listening to the PA and Hamas these days) proclaimed Jerusalem the capital of the Jews, and that’s what it is. It’s mentioned precisely zero times in the Koran, and over 600 times in the Bible. Giving half of it away to anyone, least of all people whose highest aspiration is to murder every last one of us, is just plain ridiculous.