The Democratic Party Platform and Israel: What It Really Tells Us

This article is published at PJMedia.

The Democratic Party Platform and Israel: What It Really Tells Us

By Barry Rubin

Many political criticisms, particularly during an election year, are subjective and can be challenged. Has something been taken out of context? A claim misunderstood? A word twisted? What’s special about analyzing the Democratic Party platform over Israel is that it is easy to take the text and show how support for Israel has been reduced, in some cases shockingly so.

This is the draft platform and it was written by experts. The problem is the identity of those experts. This platform is a combination of “we love Israel” rhetoric (put in by the politicians?) with some serious policy problems (put in by their advisors?).

The Democratic response has been denial. Oh, no, there is nothing new or different and the platform corresponds with standard U.S. policy. The first half of that statement is a lie; the second half is technically true but in some ways it shows the replacement of the traditional over-promising on Israel to what might be called the standard historical State Department line. The base line, then, has been pulled back. If you start out promising the kid a pony you’ve got to produce something impressive; if your initial offer is a text on grammar one can expect less to be delivered in the end.

Moreover, this is not some case of working with the left-of-center in Israeli politics. The key issues with this platform go against the Israeli consensus, not just Likud preferences. Finally, while more amusing than damaging, there’s a lot of bragging about things attributed to Obama that are either standard U.S. policy under his predecessors or due to bipartisan action in Congress.

But here’s the thing that upset me just as much. The title of the section under which Israel appears is entitled, “Strengthening Alliances, Expanding Partnerships, and Reinvigorating International Institutions.” There is only one sentence about all the Middle Eastern countries other than Israel! It is of vital importance for U.S. interests, and for Israel, too, that the United States continues to maintain good cooperation with a dozen specific Arab states. The platform is an insult to America’s Arab allies, who have been dissed by Obama as he has tended to help or support their enemies.


-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,916 (among about 47,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------


Here I'll focus on the Israel section:

“The Middle East. President Obama and the Democratic Party maintain an unshakable commitment to Israel's security. A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States not simply because we share strategic interests, but also because we share common values. For this reason, despite budgetary constraints, the President has worked with Congress to increase security assistance to Israel every single year since taking office, providing nearly $10 billion in the past three years. The administration has also worked to ensure Israel's qualitative military edge in the region.

And we have deepened defense cooperation—including funding the Iron Dome system—to help Israel address its most pressing threats, including the growing danger posed by rockets and missiles emanating from the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. The President's consistent support for Israel's right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to Israel's security.

“It is precisely because of this commitment that President Obama and the Democratic Party seek peace between Israelis and Palestinians. A just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord, producing two states for two peoples, would contribute to regional stability and help sustain Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state. At the same time, the President has made clear that there will be no lasting peace unless Israel's security concerns are met. President Obama will continue to press Arab states to reach out to Israel. We will continue to support Israel's peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which have been pillars of peace and stability in the region for many years. And even as the President and the Democratic Party continue to encourage all parties to be resolute in the pursuit of peace, we will insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel's right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements.

Sounds pretty good? But consider the following issues:

--Jerusalem is not mentioned at all. In previous platforms, the Democrats supported the idea of Jerusalem as being and remaining Israel’s capital and an undivided city. The platform may adhere to U.S. official policy but not to the party’s historic position but not to the promises Obama made to Jewish voters at AIPAC and elsewhere. This switch has made headlines in Israel with even left-wingers angry and upset.

Note: After a nasty internal fight, language about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel was put into the platform. (The word "God" was also restored.) But the vote was clearly fraudulent since it required a two-thirds' majority to make the amendment and a majority voted against. The vote was held three times and with the majority opposing each time the chairman just lied and said it was adopted.  In other words, the majority of Democratic delegates opposed recognizing Jerusalem--not united Jerusalem even!--as Israel's capital.

-- Terms of a peace agreement. Previous Democratic platforms have clearly stated that Palestinian refugees should be resettled in a state of Palestine. The Palestinian Authority's demand that all Palestinians who want to do so with any historical claim to having been there before 1948 can go and live in Israel (“the right of return”) is not explicitly rejected in the new platform as it was in old ones. This is a very serious matter for all Israeli parties because that demand is seen by them as evidence that the Palestinians don't want a two-state solution but the destruction of Israel by flooding it with millions of Palestinians. By no longer explicitly rejecting this notion, the Democratic platform removes support for Israel on a critical issue. 

--There is no explicit reference to the Gaza Strip and Hamas, except for the anti-rocket system. Previously, the platform called for isolating Hamas. Obama undermined this by demanding a reduction in Israeli sanctions after the flotilla incident. By helping a new, Muslim Brotherhood government take power in Egypt—a regime allied to Hamas—Obama has made this the most dangerous front for Israel. The Democratic platform suggests that the party recognizes no specific danger in Hamas.

--There is also no reference to Hizballah and its threat to Israel from Lebanon, again except for the anti-rocket system. This threat led to a war in 2006 and poses a constant terrorist threat.

In other words, this is part of an overall pattern of playing down the threat of revolutionary Islamism or the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizballah, or other Salafists and Jihadists pose some big problem.

On a number of points, the party tries to take credit for just continuing historic policies or for bipartisan things everyone supported, aid and military cooperation specifically.

For me, the most offensive passage is this one:

“The President's consistent support for Israel's right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to Israel's security.”
In fact, no president has done more to do less about fighting the delegitimization of Israel by his own statements and actions than has Obama. And in some cases, especially regarding Gaza, he has not really supported Israel’s right to defend itself in practice. I will leave the Iran issue and U.S. behavior in the UN for your own evaluation regarding this point but one could compile a long list of items in each case.

Regarding the “peace process,” Obama’s pressing Arab states to move toward peace with Israel lasting a couple of weeks and was never a serious, sustained policy. He has literally never criticized the Palestinian Authority and its behavior nor has he ever pressed them very hard, that kind of thing is reserved exclusively for the Democratic platform.

As for defending the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, while Obama did make some gesture to help secure an Egyptian pull-back last month, to portray him as helping to preserve that document is a joke.

Finally, past Democratic platforms have clearly taken Israel's side, making it clear that they viewed Israel as the party sincerely trying to resolve the dispute and the other side obstructing a solution. Despite some of its language, this platform is neutral basically. Yes, it highlights burdens on the Palestinians rather than on Israel, but it gives no hint as to why there has been no progress toward peace. This may be more understandable in a U.S. government document and Obama is in fact the president, but this is the party platform. Historically, the Democratic Party--pressed by members of Congress--wanted to show that it was on Israel's side. Who better than Bill Clinton, even though he doesn't tell the truth about it today, saw in the 1990s how the Palestinian side sabotaged peace and the Arab states didn't help?

Yet this is a party dominated by a top-down group far more to the left, less friendly to Israel, run more by the Progressive Caucus types in Congress, and using "experts" who are often openly hostile to Israel. They put in the boilerplate to keep the suckers--and party moderates--happy but also subtly signal that they don't mean it.
I will analyze the platform’s broader view of the region in another article but again note that except for a vague promise of support for the Persian Gulf Arab states to defend themselves, the platform sees no other “alliances” or “partnerships” other than Israel. This section is thus just to titillate Jewish and pro-Israel voters. If they read it closely it would have the opposite effect.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

How the U.S. Government Should Deal With the Jerusalem As Israel's Capital Issue

By Barry Rubin

Recently there has been a controversy when State Department spokespeople refused to say what they thought to be Israel’s capital. To understand this issue we need to understand that there are two different issues involved: that of 1947 and that of 1967.

I’m not going to discuss ancient history, religious factors, and the merits of varying claims here but will merely point out some simple facts of practical diplomacy.

The U.S. embassy, like others, is located in Tel Aviv. When diplomats need to meet with Israeli officials they pile into their vans and drive up to Jerusalem. There are also restrictions on just where these diplomats can go and under what conditions, to avoid any implication that they recognize Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights or east Jerusalem.

Presidents have repeatedly promised to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem but have never made the tiniest move toward doing so because that would make Muslims and Arabs angry. In his speeches to AIPAC, President Barack Obama has said—to thunderous applause—that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel and should remain undivided. But of course this was a totally cynical gesture.

One could—as Obama no doubt hoped his audience would do—interpret this as favoring Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. Under that interpretation, Obama was taking a position on the “final status” negotiations. What Obama probably really meant is that after a two-state solution is implemented there should be no wall or closed border within Jerusalem. (That’s a nice idea though how it would be implemented is a puzzler.)

There is a genuine diplomatic problem for the United States here but there is also a reasonable way around it, if any future American president wanted to avail himself of that option.

To read the entire article click here.

Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney Captures Jerusalem

By Barry Rubin

Speaking to an often-cheering group of about 400 people in Jerusalem, Governor Mitt Romney gave a speech less notable for what he said but because the audience believed he was sincere in saying it.

At a beautiful outdoor setting with the Old City in the background, Romney declared his strong support for Israel, using phrases often heard from American presidents. He also proclaimed his view that Jerusalem is Israel’s eternal capital. The difference, of course, is that those listening were less inclined to think that when President Barack Obama said similar things to AIPAC meetings he was describing his own views and policies.

Clearly, Romney was restrained by the American principle that partisan politics stopped at the water’s edge, that no politician should criticize a president or U.S. government while abroad. Thus, Obama’s name—or even his specific policies—were never explicitly mentioned.


-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,711 (among about 46,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

What Romney did do, however, was to scatter among the assertions of U.S. support for Israel’s security and a strong belief in a U.S.-Israel alliance some subtle references that many viewers and much of the mass media are likely to miss. Here are the key ones, which give some hints over Romney’s future campaign and possibly his presidency:

--Not allergic to Israel’s center-right. Romney quoted former Prime Minister Menahem Begin twice and referred to “my friend, Bibi Netanyahu.” Obama wouldn’t have cited either man and is known to loathe Netanyahu. Romney and Netanyahu have known each other for years. The Begin quotes were significant: that Israel will never again let its independence be destroyed (a reference perhaps to Israel’s need not to be completely subservient to America’s current president) and that if people say they want to destroy you then believe them (an explicit reference to Iran’s nuclear weapons’ drive).

--“The reality of hate.” This phrase used by Romney struck me as very significant. It occurred in the context of speaking about how many Arab and Muslim forces feel about Israel. It shows that he is aware that the desire to destroy and injure Israel goes beyond pragmatic considerations or that it is something people will be talked out of trying to do. It is enormously important for an American president to understand that there are those in the Middle East who hate the United States and Israel, being impossible to appease or befriend them.

To read the entire article click here.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Why Isn’t Obama Visiting Israel?

By Barry Rubin

By now it's clear that President Barack Obama isn’t going to visit Israel in his term of office. And yet that’s pretty curious, isn’t it? After all, American politicians who seek Jewish support usually find a trip to Israel a pretty good way to claim pro-Israel credentials. And Obama has been desperate to do so, especially this year.

Why, then, isn’t Obama going to visit Israel? Of course, we cannot definitively answer that question but here are some thoughts:

--His personal distaste for Israel is so great that he doesn’t want to come here. Of course, he did do so once as a senator but now Obama may feel he can give freer rein to his feelings. While it is silly to say that Obama hates Israel and wants to destroy it, if you believe that he has a single warm feeling toward the Jewish state I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy.   Certainly, Obama has an extreme personal dislike for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu--as he revealed to a microphone he didn't know was on when meeting with French President Sarkozy. And while some of Obama's best friends were Jewish they were also anti-Israel or, at best, in the we-know-better-than-those-dumb-Israelis camp.

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

We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,330 (among about 45679 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

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

--He fears being booed and rejected by Israelis. Let’s be clear, Israelis can behave like star-struck provincials ogling celebrities. There would be a certain amount of drooling worship of that type. Still, Obama is very unpopular here, too. There could be some nasty scenes of booing and anti-Obama signs that might persuade American Jews that all is not well.

--A visit to Israel is counter to Obama’s effort to distance himself from Israel and act as if he’s the buddy of Muslims, especially those who hate Israel. Of course he could go to Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq again since he’s been to all of those places.

For the last forty years American presidents have stood with Israel and urged Arab states to make peace with that country. Think of President Bill Clinton, for example.  Their policies have been based on the principle that the United States can have excellent relations with both sides. And guess what? That policy worked as well as was possible. The radical Arabs would have opposed America under any conditions; the moderates worked closely with Washington. But no matter how much lip service Obama gives such a strategy--most of the time in front of Jewish groups--this is not Obama's approach.

Of course, on such a trip Obama could drop in on the Palestinian Authority (PA) to show his passionate desire for a Palestinian state and love of that people. Yet this might not be enough in his mind to counter the cooties picked up in Israel that would supposedly horrify Muslims and Arabs. Moreover, it would be embarrassing to go and hang out with a PA leadership that is now in partnership with Hamas.

--The failure of his “peace process” policy to make any progress at all might make him want to stay away from reminding people of that fact.  If anything, Obama set back Israel-Palestinian dealings. Obama cannot come and take credit for some breakthrough.

I suspect that all of the above reasons are factors in his staying away. As with so many other subjects, it’s amazing that this issue is not being discussed and analyzed at all

To read the entire article click here.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Hillary Clinton Implies: Pro-Israel Sentiment Doesn't Reflect America

By Barry Rubin

Sometimes a secretary of state is asked tough questions. How they are answered shows the underlying philosophy of official and government. I genuinely don't want to make too much out of a single exchange between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a Tunisian audience. Yet the problem is how the approach she took fits into consistent themes of the Obama Administration.

Whatever Clinton tried to do when talking to a group of young Tunisians (video here), it's also important to consider how her audienceinterpreted her statement. Either they thought she was saying that the United States doesn't really support Israel or they thought that she was telling them a transparent lie that made them more suspicious. Or both of the above.

The exchange also fits with Obama's own statement to Russian leaders who wants America to get rid of much of its nuclear arsenal, that elections are a nuisance that will only temporarily interfere with him doing what his government--and his interlocutor, too--wants him to do.

-------------------------
You might also find interesting my interview with Syrian opposition activist and analyst Ammar Abdulhamid.
-------------------------

QUESTION:  “After the electoral campaign start[ed] in the United States…we noticed here in Tunisia that most of the candidates from the both sides run towards the Zionist lobbies to get their support in the States. And afterwards, once they are elected, they come to show their support for countries like Tunisia and Egypt for a common Tunisian or a common Arab citizen. How would you reassure and gain his trust again once given the fact that you are supporting his enemy as well at the same time?”

This question has several significant factors. First, it assumes, as is typical in Arabic-speaking countries, that the Israel issue is a zero-sum game and that Israel is an enemy. One has to be for one side or the other. Second, it assumes that the United States is really hostile toward the Arabs because it supports Israel, indeed it is hinted that Zionists run America. Third, it suggests that America is lying to the Arabs about this and consequently about much else, too.

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,021. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
-----------------------

What Clinton did, however, was to reinforce all of these problems because, basically, she tried to propitiate her audience by lying to them. And they are not so stupid as to miss the fact that she lied to them. In doing so, she undermined supposed U.S. policy and encouraged the continuation of extremism and conflict in the region.

Here’s her answer:

To read the entire article click here

 Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

The Unvarnished Reality of Contemporary U.S.-Israel Relations

The following article was published in Maariv newspaper in Hebrew. 

By Barry Rubin

Do not speak of it in public. Do not expect any Israeli official to admit it. But Israel is facing an issue unlike anything it has had to deal with during the past 50 years: It cannot depend on the United States.

True, the relationship in terms of weapons’ supply remains good. Old programs continue to provide advanced arms to Israel. Nor is the problem the one most people think of first: on Israel-Palestinian, “peace process” issues.

President Barack Obama’s Administration has seen that no real progress is possible on that front.  It tends to blame Israel in public and Obama intensely dislikes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but those problems have little material effect. If that personal matter were the only issue involved Israel could muddle through as it has with other presidents.

The difficulty with Obama is that his entire strategy in the Middle East is contrary to Israeli interests, except for putting some sanction’ pressure on Iran regarding its nuclear weapons’ program.  The greatest threat to Israel today is the rise of radical Islamist regimes. Here is how Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh puts it:

"The Palestinian cause is winning. With the Muslim Brotherhood part of the government [in Egypt], they [the Egyptians] will not besiege Gaza. They will not arrest Palestinians. They will not give cover to Israel to launch a war....Israel is disturbed by this. It knows the strategic environment is changing. Iran is an enemy. Relations are deteriorating with Turkey. With Egypt, they are really cold. Israel is in a security situation they have never been in before."

Even though Israel has faced worst strategic situations and the Islamists are badly divided, Haniyeh has put his finger on the central strategic factor today. Radical Islamists who want to open a new round of battle against Israel now rule or are likely to do so very soon in Egypt, Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey.

Here is where the problem with the United States comes in. Obama does not really view this trend as a threat. He spent the first half of his term engaging with Iran and its ally Syria. Obama and his administration regards the Islamists as people who are either already moderate or are likely to become so by governing.

This is, of course, the opposite of the Israeli assessment.  In Syria, the U.S. government even helped organize and supports an external opposition leadership in which Islamists form the majority even though it is doubtful that this reflects their level of support within the country.

To put it bluntly, the U.S. government does not even recognize the existence of the number-one threat to Israel.

And to make matters worse, the government that Obama looks to for advice, guidance, and interpretation of the region is not Israel but the Islamist regime in Turkey. That government’s sharp turn to a highly emotional anti-Israel policy has not cost it anything at all in terms of its relations with the White House, something that would have been unthinkable under any previous president.

That is why Israel, as well as the Middle East generally, is going to be an important issue in this year’s presidential election.  To preserve relations with the United States, Israeli leaders will neither do nor say anything about that contest. Yet nothing could be more obvious than that Obama’s reelection would be extremely damaging for Israel’s security.

Israeli People and Experts: We Support Netanyahu and Don’t Want to Return to 1967 Borders. U.S. Media: Israelis Don’t Like Netanyahu and Israeli Experts Say 1967 Borders are OK

This article is published in PajamasMedia

By Barry Rubin

We are living in Satireworld. I mean what more can you say? Well, I can say the title of this article that sums it up:

Israeli People and Experts: We Support Netanyahu and Don’t Want to Return to 1967 Borders.

U.S. Media: Israelis Don’t Like Netanyahu and Israeli Experts Say 1967 Borders are OK

Here's the evidence:

New York Times headline:" Israelis See Netanyahu Trip as Diplomatic Failure."

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel returned from Washington on Wednesday to a nearly unanimous assessment among Israelis that despite his forceful defense of Israel's security interests, hopes were dashed that his visit might advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians.”
 
Actually, Israelis generally have no hopes that anything is going to advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians because even though it makes them unhappy they know that the Palestinians don't want to advance peace negotiations. But that theme--the Palestinian leadership doesn't want peace--is not permitted in virtually all of the American mass media.

And who cares that the article is the exact opposite of the truth?

Ha’aretz headline: "Ha'aretz Poll: Netanyahu's Popularity Soaring Following Washington Trip"

"A new poll conducted by Dialog, under the supervision of Prof. Camil Fuchs of the Tel Aviv University Statistics Department, showed that 47% of the Israeli public believes Netanyahu's U.S. trip was a success, while only 10% viewed it as a failure."

Because the American media wants to tell its public the exact opposite:

Washington Post [the headline should be but isn't] headline: Israelis Oppose '67 Borders with Land Swaps

Oops! That’s not the headline! The real headline is: “Netanyahu says pre-1967 borders are indefensible for Israel, but experts wonder if that’s so.”

Get it? What does Netanyahu know? Obama knows better and Israeli experts (two of them!) agree with him.

If hundreds of thousands of lives weren't at stake this would all be very funny.

True, that the Post included in the article (but not the headline):

“According to a survey of Jewish Israelis published Wednesday by the Geocartographia Institute, 61% oppose the formula of 1967 borders with land swaps as a basis for an agreement with the Palestinians, while only 27% favor it.”

But the Post actually found two “experts” who say it doesn’t matter. One of them seems to be misquoted because what he’s actually saying appears to be the typical Israeli theme that it doesn’t matter so much what we’ll do they’ll attack us anyway. After reviewing his other statements, I think it is obvious that Giora Eiland, former general and national security council director, has clearly explained his view that a withdrawal to the 1967 borders would be a terrible mistake.

The other is an old personal friend so I won’t say anything more. Let's just say he's a good person and a superb scholar, but no expert on contemporary strategy and known to be very far to the left.

The fact that for every one expert who says the 1967 borders are just fine and dandy one could find a hundred who say: What, are you crazy? It’s the same tactic the media uses with American Jews.

To add insult to injury, the Washington Post features an op-ed by Fareed Zakaria, who knows nothing about Israel (or the Middle East) entitled, "Where Netanyahu fails himself and Israel."

But Zakaria has some fascinating turns of phrase. He says: Bibi is "a man who will be bypassed by history...remembered only as a person before the person who made peace, a comma in history."

Actually, if Bibi did listen to the advice of people like Zakaria, Israel would be remembered only as a formerly existing country destroyed by foolish decisions and the betrayal of friends.

He adds, "While Bibi might sound like Churchill, he acts like a local ward boss, far more interested in holding onto his post than using it to secure Israel's future."

Yeah, right, what does Netanyahu know? Giving up even more territory to a Fatah-Hamas regime in exchange for promises on paper (given the fate of previous ones) is really going to secure Israel's future. Not.

By the way, since Zakaria and Tom Friedman are both key advisors to Obama on his policy and the State Department speech, and Friedman called for mass Palestinian protests (along Tahrir Square lines) in Jerusalem, does that mean this is what Obama really thinks? If so, my readers who keep telling me that he wants to destroy Israel might actually be right.

Quickly, this reversal of reality becomes the conventional wisdom of the chattering class. Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC even misstates the poll results in claiming that most Israelis support Obama, not Netanyahu, so what's all the "hysteria" about? He claims 65 percent of Israelis support Obama.

The Jerusalem Post just did a poll on that question. In fact, only 12 percent consider Obama to be pro-Israel.  On one hand, that's a remarkable figure, indicating how obvious and bad is the situation. On the other hand, it isn't the least bit surprising because the situation really is bad. If American Jews knew how Israelis think about Obama and why they feel that way, perhaps those people would stop supporting Obama. And that's why they are not permitted to know.



See, who cares what (most) Israelis actually think! Who cares what (almost all) Israeli experts think? They are supposed to love Obama and hate Netanyahu. President Barack Obama thinks he knows best for Israel and when he reads the New York Times and Washington Post he will be confirmed in the belief that Israelis back him and not their own government. And he will be confirmed in his belief that Netanyahu is just being silly not wanting to go back to the 1967 borders. He’s just intransigent and only the Palestinian Authority (New and Improved! Now With Extra Added Hamas!) really wants peace.

Do American Jews back Israel? Every poll shows overwhelming support. But to read the mass media you’d think that they don’t, in part because who gets interviewed and the fact that J street seems to have hired the entire media as its press agent.

Of course, most American Jews also largely back Obama, but not on this specific issue. Those who read the New York Times and Washington Post may think that by supporting Obama's policy toward Israel they are supporting Israel since Israelis also (supposedly) love Obama, hate Netanyahu, and think the 1967 borders (well, at least the experts who really know about such things) are perfectly safe.

People I spoke to who were at the AIPAC meeting feel that Obama got a cool reception; those who heard about it through the media think he was incredibly popular there.

Let me put it this way: The Middle East and U.S. policy toward it is heading toward an iceberg. Netanyahu and Israelis generally see the iceberg. Obama, as in his State Department speech, says the weather’s fine and full speed ahead!

The iceberg will be arriving during the next few months.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

Obama Forgets History And Thus Makes Future Disastrous History

This article is published in PajamasMedia.

By Barry Rubin

A reader writes to me that I don’t understand how President Barack Obama is really friendly toward Israel—didn’t he say all those nice things?--and I’m distorting his words because I don’t just like him.

Like many people (half of the U.S. population?) I desperately want to like him because it’s better to have a smart, competent president rather than someone leading us (U.S.) toward disaster. But unlike a lot of people I’m willing to face reality. Because facing reality is the first step toward solving problems.

Let me try one more time to give an example—one among many—of the problem with Obama, his policies and his speeches.

The statements Obama makes are meant to be seen as positive toward Israel but aren't.

Example (I'm paraphrasing) I really care about Israel but don't you realize that by not making more concessions you are contributing to delegitimization of Israel?

OK. That's friendly, right?

BUT if the president of the United States doesn't know that:

Israel let 200,000 Palestinians return in 1993-2000 and gave guns to the PA and passed money to them, etc., and got more terrorism and rejectionism.

Israel withdrew from Sinai and made peace with Egypt and now the peace treaty is being torn up. In September Egypt will get a radical, perhaps Islamist, government. Today Egypt is opening the border with the Gaza Strip. Money and weapons will flow across freely to Hamas and will be fired at Israel one day.

Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, and then was attacked by Hizballah in 2006. The U.S. government and others promised that they would stop Hizballah from getting more rockets and returning to southern Lebanon. They didn’t. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates just pointed out that Hizballah now has more rockets than practically any country in the world. 

Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and got a Hamas hostile regime that attacks it.

Israel made huge concessions and then is even MORE delegitimized in the West.

And then the president says: So now the solution is to pull out of the West Bank and then everything will be great!

And when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu complains you don’t understand why he’s upset?

Why The Issue of Land Landed President Obama In Trouble With Israel

This article is published on PajamasMedia.

By Barry Rubin

A Muslim friend whom I greatly respect wrote me that he doesn''t understand why I've been complaining about Obama's speeches. I suggested that the problem is he has been reading media coverage which tends to revolve around one sentence in the State Department speech. All I do is read the entire texts carefully and analyze them. People are saying that Obama's position is the same as Bush's or that he said nothing new.

Honest, if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is so upset that he would publicly disagree with the U.S. president he--and others in Israel--have a reason for doing so. It is, after all, our lives that are on the line.

Consider this: Israel is on the verge of having four hostile and radical regimes as neighbors--Egypt, Hamas in Gaza, a Hizballah-dominated Lebanon, and Syria (which might get worse). It's nearest ally, Turkey, has become completely hostile and is dominated by an Islamist regime that--let's face it--doesn't like Jews generally. Its biggest enemy in the region--Iran--is increasing its influence and heading toward nuclear weapons. At that same moment, the United States is acting  weaker, less reliable, and less friendly toward Israel than at any time in decades.

And it is at this moment that Obama asks for more concessions and risks. And who are the concessions to be made to? A radical nationalist PA which is now in partnership with the openly genocidal Hamas.

Yet despite the previous two paragraphs, there are those who would characterize Israel's position as completely unreasonable. Indeed, Obama implies that if Israel makes concessions and turns over almost all of the West Bank to the PA as soon as possible, all of these problems will go away.


In most of the media, people who know nothing about such matters are ridiculing Israel, arguing that it has nothing to be upset about. Yet they never respond to the specific questions and problems that I'm raising. They just ignore them completely.

I regret that one sentence in President Barack Obama’s speech at the State Department has become virtually the sole topic of debate about those talks. As I’ve pointed out—here and here and here--there are more than a half-dozen bigger problems and a lot of scary things in his State Department and AIPAC speeches that indicate his thinking on the issue more than anything he’s ever said before.

Obama likes the focus on that one sentence because—as he spent so much time in his AIPAC speech asserting—he can claim to be misquoted. But let’s spend a moment on the problem with that one sentence.

Obama can claim he stayed within traditional U.S. policy yet that is misleading. He has not. One of the main formulas in the peace process for decades has been that the two parties will determine the borders in negotiations. Since the Palestinian Authority wants the 1967 borders precisely while Israel wants changes this formula preserves Israel’s leverage. Israel can ask for more then use that as leverage to get less—but get what it needs.

Obama limited Israel’s leverage in two ways:

1. The 1967 borders with presumably minor changes.

2. Israel must also give territory in order to claim any parts of the West Bank. While Israel had mentioned the possibility of swaps now it is mandatory.

It isn't as if nobody has thought of these two points before. But up until now that was the way negotiations might end. What Obama has now done is to make this the starting point. Within hours of his speech, the PA demanded that Israel must accept the 1967 borders (with no changes) before it would negotiate!

So objectively, Obama's position has hurt any prospects for peace or even...holding talks at all.

It’s equally true that the PA doesn’t love Obama’s formulation. Yet the problem is that it knows it can always push for more--as it is now doing--and that no European or American government will pressure them to make concessions. Israel’s situation is the opposite: international pressure continually seeks to erode its position.

The administration of Obama’s predecessor promised Israel that it could keep “settlement blocs,” that is, areas of large-scale Israel Jewish population (all very close to the pre-1967 borders), would be annexed by Israel. At first, the Obama Administration rejected that pledge. Such behavior is totally against international diplomatic practice, in which governments must maintain their predecessors’ commitments. Israel remembers how the Obama Administration reneged on that commitment. And that’s not the only one.

When Israel agreed to Obama’s request for a nine-month freeze of construction on settlements, the U.S. government secretly (though it was signaled subtly in public) reinstated that commitment. Obama might have mentioned that in one of his two speeches, thus showing Israel that he does back some substantial, but small-scale, changes. But he didn’t do so.

Remember, that the totality of Israel’s claims for border changes relates to only three to five percent of the entire West Bank.

So isn’t Obama right in saying that he was misquoted since he did talk about land swaps and the need for both sides to agree on the future borders? Yes, his formulation could be within acceptable boundaries.

Why then are people up in arms on that sentence? First, journalists and “experts” are lazy and didn’t read or analyze the full speech. It is easier to repeat what everyone else is saying.

Second, almost unnoticed has been the truly shocking peace plan proposed by Obama:

Step one: Israel withdraws from (all?) the West Bank in exchange for paper security guarantees by the PA.

Step two: The two sides negotiate remaining issues.

Do you realize the implications? If Israel pulls out of all of the West Bank isn’t it going back to the 1967 borders? Supposedly, this is temporary, pending a comprehensive agreement? Ha-ha.

In other words, Israel will give up real assets in exchange for promises made by a counterpart (which includes Hamas which has made clear it won’t accept anything less than Israel’s extinction!) and guaranteed by a (former?) great power whose leader has a record of not keeping promises.

But remember that this is all part of Obama’s wider theme: It is in Israel’s interests to make a lot of concessions as fast as possible so that the Israel-Palestinian conflict will end and then Israel (with reduced territory and a new hostile, much bigger, neighbor!) will be more popular in the world and more secure in the Middle East.

Huh?

The moment when Israel is about to have three hostile and radical Islamist neighbors (Egypt, Gaza Strip, Lebanon) with the possibility of a fourth (a possible Syrian revolution) is not the time to demand concessions to a fifth, half-Islamist, half-radical nationalist one.

The real difference between Obama and George Bush in terms of their personal qualities as presidents is that when Bush said or did something dumb or dangerous he was denounced by media and opinion makers. When Obama does the same thing, he’s praised for his brilliance. At least withering criticism gave Bush’s Administration an opportunity to improve. Obama keeps wading deeper into the swamp, smugly asserting that he’s heading in the right direction.

Third, this specific spat merely symbolizes Israel’s mistrust of Obama and his attitude toward it. On a half-dozen occasions Obama has broken promises to Israel while accepting PA slaps in his face with no complaints and even more support for the PA.

Moreover, Israel faces a dangerous regional problem largely due to Obama’s policies. The moment Egypt is about to become hostile, Iran’s influence is advancing and it will soon get nuclear weapons (no matter what Obama says), Fatah and Hamas reunite, and Hizballah is about to take over Lebanon is not the ideal moment for Israel to take more risks and make more concessions.

And despite Obama’s tougher language in his State Department speech, the truth is that he is still passively accepting, without sanctions or pressure, the fact that his PA client has just united with an openly antisemitic, genocidal, terrorist group that makes no secret of planning to wipe Israel and Israelis off the map.

Imagine an ally demanding that the United States make concessions to a government in which al-Qaida was a coalition partner and you get a sense of what Obama’s policy means to Israel. Obama has been slow to act on Iran, soft on Syria, willing to deal with a Lebanese government that includes Hizballah, helpful to Hamas, almost uncritical of the PA, and generous to the Muslim Brotherhood. Only in Israel’s case does he, personally, strike a different tone. That might be an exaggeration but it isn’t a big exaggeration.

Obama’s total ignorance or ignoring of Israel’s past experience is chilling. After more than two years in which Israel has done most of what Obama has requested (not everything, certainly, but quite a lot), he has shown no reciprocity in his own statements. For example, he might have praised Israel for its freeze of construction on settlements but he didn’t.

No one even noticed that in his AIPAC speech, Obama didn’t cite a single specific thing that Israel has done for praise: not the risks and costs of the Oslo process; not the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip or southern Lebanon; nothing at all. His praise was vague, general, and just a copy-and-paste job of what past presidents said.

Finally, a president is supposed to express himself clearly. Afterward, he can’t tell other countries and his own people they are too dumb to understand him. When a leader talks like that it should raise a red flag that something is wrong. And voters should give him a red card.*

The last time I heard something like that was the day after the last Turkish election when an opposition party leader was asked on television why his side lost. ”Because the voters are stupid,” he replied.

Another diplomatic no-no is to make a major speech affecting the survival of someone else’s country when its leader is flying to your capital for meetings, especially when done without full prior consultation.

Obama never lacks for apologists who dominate the cameras and printing presses. Ridiculous things are said to excuse his two speeches and obfuscate the serious problems with both. In the face of a dangerous tidal wave, Obama proclaims it a perfect day to go to the beach. And he tells Israel that it should swim further out, beyond the warning signs.

As I read the AIPAC speech I was reminded of an incident during the 1930s. A famous children’s show host on radio had just finished a broadcast. Thinking the microphone was off, he said, “That ought to hold the little bastards!” Those words went out over the air and children who toddled off to ask parents what “bastards” meant. Ah, those were more innocent times.

I’m not claiming this is what Obama said after the AIPAC speech but I think the story gives a sense of his cynical attitude toward Israel and the Jewish voters.

To summarize:

1. Israel gives up all West Bank first and then negotiates on borders.

2. Israel loses leverage for getting something in exchange for basically accepting 1967 borders.

3. Encourages the PA--as has now happened--to demand Israel accepts 1967 borders before negotiating.

4. Would rule out the Jordan Valley security zone he wants.

5. Palestinians don't have to accept an end of conflict, no right of return, or Israel as a Jewish state in exchange for getting a big thing they want. In short, Israel is being pressed toward a concession. What is the PA pressed to do? To talk with Israel and thus get a big concession!

6. In discussing swaps, Obama didn't mention settlement blocs so he has dropped assurances to Israel that it would get specific pieces of land it wants.

7. And of course he cannot be depended upon to back Israel on its needs but he can be depended on to demand more Israeli concessions.

8. The regional situation is very dangerous and it is not a time to be turning over territory to an unstable, hostile entity.
--

*Note: In football (soccer), A player committing a very bad foul is given a red card by the referee, which means he’s thrown out of the game.

Obama Speech: Not Intended To Bash Israel But Did So Anyway

A version of this article was published in the Jerusalem Post. I own the article and all links should be to this address. This version also has important additions so I ask that you read it here and if you forward or link please do so to this version.

By Barry Rubin

Only twenty percent of Obama’s Middle East speech dealt with Israel-Palestinian issues and that only at the end. Clearly, this was not the main theme. Obama had to say something on this subject and never intended for that to make all the headlines.

I believe the speech was not intended to bash Israel at all. The fact that the speech came off that way tells us a lot about Obama and his policy. Indeed, there are several items no doubt perceived by the White House as gestures that would make Israel happy:

--First, his tough line opposing the Palestinian Authority’s effort to get unilateral recognition of a state from the UN General Assembly:

“For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state.”

--Second, downplaying the linkage idea:

“For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region…. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.”

A “shadow” that “impedes,” but not the central issue or cause of all the region’s problems.

--Third, his acknowledging that the United States cannot make peace and isn’t going to try to impose a settlement or propose a detailed plan. He’s simply urging the two parties to act.

“What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.”

Get it? This isn’t a blueprint for producing a deal within a year, or preparation for pressuring Israel. All the United States can do is…say stuff.

--Fourth, he takes a tougher line on the Fatah-Hamas agreement as raising, “Profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.”

--Fifth, he says a Palestinian state must be “non-militarized” which has been an Israeli demand.

Why then did he so upset Israel and its supporters? Look at this remarkable sentence:

“Yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks.”

I believe this is the first time he’s ever acknowledged that the Palestinians refused to talk, though this has been obvious for two years. But by not mentioning that at his request Israel made an unprecedented freeze and then at his demand added Jerusalem to that freeze, Obama shows that he will not appreciate or reward Israeli concessions.

So while trying to be even-handed he’s signaling to Israel that it will gain nothing by doing what he asks.

Then there’s Obama’s patronizing attitude that he knows better what Israel needs than do Israelis or Israeli leaders. He says “permanent occupation” does not benefit Israel. Well, it’s not the best outcome but there are worse ones, something Obama and his colleagues (and the mass media) never understand.

It’s not enough to keep repeating the status quo is untenable. One must provide a convincing vision of a better status quo. And in that Obama, the Europeans and certainly the Palestinians fail totally.

They ignore the problems Israel would face in a real-world two-state solution under current conditions: cross-border raids, incitement, new demands, a possible Hamas takeover, or a Palestinian state reneging on commitments.

At the very moment Egyptians want to abrogate their peace treaty, Obama urges Israel to sign another one. Israel made a deal with Lebanon’s government, that country’s president was assassinated, and the deal broken. Israel withdrew from south Lebanon, and was attacked by Hizballah. Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip and Hamas attacked. Israel turned over land to the PA then faced terrorist attacks from it.

Yet Obama proposes doing the same thing again! He suggests Israel turns over the rest of the West Bank to the PA (a big and irreversible Israeli material concession) in exchange for security guarantees (an easily withdrawn Palestinian concession on paper). He has no interest in how this sounds in a context of Israeli experience. Still, it is only an idea, not a demand. Nothing is going to happen and the Obama Administration isn't going push for this plan.

But where Obama is doing real harm is not in some theoretical plan that won't be implemented but in his acceptance, in practice, of a Fatah-Hamas government. That the United States would accept the entry into government of an openly antisemitic, genocidal group that openly calls for Israel's destruction without even cutting off all U.S. aid immediately is a betrayal of Israel and all the concessions it has made as part of the "peace process" since 1993.

The whole idea was that the West would help a Palestinian regime that recognized Israel and rejected the use of terrorism. Whatever one can say about Fatah, there is no question that Hamas has failed to meet this test and will not change its approach.

Since President Obama won't even try to use his influence to keep Hamas out of government, he cannot be relied on for anything.

Now we come to the big controversy which, in light of all the above, is a relatively minor problem. Obama said:

"I believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

All this says is that Israel must agree to any proposed borders or they won't be drawn. Obama does not imply how big the changes might be and this doesn't rule out Israel incorporating settlement blocs, as the Obama administration promised to do in October 2009. Far from demanding that Israel return to the 1967 borders, that sentence really leaves the issue open.

The Associated Press report on the speech said:

"President Barack Obama on Thursday endorsed a key Palestinian demand for the borders of its future state. Obama's urging that a Palestinian state be based on the 1967 lines was a significant shift in the U.S. approach."

But that's flatly untrue! The Palestinian demand is precisely the 1967 borders with no changes. Obama endorsed changes. And said Israel must agree to the borders. And it is not a shift, much less a significant shift, in U.S. policy! It is pretty shocking that both sides in the debate can't even comprehend accurately a single sentence spoken by Obama.

Want proof? Here's, for example, the November 2009 State Department statement that pleased Israel:

"We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."

So Obama said nothing new in his one sentence on borders.

I don’t believe that Obama “hates” Israel. I think he has zero comprehension of Israel and isn’t interested in learning more. In addition, he has zero warm feelings toward the country. Thus, he is callously indifferent to its problems, needs, and interests. Obama has given Israel ample reason to mistrust him, and that is why the "borders" sentence has become such a big deal.

But the big problem is his failure to recognize the threat of revolutionary Islamism to Israel and others; his deliberate blindness toward the radicalism that still dominates Palestinian politics, ignorance about what Turkey’s Islamist regime is doing, and weakness toward America’s enemies. These all injure Israel indirectly, as well as America’s Arab allies and also the Iranian and Turkish people.

So, yes, Obama’s policy is disastrous but not because he is attacking Israel directly or abandoning the traditional relationship. It’s a catastrophe because his policy hurts all of America’s allies, strengthens revolutionary Islamists, and throws away basic U.S. interests in the region.

Why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Will Speak to Congress

This article is published in PajamasMedia. The full text is provided here for your convenience.

By Barry Rubin

To try to turn American liberals and Democrats--and especially Jews--against Israel on the pretext that they are only opposing Israel's current government, there's an attempt to portray Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to make a major speech before Congress as a partisan appeal for Republican support against a Democratic president.

It isn't. It's an institutional appeal for congressional support against a partly unfriendly, partly uncomprehending, and partly ideologically stupified president.

While U.S.-Israel relations in terms of military aid and cooperation have remained good, there have been lots of political problems. The truth is that these problems have come amost totally from Washington not Jerusalem. I've been documenting this for more than two years.

The truth is also that Israelis across most of the political spectrum know that they cannot trust the Obama administration for help, support, and protection. On many occasions, it has helped Israel's enemy or to create dangerous situations. Do you really think that Israelis trust Obama to decide the terms of peace with the Palestinians when he and his White House colleagues simply don't understand the issues involved?

Incidentally, the same applies for most countries in Latin America, Central Europe, the southern Caucasus, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Arab states, India, and several Asian countries. And its becoming increasingly true in much of Western Europe, too.

In Congress, there are not only Republicans but a majority of Democrats whose instincts and knowledge of international affairs exceed those of the president. Among those people is the likely source of a Democratic revolt against the administration's mistaken policies. We've already seen that begin, especially on Israel-related issues. Now that's the bipartisan spirit in action!

So can Israel be blamed for not wanting to put its fate in Obama's hands? Come to think of it, given so many mistaken foreign policy positions, should the Democratic Party want to leave its fate and the country's fortunes in Obama's hands?

A Dysfunctional Foreign Policy Team: The Obama Administration's New Problem

Please be subscriber 17,550. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/



We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

In what is probably the most important sign of U.S.-Israel cooperation for this year, the U.S. government has finalized the sale of the advanced F-35 to Israel.

I repeatedly try to explain to people who believe that everything the Obama Administration does is conditioned by some anti-Israel ideology or that everything is bad that this is not so.
Understanding the difference between a rigid, nothing-ever-changes ideology-determined perception and understanding how things do change (even if it is done hypocritically for political gain) is one of the key factors in doing good political analysis.

Moreover, there's no country in the world where the make-up of the high-level bureaucracy is as important as it is in the United States. America has the most decentralized policymaking system of any democratic state. It matters very much who is the secretary of state, defense secretary, national security advisor, and intelligence chief because these are semi-independent entities which have their own institutional points of view. (I discuss this in historical detail in my book, Secrets of State.)

Of course, ultimately all must obey the president and follow his line. But they have a lot of latitude. And when there is a president who is weak or ignorant about international affairs, these people war over his ear, that is try to persuade him as to what he should do with some real effect.

So the resignation of National Security Advisor James Jones is an event of real significance. It's being portrayed as one of those routine end-of-two-years changes but in fact dissatisfaction with Jones has long been clear. Among other things, he has been accused of being rather unenergetic.

Despite his background as a former Marine general with 40 years in uniform, he emerged as one of the more extreme advocates of what might be called the Obama ideology in the foreign policy sector. On the Middle East, Jones was said to be the main supporter for the idea of trying to impose some U.S. devised solution on Israel and the Palestinians. He will not be missed. His replacement is top aide Tom Donilon.

The leftist Huffington Post says that Donilon would be a disaster as national security advisor. Wow, could he really be that good? Seriously, though, it claims Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Jones can’t stand him and that he used to work for FannieMae. Still, this organ--it calls Jones the president's "Iron Hand," which would provoke gales of laughter from anyone in DC who knows anything about what's been going on--is ticked off because it sees Jones as the "left-wing" of Obama advisers.

After all, these are the kind of people who think that making concessions to Syria and engaging that dictatorship doesn't have to be disrupted by "little" things like proof the Syrian military is training Hizballah to fire missiles at Israel.

The Atlantic agrees on how many people dislike Obama (well, they're all using the same gossip sources on this story after all) and adds that the military doesn’t like him either.

Donilon is a Democratic political operative with relatively little government (and even less foreign policy) experience. He is likely, then, to be a yes-man who will do whatever Obama says without having much of an independent view. This, of course, is precisely the trap presidents can fall into, made much worse if they don’t know much about international affairs.

Even worse (for the world if not for Obama) is that he is likely to look for partisan and electoral advantage in decisionmaking, something that is already a bigger problem in this administration then it was in most of its predecessors. This was clear in deciding what to do about Afghanistan and now in Israel-Palestinian issues.

This means two things:

First, Obama is even less likely to get independent advice, leading him into more mistakes.

Second, when top-level officials are debating options, Donilon, unlike Jones, won’t have some independent opinion he is pushing. The likelihood of a U.S. effort to impose a solution on the Israel-Palestinian conflict is thus reduced.

Having a top foreign policy team that is in heated antagonism plus a president who is ignorant on foreign affairs (sorry, but that's very true of Obama) is a formula for disaster.  Add to that the lack of any strong advisor who is a junior partner of the president as happened in the relationship between President Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor/Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

That doesn't mean it was a love fest before, where do you think the long delays and uncertainty over Afghanistan came from?

Instead, the secretary of state isn't trusted because she's a former (bitter) political rival, who has her own (more accurate and moderate) views. The secretary of defense is a holdover from the Bush Administration and is not trusted by the White House insiders. And now the national security advisor, while not holding actively silly views, is a yes-man.

Thus, Obama is more likely to come up with his own ideas to an even greater extent. Uh-oh!

Clinton and Gates are relatively good, especially compared to the likely alternatives. Up until now, there has been a debate in which Obama could choose some compromise view between them, on one hand, and Jones plus the more ideological White House staff, on the other. But what if Obama doesnt want to listen to the advice of Clinton and Gates, then operates through Donilon to put through his unadulterated first opinion? Imagine these people meeting to decide how to respond to a nuclear Iran, an aggressive Russia, some big foreign policy crisis.

Consider, for example, what's happening inside the war on...whatever it is. People who want to talk about radical Islamist ideology are treated as if they are extremist crazies and are lucky if they don't get fired. Meanwhile, huge amounts of money are poured into psychological explanations for terrorism or strategies for countering the revolutionaries that ignore all the real causes for their behavior. It would be hard to come up deliberately with a more self-defeating approach.

These are the people who will face the difficult tasks ahead? This does not bode well for the Obama Administration or for lots of others around the world.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Debating Obama Policy Doesn’t Require Screaming But Logic and Honest Discussion

Please be subscriber 16,912. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.


We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin

As I look at the occasional responses to the arguments I’m making by defenders of the Obama Administration, the arguments used to avoid thinking and talking about these issues seriously become increasingly apparent. They generally feature a refusal to discuss the substance of issues and put up instead a barrage of insults, characterizations, and non-logical or non-factual claims.

1. The right-wing argument. This says: you’re basically a right-wing person who is against a two-state solution and wants to do mean things to Arabs or Muslims. Therefore, we can ignore anything you say.

People who are conservative or right-wing have their own answers. For me, though, I need merely cite the following points. In American terms, I am not only a registered and life-long Democrat, but I worked for Democrats in both the Senate and House of Representatives; at one time worked at Democratic National Headquarters as a volunteer; worked on several presidential campaigns, was a consultant for a few Democratic senators, organized a Democratic group of foreign policy experts to prepare for the next presidency one of whose members (Madeleine Albright) became the secretary of state.

In Israel, I have always been active in the Labour Party or one of its offshoots, was an outspoken supporter of the Oslo effort, volunteered to teach courses for Palestinian institutions on the West Bank, was at the peace rally where Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was murdered in November 1995, and have backed a two-state solution—under the right conditions, of course--for about 20 years.

And, believe me, I have a lot of contacts with Arabs, Turks, Iranians, and Muslims whose worries about Obama's policies are just as intense as my own.

The Turks feel the U.S. government is supporting or being very soft on a regime that wants to crush their democracy and turn their society into something else. The Iranians worry that the U.S. government has been playing into the hands of the dictatorship in Tehran and not helping the democratic-oriented opposition. Some Arabs--especially Lebanese--think U.S. policy is delivering their country into the hands of Hizballah, Syria and Iran. Others feel it won't protect them from Iran and domestic Islamist revolutionaries.

I recite this—and I could go on longer—not in a defensive mode but to point out once again the theme that radicals have tried to take over the label of liberalism (or moderate left) and reinterpret it. A key tactic here is to fool the much larger, honest and well-intended public into believing that anyone who disagrees with this political line is a right-wing extremist (or pro-Israel or both, depending on the situation) and hence to be ignored.

There is a parallel attempt to do this to Israel and its supporters: anyone who favors Israel or at least a policy of self-defense and not making dangerous concessions is a right-winger unfit for civilized discourse and thus should be fought against.

It should be a liberal cause to oppose the establishment of radical Islamist regimes that destroy individual rights, create ruthless dictatorships, and oppress women and Christians, among many other things. Moreover, it is very much in the national interest of the United States and of the West—including any liberal interpretation of that interest—to oppose a region dominated by Iran and its allies, the overthrow of relatively moderate Arab regimes, the destruction of Israel, and a situation of increased violence and crisis that would result.

It should be a liberal cause to support a country that is not only democratic and with an open, liberal society but which is also a U.S. ally; a bulwark against aggressive and repressive forces; and a country which had made considerable sacrifices and taken a high risk to achieve peace.

And if you want a graphic picture of that last point, imagine standing at the corner of Dizengoff and King George Streets in Tel Aviv—two blocks from your home and where you do your shopping--looking at the mutilated bodies of Israelis from a terrorist attack carried out by Hamas yet cheered by Arafat, and still support withdrawals, the peace process, and a two-state solution.

2. The “they don’t love Obama” argument. It is no secret that for many people Obama has become an icon above criticism. Thus, if one criticizes Obama or his administration, one is an evil person (hints of racism and xenophobia might be inserted) and should be ignored.

As someone who makes a living by analyzing and critiquing policies, I cannot help but call them as I see them. (An American baseball expression meaning: say what I think.) But, you know what? It isn’t exactly a mystery that the Obama Administration is failing badly in foreign policy. Some might refuse to say so today but they will be admitting it—after suffering, losses, and destruction—in a few years.

After talking to officials and diplomats from country after country and reading many Middle Eastern public opinion polls, the critic finds that he is not alone. I only wish I could give you names and positions of people who talk like this, and repeat some of the anecdotes they have told. And I include career people in the U.S. government, too. In fact, take a look at the American public opinion polls for more proof.

Obama must face the same criterion and analysis, and be judged by the same standards, as his predecessors. Many lives and the freedom of whole countries depend on this.

3. The abandonment of logic: People have always tried to sell their arguments by being unfair, leaving out or distorting what the other side says. One of the main points of academic training is to work against that human tendency. If I make a mistake, or someone points out something I’ve missed, I adjust what I’m saying accordingly. People know, and often remark, that I have no consistent ideological or political line over time. That’s precisely what a scholar, journalist, or academic should do: go where the facts indicate.

What we see lately, however, is a much higher level of non-rational argument. Some attribute it to people being told to give feelings, rather than logic, the higher priority. What a disaster! I won’t take your time here to cite specific examples but I do so frequently. But here’s just one that should settle an issue:

Obama said Israelis were distrustful of him because of his middle name, that is, a Muslim name but also implying to many people the issue of racism.

How to disprove this in one sentence? Simple. The original Israeli reaction to Obama, as shown by polls, was very favorable. But he still had the same face and name. On a celebrity level (as evinced by the kids in my son’s school), there is still something like this going on. Yet the polls and attitudes have shifted sharply. Why? Because of what Obama and his colleagues have done and said.

Everyone knows the story of the emperor who had no clothes. But there are many arguments strutting around today that have no clothes. Here are some of them:

Moderate Hamas or Hizballah? Pull Syria away from Iran? Israel-Palestinian peace is within reach? Engage revolutionary Islamists and even support their getting into power? There’s no real problem with Turkey’s government? Keep apologizing and refusing to take real leadership and believe that you will still have credibility with your friends and be able to deter your foes?

All of these claims are easily refutable, which is why they are surrounded by a bodyguard of shutting up contrary facts and demonizing those who point out that these arguments are quite naked.

4. Israelis are stupid

I admit that when people say they are going to save Israel for its own good it makes me mad. Here are people, by and large, who don’t really know the country well (I realize there are exceptions), make the biggest mistakes in talking about it, and have an image based on fantasy or at least badly out of date.

One specific problem is that many people in the West have forgotten the events of 1993-2000, though Israelis haven’t. We tried a process in which money was poured into the Palestinian Authority, many concessions (mostly unilateral) were made by Israel, territory was handed over and the result was massive violence by the other side and a refusal to make peace.

So tell me, are you going to save this person? Y comes from a left-wing family—his father was a famous leader of the left—and grew up on a kibbutz. In 2001, I asked him how he voted: Usually for Meretz (a left-wing party) but sometimes for the Communists. And who are you voting for this time? I asked. He replied “Ariel Sharon. Only Sharon can save the situation.” I know many people like this. Others have voted for continued to vote for the Labour Party.

Two friends, both Labour supporters, said to me yesterday in separate conversations that on most of the real issues of the day the Labour party leadership—which is part of the coalition—agrees with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The debate in Israel has moved. There is no serious discussion about annexing large amounts of territory or holding onto the West Bank forever. Nobody is proposing taking back the Gaza Strip. Israelis overwhelmingly want a two-state solution that provides long-term peace and security. They are right in being suspicious about taking steps that endanger their lives and correct in reading the Palestinian side skeptically, while accurately understanding the Islamists' intentions.

We are not in the 1990s now, much less the 1970s. Today, Israel’s options are narrower: there is a partner for talks and shorter-term cooperation (the Palestinian Authority) but no partner for full peace. Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah are not amenable to diplomacy. Israeli leaders are very much aware that this country has parallel interests with most Arab governments and try to figure out how to make use of that fact. Yet the actual cooperation possible is limited. Revolutionary Islamism is advancing and the United States given its current policy isn’t exactly a bulwark battling against it. People here in Israel know we are in 2010; those outside may not fully understand what this means.

Three quick additional examples. First, if you don’t understand Palestinian politics and ideology, you cannot talk about the conflict. I have just read a generally excellent article by a veteran U.S. official admitting—contrary to his previous views--that there isn’t going to be any Israel-Palestinian peace in the near future and that the fault cannot all (or even mainly) be put on Israel. Yet in listing the factors why there isn’t going to be any two-state solution for a long time, it never comes to grips with the factor of Palestinian Authority intransigence and the inability of Palestinian institutions, ideology, and society so far to accept a two-state solution and cease believing they are somehow going to destroy Israel.

Second, a much-discussed and very critical article on Israel recently posited that Israeli society was seeing increasing political polarization between left and right along with growing battles between secular and religious, with religious extremism a major problem. This might describe some aspects of Israel in the 1980s but has little or no relevance to the present. The author purports to give advice but doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Third, someone saying he wants to save Israel despite itself cites an alleged pro-Obama poll in Israel. It is well-known in Israel that the poll was very critical of Obama but that a newspaper with an ideological agenda (deliberately?) misinterpreted it. Even the man who did the poll protested that was a distortion.

So people who don’t follow the issues, understand the debate, or know the country want to play with our lives. One of the scariest things about Obama on this issue is his repeated statement that Israelis really support him, not their own government. I won’t take the time to talk about respecting the functioning of a democratic state with an elected government but keep that point in mind also. (No, Hamas did not gain power in an election. It won an election, made a coalition deal, then launched a coup and killed several hundred people to create a dictatorship.) For Israelis, though, Obama's argument seems to be a rationale for ignoring Israel's government in future based on the idea that he not only has a superior understanding of the issues and Middle East (he doesn't) but also on the basis that Israelis want him to impose things on them (they don't).

If you want to know about other countries, listen to what people say. BUT don’t go on what they say necessarily when speaking to Western reporters but what they say among themselves or what leaders say to their own people. I have often cited Arab, Iranian, and Turkish, as well as Israeli, sources on these issues. And on Obama, they tell quite a different picture than what Americans think who believe that Obama is very popular and that’s what counts.

5. Ignore criticism rather than use it to adjust your policy and behavior

Indeed, the White House should pay attention to the points I and many others are making because there are real problems with its policy. Aluf Benn pointed this out in a New York Times op-ed some months ago but little seems to have changed, except on the basis of short-term needs. Of course, people are naturally defensive, don’t want to be criticized, and reject it. But after that phase—and more quietly—they should assess whether there is something wrong in what they are doing. (And, yes, Israel does this on a daily basis though it must also take into account other factors. But note, for example, the recent adjustment of policy toward Gaza.)

Consider, for example, the need to get a proper system for containing Iran when (yes, I did not say “if”) it gets nuclear weapons. It is clear that the White House does not understand what is going to be required. Isn't it rather important for them to rethink their strategy? The same applies to the acceptance of a repressive revolutionary Islamist dictatorship in the Gaza Strip, a client of Iran and an advocate of genocide on the Mediterranean Sea.

The lives of millions of people and the world's future hang in the balance. That deserves a rather clear-headed discussion on the issues.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.