I have been among the many criticizing Obama for moving WAYS too slowly on Arab-Israeli and specifically Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking. However, evidence is now emerging that his “slow and steady” approach is bearing some significant fruit:
Item #1: Marc Lynch, just back from a quick trip to Israel and the West Bank, blogged this last night:
- without much publicity Obama’s pressure has already started generating some important results on the ground — not just Netanyahu’s carefully hedged uttering of an emasculated two state formula, but the significant easing of checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank…
That Israel has quietly made significant changes to the checkpoints in the last few weeks — after ignoring six years worth of Road Map commitments, snubbing Tony Blair and the Quartet’s persistent demands, dismissing the recommendations of the World Bank and other international development agencies, and greatly expanding them even while negotiating during the Annapolis process — suggests that Obama’s tough love approach has actually been the only one able to achieve real results.
Item #2: On Tuesday, JTA reported this:
- According to the survey of 800 registered [U.S.] voters, which was conducted June 9-11 by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, those who believe Israel is committed to peace has dropped to 46 percent this month from 66 percent last December. The poll found that some 49 percent of American voters call themselves supporters of Israel, down from 69 percent last September, and only about 44 percent of voters believe the United States should support Israel — down from 71 percent a year ago.
Item #3: Rep. William Delahunt’s “Sense of the House” bill that spells out support for a two-state solution and for George Mitchell’s peace mission, now has 105 co-sponsors, reflecting the success of the campaign that the White House and several pro-peace organizations have undertaken to slowly and steadily build congressional support for thse positions.
These are all key pieces of evidence that Obama’s strategy is working… Though it has until now been, as I said, a painstakingly slow one.
I completely recognize that the removal of, actually, just a handful of the roadblocks with which the Israeli occupation stifles normal life, including normal economic life, in the West Bank is a thin ‘achievement’ indeed. (The PDF of the UN-OCHA’s latest weekly update on the situation is here.) Also, steps like that or, for example, an increase in the number or types of goods Israel allows into Gaza each week, are incredibly easy to reverse.
We can recall, too, what the cocky Likudnik strategic thinker Efraim Inbar told me about what he expected from Obama when I spoke with him back in March:
- “The Americans may push us some, so we’ll remove one or two outposts or one or two roadblocks. We’ll play with the Americans.”
And meantime, the occupation as a whole grinds on and on and on… and so does Israel’s expropriation of additional amounts of Palestinian land, its construction of additional blocks of settler-only housing, and its continued maintenance of military law over the 2.3 million Palestinians of the West Bank and of a punishingly tight siege against the 1.5 million Palestinians of Gaza…
It is that big problem of the occupation that Obama has set himself to tackle. And so far he’s taken only baby steps toward doing so.
But here’s the important thing: In taking those baby steps and in presenting the Palestinian-Israeli issue in the way he has to the US public and Congress, Obama has actually succeeded in building up, rather than diminishing, the support his approach in the US public and Congress. That is unprecedented for US Presidents trying to move towards a more even-handed Arab-Israeli peace policy.
One of my friends who works this issue intensely reports that Sen. Mitchell has actually spent just as much time “working” key members of Congress on the issues as he has doing fact-finding in the Middle East.
However, I don’t think anyone in or out of the administration judges that “just” getting a few more West Bank roadblocks removed, or a few settlement outposts theatrically “demolished” (only to be re-erected someplace else the very next day, as has often happened in the past), or “just” getting the Israeli military’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) to add beans into the “diet” of the Gazans this week, or potatoes next week, or whatever, is going to solve this problem.
Everyone understands this is above all a political/diplomatic problem; and if Obama and Mitchell don’t take some significant steps at the level of authoritative diplomatic engagement pretty soon, then the whole, still perilously fragile balance in the Arab-Israeli region could still, oh so easily, explode.
That, at a time when the US military is working overtime to finetune the modalities of a safe exit from Iraq, the situation in Iran remains extremely murky, and NATO’s entire situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan is poised on a logistical knife-edge.
So the actions Obama and Co. have taken until now– expressing a firm stand on Israeli settlement construction (though not, actually, doing anything yet to hold Israel accountable on that score), and expressing a firm stand on opening up the crossings into Gaza (again, without any actions to implement it)– are in a sense an overture to the main, that is diplomatic, act that should, and I believe will, follow.
They have also served to both test and prepare public opinion in both the US and Israel for the main act. (And the results of that ‘testing’ would, I think, encourage them to move ahead even more boldly.)
But when will they make the big diplomatic move? Nobody knows. This team has proven incredibly good at holding its cards close to its chest.
It’s also good at using a little tactical deception when it wants to. For example, until today, nobody has a clue whether Dennis Ross’s latest move– over to the National Security Council, from the State Department, is a move up, sideways or into some form of bureaucratic sidelining. As Politico’s usually very well-informed Ben Smith writes: “As for how much influence he’ll have, we’ll have to wait and see.”
For my part, I believe Ross will now come more effectively than before under the command of General Jim Jones, who runs a tight ship on the NSC. But as Smith says, we’ll have to wait and see.
“As for how much influence he’ll have, we’ll have to wait and see.”
What ever influence the guy will have — he will certainly be a good mole for the Israeli’s.
That Israel has quietly made significant changes to the checkpoints in the last few weeks — after ignoring six years worth of Road Map commitments
Six years… hmmm… what has happened over the last six years? Oh yeah, homicide bombings, shootings, stabbings, kidnappings, rockets, and two major wars in Lebanon and Gaza. Gee, I wonder why Israel wanted to keep those checkpoints in place…
And now… no violence against Israel (at least from the West Bank), and how does Israel respond? Removal of checkpoints.
Interesting. It’s as if Israel is a rational actor that seeks to protect its people from Palestinian terrorist violence.
greatly expanding them [checkpoints] even while negotiating during the Annapolis process
This is disingenuous. Israel increase the number of checkpoints in the West Bank in cooperation with the PA, during the same period as the Annapolis process, in order to crack down on Hamas activity.
The Annapolis process, let’s not forget, was designed for the same purpose as the checkpoints, to undermine Hamas activity.
Can we get any context in these articles? You people are silly.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1907021,00.html
“Not only will he oust General Douglas Lute as head of Iraq policy at the National Security Council (Lute moves over to the Afghanistan/Pakistan office) but the senior directors for Arab-Israeli affairs and for Iran and the Gulf will now answer to Ross as well. With his proximity to the President, Ross will likely supersede special envoy George Mitchell as the most powerful voice in the Administration on Middle East peace talks. Ross will provide Obama strategic guidance for territories stretching from Morocco to India — supplanting a significant portion of the role traditionally played by the National Security Adviser.”
You say that “Ross will now come more effectively than before under the command of General Jim Jones, who runs a tight ship on the NSC”.
More effectively in what way?
Victor and Firouz, could you please both review the commenters’ guidelines, which are all that allow us a civilized discussion across worldviews and cultures here. In particular the guideline on courtesy.
Victor, if you’d had the context of having read JWN for the past six months you’d have read the interview I did with PM Salam Fayyad in which he complained specifically about the IDF’s very strict movement controls. Perhaps in future you could check your facts.
chrism… thanks for the link…
The ‘ousting’ and the ‘superseding’ was subtle – not.
I’ve passed the link around. So now we have the Times and Laura Rozen commenting on Ross moving to the NSC – wonder if Jim Lobe will also chime in? Helena have you got any comments? This does sound like an important development.
The Time piece is garbage, pure and simple. (Or perhaps, evidence of Dennis’s spin machine hard at work.) Mitchell was appointed by, and answers directly to, the man we elected as our President, Barack H. Obama. Dennis’s appointment was annouced by…. the second in command to Gen. Jim Jones, who reports directly to the prez.
Someone please answer this question for me, because I honestly don’t know the answer:
Given that the international legal consensus on the settlements is absolutely unequivocal (i.e. they’re all illegal, every last one of them- as is the annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan), then why do states, including the US, not pursue a legal settlement to the conflict in addition to a political one? Or even instead of a political solution? It seems such an obvious tool to use against the occupation that I am quite frankly stumped as to why it is not used. I don’t even hear the leaders of the PA bring it up too often! Bringing up this simple and uncontroversial consensus on the illegality of the settlements would enable the international community to, among other things, begin imposing international sanctions against Israel.
So, why is this not done? What am I missing?
Helena : “…For my part, I believe Ross will now come more effectively than before under the command of General Jim Jones, who runs a tight ship on the NSC. But as Smith says, we’ll have to wait and see…”
I hope that’s true and that Jones is Obama’s gatekeeper for the NSC, however Spencer Ackerman made this comment:
“…I notice that Ross is a special assistant to Obama and not an assistant — like, say, counterterrorism chief John Brennan, who decides for himself when he can see the president…
“…Assistant to the President” is the highest rank that any White House staffer can hold. Anyone with that rank has the right to walk into the Oval Office and get a sit-down with the president…
Do you know the difference between a ‘Special Assistant’ and an ‘Assistant’ — do they both have the rank to make their own appointments and just walk into the oval office?
http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/06/25/dennis-ross-a-measure-of-clarity/
Bringing up this simple and uncontroversial consensus on the illegality of the settlements would enable the international community to, among other things, begin imposing international sanctions against Israel.
1. There is no world court in which to sue Israel. For example, we don’t sue Sudan for murdering half a million people in Darfur, or China for denying basic human rights to its people, or the US for launching the war in Iraq.
2. Israel serves Western and American interests as a regional power that solves very difficult problems – holding Egypt in the Western sphere, containing Syria, securing Jordan, fighting first Marxist insurgencies, and today Islamist insurgencies.
3. The Palestinians are, politically, not a very peaceful people. The PLO and its offshoots have attempted to overthrow every government they have found themselves in, from Syria, to Jordan, to Lebanon, even Saudi Arabia, not to mention Israel. The great Egyptian fear is that Hamas will link up with or inspire the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Palestinians are historically a destabilizing national movement, precisely because they do not fit neatly into regional geography. The logical solution would be for them to take Jordan as their national home, except that the last time they tried, the Hashemites killed 40,000 of them. It is not in the core interests of any regional government to provide them with a national sanctuary. Directing them to fight Israel and not someone else, makes relatively everyone happy.
4. No one has forgotten the 2nd Intifada, or the withdrawal from Gaza. You have to remember how much money was thrown at Gaza before Hamas took over, and how much Europe spent in the West Bank, before Arafat launched the war. Tens of billions, all down the drain. Not even liberal European countries desire another Terrorstan.
“two senior Administration officials tell TIME. ”
Sadly Helena you could pencil in Axelrod and Emmanuel?
Looking at Ross’s CV – and having read his meticulously detailed account of the negotiations he facilitated between the PA and Israel from Oslo to the end of Clinton’s term, I’d reckon you can safely assume from here on that Ross is going to be Obama’s right hand person on the ME, as he was Clinton’s. He’s just like both of those presidents – a strategic thinker.
The poll found that some 49 percent of American voters call themselves supporters of Israel, down from 69 percent last September, and only about 44 percent of voters believe the United States should support Israel — down from 71 percent a year ago.
A majority of believe the US should no longer support Israel right or wrong… well, good.
But a majority of Americans have been against the war in Iraq for a number of years now and nothing happens.
A majority of Americans were vehemently against the Bush/Paulson/Bernanke and Obama/Geithner/Bernanke raids on the treasury and catastophic deficits and devaluation of the American dollar as well.
We talk a great game… but we don’t back it up.
We continue to let Obama and the AIPAC walk all over us. Smiling.
Here is today’s “Quartet Statement from the June 26, 2009 Meeting in Trieste”.
“… the Quartet called on Israel and the Palestinians to implement their obligations under the Roadmap and affirmed that unilateral actions taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community. The Quartet urged the government of Israel to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth; to dismantle outposts erected since March 2001; and to refrain from provocative actions in East Jerusalem, including home demolition and evictions …”
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/06a/125433.htm
This seems to be approaching “even-handedness”.
Thanks brianj.
I wonder why I haven’t seen that in the “papers”?
Not.
You’re welcome John. I found the story through a wonderful service I discovered this week run by faculty at the St. Thomas School of Law in Miami and called Diplomacy Monitor.
http://diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dm.nsf/opener?OpenForm
Indeed there is a lot of material there which never sees the light of day in the MSM. As articulated in their item “About Internet-based Diplomacy” advances are being made in the field which to my thinking are rendering the traditional media increasingly obsolete (except perhaps as a propaganda tool).
“…The Quartet urged the government of Israel to freeze all settlement activity,…”
“urged” means nothing. I will sit up when a stronger message is sent.
Israel Rejects Quartet Call for Settlement Halt
The Mideast Quartet joined President Barack Obama today in calling for Israel to freeze all settlement activity in the West Bank, and also pressured Israel to lift its ongoing blockade against the Gaza Strip.
As they had previously with Obama, Israeli officials rejected the call, with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s spokesman declaring that “normal life should continue inside these communities.”
I wonder if they used the terms of endearment Dick Cheney used with Senator Leahy?
Israel’s claim that the Bush Administration had made secret agreements to support the continue settlement construction was supported yesterday by Bush-era official Elliott Abrams, who accused the Obama Administration of ‘reneging’ on the deal. The Obama Administration has cited other officials who deny such a deal existed.
I’m sure Elliot Abrams did.
Turn off the money spigot. That, and only that, will get their attention.
“Normal life” in Israel is stealing other people’s land.
Jason-
Point by point.
1. I agree.
2. It’s become clear to an increasing number of fiscally conscious americans that Israel is a liability to us, not an asset. Israels expulsion of the 3/4 of the areas native population is at the core of our lamentable mid-east relations.
3. Your comments here are as cruel as they are deceitful. The right thing to do would be to compensate the palestinians for the wrong the zionists did to them. Never mind that “there never was a country of palestine” before- that has no bearing on the issue. There never was a USA until 1776. Make them move to Jordan? Why don’t we make Jews move to Poland or Brooklyn-where ever. Your home is your home.
4.Please. We send Israel 3.2 billion a year in military aid alone, plus 1/3 of our foreign aid budget, while people starve in other countries that don’t enjoy Israels’ “special relationship” with the US. Israel is a land built on the remains of 530 arab towns. Those angry people in Gaza? They came from ISRAEL. Israel took away their homes,burned their orchards, stole their water killed them, humiliated them- it all still goes on today- the state still impounds property from “absentee owners ” who because they are not the right ethnicity to live in a jewish majority state, cannot return to live in their own houses. The IDF can kill civilians, including children, with impunity. Racism is rampant. But the Gazans are the terrorists. (really? every last one of them? no matter how young?)