By Barry Rubin
Prediction: One day some enterprising author or former intelligence officer is going to write a best-selling book about the hunt for Usama bin Ladin. Readers will be horrified to find how the Pakistani government and military sabotaged the effort to catch or kill the al-Qaida leadership.
Meanwhile, reading Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s December 10 interview with al-Jazira, it's striking how much she speaks in a totally American psychological and political context. Perhaps it is always like that with U.S. governments. But an administration claiming to be multi-cultural, open to the world, seeing the other side’s viewpoint, and criticizing its predecessors for insensitivity, still sounds like a bunch of naive Americans who don’t quite seem to grasp what other parts of the world are like.
What better example than Afghanistan and Pakistan, countries as different from the United States as you’re going to get. She states:
“We’ve admired the way Pakistan has pulled together to go after those elements of the Taliban that are directly threatening them. And I think that the people of Pakistan are so unified now in support of this military action”
Consider this bizarrely self-subverting first sentence. Isn’t it great, she says, that Pakistan is fighting those Taliban types who are trying to take over the country and kill them. Well, of course they are! Is it hard to understand that they don't want to be murdered and overthrown?
[A digression: What's truly amazing is that other people don't seem to notice stuff like this nowadays. The media keeps missing the essential points, whether it be in Clinton's reaction to Israel's construction freeze which set out a new U.S. policy or in her statement during the Spanish foreign minister's visit when she signalled the start of the sanctions' campaign.]
But the problem, of course, is that Pakistan isn’t going after those elements of the Taliban that are not "directly threatening" them. In fact, as most recently attested by a freed New York Times reporter who the Taliban had been holding hostage, Pakistani intelligence is helping the Taliban and other terrorists who want to kill Americans or Indians!
It is remarkable that the secretary of state can put the issue in such a backwards manner. Tens of thousands of American soldiers are about to be risked in Afghanistan, depending on Pakistan to guard the back door and stop terrorists who want to kill them. But in fact Pakistan will do the minimum possible, thus placing those troops and their mission at risk. Meanwhile, the administration sending them there is pretending the problem doesn’t even exist.
With all due respect, the idea of Pakistanis as “unified” and ready to be “pulled together” sounds like a rather out-of-touch way to describe an incredibly divided nation full of anti-Americanism, packed with many thousand radical Islamists, mired in corruption, hovering on the verge of anarchy, and where armed factions shoot at each other daily.
It is a country whose government just one year ago sponsored a massive terrorist attack on Mumbai and got away with it at no cost whatsoever, not even any international criticism!
As for Afghanistan, all the atmospherics make people miss the point that the administration sounds strikingly like that of the Bush presidency. After all, they both claim to be able to take another country, create a democratic system there, help build a responsible government, and ensure there's a strong military that will be able to defeat the terrorist forces.
The irony is that Bush had by far the better situation. First, Iraq is far more promising raw material than Afghanistan.. Second, Bush was willing to tough it out when things looked bad; Obama has already announced a short-term time limit publicly.* Third, Bush could depend on his main local allies--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Turkey--to oppose the enemy while Obama can't rely on Pakistan for anything in that regard.
If George W. Bush erred in seeing parts of the world as being ready for democracy when they definitely were not, Barack Obama, and the administration for which he sets the tone, seems to think of itself as a community organizer pulling together those who really do want to play nice. Even at the Copenhagen summit such tactics led to the diplomatic equivalent of a barroom brawl.
In public at least--and whatever differently they think in private doesn't manifest itself in their policy--this administration seems to believe in a fantasy Pakistan packaged like some slightly exotic version of a Hollywood film set or some idealized American image of everyone pitching in to raise money in order to save the farm.
This is the kind of thing people make fun of today when they describe how innocent Americans once thought about a country named Vietnam.
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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
*Yes, I know that he also said he would take into account conditions at the time of the deadline but he also implied he will pull out regardless and Obama doesn't seem like the type to fight a war against tough odds and domestic criticism, does he?
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Madness and Lessons of the Copenhagen Summit
By Barry Rubin
Does man-made global warming exist? There’s still room for debate, but that’s not what’s most important.
Is man-made global warming a leading problem facing humanity? Maybe, but a still higher level of proof is needed. That’s more important but not what's most important.
Is man-made global warming so obviously proven, so quickly increasing, so realistically solvable, and such an imminent threat that hundreds of billions of dollars should be spent to deal with it; the economies of all industrial countries should be reorganized completely; Western living standards pushed down; and Third World countries turned into welfare cases rather than helped and urged to develop, postponing even further their people’s hopes for a better life? Now that’s what is most important of all.
There is a disturbing hysteria over this issue in which people are intimidated and the most basic principles of science—that questions should remain subject to debate—are violated by both sides. Again, though, here’s the missing link that goes beyond the highly partisan, somewhat hysterical debate:
The truly critical issue is not just whether man-made global warming exists but whether this is such an imminent threat to human existence that absolutely nothing –no amount of money, no change of life style, no other threat--should stand in the way of making this the globe’s main priority and going to any lengths to combat it. Assuming it can be stopped.
It seems that a lot of scientists who believe that climate change is real also view this as a longer-term development, not something about to end the world as we know it. It is one thing to ridicule people who deny the existence of climate change but quite another to demonize those who ask if every other problem should be shoved aside, vast amounts of resources should be spent on this rather than to battle other scourges plaguing humanity, and still more obstacles should be added to the efforts of the world’s worst off people to have better lives.
There is tremendous irony here. If all the world’s states want to come together and do something drastic, tighten their belts and open their wallets, wouldn’t it be better to focus on poverty, hunger, disease, and improved education? The hidden factor, of course, is that the developed world’s leaders and elites have become convinced that their own survival is at stake. Thus, self-interest is disguised as noble altruism.
Yet isn’t this a new form of imperialism in which smug rich people congratulate themselves as wonderfully virtuous by telling poorer countries they cannot develop because it’s bad for the planet? Or perhaps, to salve their consciences, they will also pass out billions of dollars which dictators will put in their Swiss bank accounts.
To put it bluntly, after decades of failing to be moved by ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-schooled children, the West has been galvanized into action by concern over polar bears.
Once again—because there are many who will deliberately misunderstand and distort the argument being presented here--people can certainly argue that man-made global warming is real based on specific evidence. But how rational is it to say that unless the world is drastically changed as fast as possible and no matter what the cost that horrible disaster is going to ensue? This should be the real debate which brings together people whose views on the scientific issue may be the exact opposite to react in horror at these policy decisions.
Meanwhile, the Copenhagen summit is another landmark in the failure of the Obama conception of international affairs. We are now told that a great victory has been achieved: key countries say they will try to keep emissions below a certain level. Wow! And in a number of years we'll be able to say they failed unless, of course, a massive recession cripples their industry, wipes out jobs, and lowers living standards, in which case we can cheer because people may be starving but at least carbon dioxide emissions are lower than they might be.
This is pure speculation but worth considering: might not the outcome be that the U.S. government adheres to its promise at incredible cost while the other countries don't try very hard to keep to their quota? Might this mean that American costs of production go up even higher making U.S. products even less competitive in terms of price with those of other countries, meaning fewer jobs, less income, more inflation, and more foreign debt?
But didn't Obama in his speech stick to his plan? Yes, that's precisely the point.
By stoking up a situation that got so far out of hand--the hysterical plugging of the issue, raising expectations, signalling weakness, worshipping consensus, apologies, and all that--to the point that he had to pull back or go over a cliff, Obama intensified the level of conflict unnecessarily and looked very foolish. Indeed, he may have destroyed his much-vaunted popularity without making any gain in return.
In the most telling Freudian slip or example of Bushian fumblemouth of his presidency, Obama said that he was "on the precipice" of achieving health care reform. A "precipice" is defined by the dictionary as "a very steep or overhanging place::" or "a hazardous situation." The same applies to government spending, Iran's nuclear weapons' drive, and climate change. First, you are on the edge of the precipice; then you "achieve" falling a long way to be smashed by the rocks below.
Here's a short list of the fallen pillars of the Obama world view:
--The importance of popularity: Both Obama himself and his supporters regularly list his international popularity as the administration’s greatest achievement. But aside from the fact that this factor has little or no material benefit, it is also something that evaporates overnight. In a sense, popularity is a bad thing in international affairs because it indicates one is giving a great deal and getting relatively little in return. The moment the United States asks others to do something that love is all gone. Plus the fact that such things wear off with familiarity.
It is like the effervescent popularity of a child who gives away all his toys and expects to gain the permanent gratitude of the other kids. More likely, of course, they won’t come back and express their love but rather will demand more and be quite angry if they don’t get it.
--Rejecting leadership for consensus: In the 1960s, utopian concepts led people to say that meetings should have no organization, groups no discipline. Of course, it quickly became apparent that anarchy was the most common result. By shedding leadership, the Obama Administration won some quick popularity but there is a high price to be paid as bickering erupts and nothing actually gets done. The Copenhagen summit mess seems to offer a case study in this phenomenon. Other examples abound during the first year of the Obama presidency.
And so other countries can say to Obama: You want to know what we think? We think it's all your fault. Listen to us and do what we say or we'll hate you, criticize you, and perhaps attack you.
--Weakness and apology: The Copenhagen meeting has brought a barrage of insults leveled at Obama and the United States. Now, after showing so much humility, the United States gets to be insulted by Eritrea and Zimbabwe, Iran and Syria, Colombia, and lots of other countries.
If you act in a weak manner, announce you will not take tough measures, and apologize for having done so in the past, you are setting yourself up for being pushed around. Iran is acting like a schoolyard bully, kicking dirt in the face of a passive America government that accepts all insults with no reaction except repetitive statements which amount to frowns. Iran has violated promises, changed the terms of agreements, announced it secretly built a major nuclear facility, proclaimed it is going to build more (sources with access to non-public information tell me this has already happened), launch long-range missiles, thrown out a steady barrage of insults, stolen an election, repressed all opposition, and more. Never before in its history has an American government so proudly embraced being a pitiful, helpless giant. If the U.S. government doesn’t respect America how can it expect others to do so?
America has sinned by being rich and its intellectuals say the money has been stolen rather than gained through the ingenuity of capitalists, the innovations of scientists, the hard labor of workers, the risk-taking of small businesses, and the benefits of its economic and political system? Ok, so pay it all back and lots more. No matter how much you hand over you aren't doing them a favor since you've told them that they are entitled to receive it.
--The discounting of conflict: Rather than being due to misunderstandings, past American sins, or the personality of George W. Bush, conflict is structural and endemic. People and other countries do resent the United States because it is rich and powerful, rather than merely because Bush is president. Not everyone thinks alike; not everyone wants the same thing. Yes, millions of people throughout the Muslim-majority world want to live under radical Islamist dictatorships (at least until, as in Iran, they’ve actually experienced such regimes for a while). Nationalism is a powerful phenomenon in most of the world even though it has ceased to be so in much of the West. Ideologies, dreams of power, and revenge seethe in many places. Dictators and demagogues promote hatred; pocket the money; bring economies to stagnation; and blame the West.
Regarding climate change, a lot of countries want free money and no matter how much they get they'll want more. Obama has unleashed the self-proclaimed victims to pick America's pockets and they won't stop doing so just because he hands over a big roll of bills as a start.
--Who is at fault?: The main reason why poverty and oppression exists in so many parts of the world is not due to Western evil imperialism but to local political culture, lack of democracy, anti-pragmatic ideas, and dictatorships. Until this is thoroughly understood and beneficial change takes place within other societies, their situations won’t improve. What happened with all the massive financial aid provided over past decades?
Naturally, many would deny all of the above. But guess what? As long as they do so their actions will continue to fail visibly.
Not only all Americans should want their government and president to succeed, there are scores of countries full of people desperately hoping this will happen. Indeed. their survival depends on it. But Obama won’t succeed unless he changes his policies. He won’t change his policies unless he changes his thinking. And he won’t change his thinking unless he perceives the failure of his current actions and hears massive criticism. The last item on that list is our responsibility.
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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Does man-made global warming exist? There’s still room for debate, but that’s not what’s most important.
Is man-made global warming a leading problem facing humanity? Maybe, but a still higher level of proof is needed. That’s more important but not what's most important.
Is man-made global warming so obviously proven, so quickly increasing, so realistically solvable, and such an imminent threat that hundreds of billions of dollars should be spent to deal with it; the economies of all industrial countries should be reorganized completely; Western living standards pushed down; and Third World countries turned into welfare cases rather than helped and urged to develop, postponing even further their people’s hopes for a better life? Now that’s what is most important of all.
There is a disturbing hysteria over this issue in which people are intimidated and the most basic principles of science—that questions should remain subject to debate—are violated by both sides. Again, though, here’s the missing link that goes beyond the highly partisan, somewhat hysterical debate:
The truly critical issue is not just whether man-made global warming exists but whether this is such an imminent threat to human existence that absolutely nothing –no amount of money, no change of life style, no other threat--should stand in the way of making this the globe’s main priority and going to any lengths to combat it. Assuming it can be stopped.
It seems that a lot of scientists who believe that climate change is real also view this as a longer-term development, not something about to end the world as we know it. It is one thing to ridicule people who deny the existence of climate change but quite another to demonize those who ask if every other problem should be shoved aside, vast amounts of resources should be spent on this rather than to battle other scourges plaguing humanity, and still more obstacles should be added to the efforts of the world’s worst off people to have better lives.
There is tremendous irony here. If all the world’s states want to come together and do something drastic, tighten their belts and open their wallets, wouldn’t it be better to focus on poverty, hunger, disease, and improved education? The hidden factor, of course, is that the developed world’s leaders and elites have become convinced that their own survival is at stake. Thus, self-interest is disguised as noble altruism.
Yet isn’t this a new form of imperialism in which smug rich people congratulate themselves as wonderfully virtuous by telling poorer countries they cannot develop because it’s bad for the planet? Or perhaps, to salve their consciences, they will also pass out billions of dollars which dictators will put in their Swiss bank accounts.
To put it bluntly, after decades of failing to be moved by ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-schooled children, the West has been galvanized into action by concern over polar bears.
Once again—because there are many who will deliberately misunderstand and distort the argument being presented here--people can certainly argue that man-made global warming is real based on specific evidence. But how rational is it to say that unless the world is drastically changed as fast as possible and no matter what the cost that horrible disaster is going to ensue? This should be the real debate which brings together people whose views on the scientific issue may be the exact opposite to react in horror at these policy decisions.
Meanwhile, the Copenhagen summit is another landmark in the failure of the Obama conception of international affairs. We are now told that a great victory has been achieved: key countries say they will try to keep emissions below a certain level. Wow! And in a number of years we'll be able to say they failed unless, of course, a massive recession cripples their industry, wipes out jobs, and lowers living standards, in which case we can cheer because people may be starving but at least carbon dioxide emissions are lower than they might be.
This is pure speculation but worth considering: might not the outcome be that the U.S. government adheres to its promise at incredible cost while the other countries don't try very hard to keep to their quota? Might this mean that American costs of production go up even higher making U.S. products even less competitive in terms of price with those of other countries, meaning fewer jobs, less income, more inflation, and more foreign debt?
But didn't Obama in his speech stick to his plan? Yes, that's precisely the point.
By stoking up a situation that got so far out of hand--the hysterical plugging of the issue, raising expectations, signalling weakness, worshipping consensus, apologies, and all that--to the point that he had to pull back or go over a cliff, Obama intensified the level of conflict unnecessarily and looked very foolish. Indeed, he may have destroyed his much-vaunted popularity without making any gain in return.
In the most telling Freudian slip or example of Bushian fumblemouth of his presidency, Obama said that he was "on the precipice" of achieving health care reform. A "precipice" is defined by the dictionary as "a very steep or overhanging place::" or "a hazardous situation." The same applies to government spending, Iran's nuclear weapons' drive, and climate change. First, you are on the edge of the precipice; then you "achieve" falling a long way to be smashed by the rocks below.
Here's a short list of the fallen pillars of the Obama world view:
--The importance of popularity: Both Obama himself and his supporters regularly list his international popularity as the administration’s greatest achievement. But aside from the fact that this factor has little or no material benefit, it is also something that evaporates overnight. In a sense, popularity is a bad thing in international affairs because it indicates one is giving a great deal and getting relatively little in return. The moment the United States asks others to do something that love is all gone. Plus the fact that such things wear off with familiarity.
It is like the effervescent popularity of a child who gives away all his toys and expects to gain the permanent gratitude of the other kids. More likely, of course, they won’t come back and express their love but rather will demand more and be quite angry if they don’t get it.
--Rejecting leadership for consensus: In the 1960s, utopian concepts led people to say that meetings should have no organization, groups no discipline. Of course, it quickly became apparent that anarchy was the most common result. By shedding leadership, the Obama Administration won some quick popularity but there is a high price to be paid as bickering erupts and nothing actually gets done. The Copenhagen summit mess seems to offer a case study in this phenomenon. Other examples abound during the first year of the Obama presidency.
And so other countries can say to Obama: You want to know what we think? We think it's all your fault. Listen to us and do what we say or we'll hate you, criticize you, and perhaps attack you.
--Weakness and apology: The Copenhagen meeting has brought a barrage of insults leveled at Obama and the United States. Now, after showing so much humility, the United States gets to be insulted by Eritrea and Zimbabwe, Iran and Syria, Colombia, and lots of other countries.
If you act in a weak manner, announce you will not take tough measures, and apologize for having done so in the past, you are setting yourself up for being pushed around. Iran is acting like a schoolyard bully, kicking dirt in the face of a passive America government that accepts all insults with no reaction except repetitive statements which amount to frowns. Iran has violated promises, changed the terms of agreements, announced it secretly built a major nuclear facility, proclaimed it is going to build more (sources with access to non-public information tell me this has already happened), launch long-range missiles, thrown out a steady barrage of insults, stolen an election, repressed all opposition, and more. Never before in its history has an American government so proudly embraced being a pitiful, helpless giant. If the U.S. government doesn’t respect America how can it expect others to do so?
America has sinned by being rich and its intellectuals say the money has been stolen rather than gained through the ingenuity of capitalists, the innovations of scientists, the hard labor of workers, the risk-taking of small businesses, and the benefits of its economic and political system? Ok, so pay it all back and lots more. No matter how much you hand over you aren't doing them a favor since you've told them that they are entitled to receive it.
--The discounting of conflict: Rather than being due to misunderstandings, past American sins, or the personality of George W. Bush, conflict is structural and endemic. People and other countries do resent the United States because it is rich and powerful, rather than merely because Bush is president. Not everyone thinks alike; not everyone wants the same thing. Yes, millions of people throughout the Muslim-majority world want to live under radical Islamist dictatorships (at least until, as in Iran, they’ve actually experienced such regimes for a while). Nationalism is a powerful phenomenon in most of the world even though it has ceased to be so in much of the West. Ideologies, dreams of power, and revenge seethe in many places. Dictators and demagogues promote hatred; pocket the money; bring economies to stagnation; and blame the West.
Regarding climate change, a lot of countries want free money and no matter how much they get they'll want more. Obama has unleashed the self-proclaimed victims to pick America's pockets and they won't stop doing so just because he hands over a big roll of bills as a start.
--Who is at fault?: The main reason why poverty and oppression exists in so many parts of the world is not due to Western evil imperialism but to local political culture, lack of democracy, anti-pragmatic ideas, and dictatorships. Until this is thoroughly understood and beneficial change takes place within other societies, their situations won’t improve. What happened with all the massive financial aid provided over past decades?
Naturally, many would deny all of the above. But guess what? As long as they do so their actions will continue to fail visibly.
Not only all Americans should want their government and president to succeed, there are scores of countries full of people desperately hoping this will happen. Indeed. their survival depends on it. But Obama won’t succeed unless he changes his policies. He won’t change his policies unless he changes his thinking. And he won’t change his thinking unless he perceives the failure of his current actions and hears massive criticism. The last item on that list is our responsibility.
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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
What's Really Going on in Palestinian Politics: Springtime for Abbas
[Thanks to those of you who have subscribed; please, to those of you who haven't yet done so]
By Barry Rubin
There’s a new trend worth noting in the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority (PA): a sense of satisfaction. While the Western media generally reflect the rather false-front public relations’ campaign waged by the PA—bitter, frustrated, victimized, and eager for peace—that’s not what’s really going on right now.
Mahmoud Abbas’s government has to weather some difficult politicking along the following lines:
--He has extended his own term in office indefinitely and cancelled January 2010 elections without receiving much criticism from within the PA. After all, Hamas won’t let any balloting happen in the Gaza Strip and who knows which side might win a fair vote?
--The PA has been rounding up Hamas activists and keeping security on the West Bank while—with a lot of help and some pressure from Israel—preventing cross-border attacks.
--The economy is doing well with relative prosperity on the West Bank, though this could collapse in hours if the PA let’s violence reappear.
--Abbas has contained intensive criticism from his colleagues about his being too “soft” in his dealings with President Barack Obama.
--He has worked out a way to refuse negotiations while blaming it on Israel.
--No matter what the PA does international media coverage, support from Europe, and a lack of criticism from the U.S. government seems assured.
There are plenty of things to be pleased about even though the peace process is dead, there’s no realistic prospect of a state, and Hamas looks set to govern the Gaza Strip forever.
The media angle is especially amusing. Abbas can reject Obama’s demand that negotiations resume without a single adjective of criticism while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is regularly said to be “defying” Obama because he only invoked a total freeze on non-Jerusalem construction. You can’t buy publicity like this.
But never overstate the importance of image. What’s really true—though often misunderstood in the West—is that a no war, no peace option suits the PA just fine right now. There is a question of whether hot-heads among Abbas’s colleagues, Hamas sabotage, or some accidental event will set off a new confrontation. Yet that doesn’t seem too likely in the short- to medium-run.
Finally, while Fatah and the PA can’t wean themselves—indeed, they aren’t even trying—from a basic strategy whose main goal is destroying Israel some day, that doesn’t mean they can’t get along with Israel on a current basis. Behind the scenes, things aren’t so bad.
Indeed, when Abbas speaks privately, he is likely to spend much of his time attacking Hamas and urging higher sanctions on Iran. He knows who his real enemies are, even if most Western observers take him at his (public and propagandistic) word.
By Barry Rubin
There’s a new trend worth noting in the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority (PA): a sense of satisfaction. While the Western media generally reflect the rather false-front public relations’ campaign waged by the PA—bitter, frustrated, victimized, and eager for peace—that’s not what’s really going on right now.
Mahmoud Abbas’s government has to weather some difficult politicking along the following lines:
--He has extended his own term in office indefinitely and cancelled January 2010 elections without receiving much criticism from within the PA. After all, Hamas won’t let any balloting happen in the Gaza Strip and who knows which side might win a fair vote?
--The PA has been rounding up Hamas activists and keeping security on the West Bank while—with a lot of help and some pressure from Israel—preventing cross-border attacks.
--The economy is doing well with relative prosperity on the West Bank, though this could collapse in hours if the PA let’s violence reappear.
--Abbas has contained intensive criticism from his colleagues about his being too “soft” in his dealings with President Barack Obama.
--He has worked out a way to refuse negotiations while blaming it on Israel.
--No matter what the PA does international media coverage, support from Europe, and a lack of criticism from the U.S. government seems assured.
There are plenty of things to be pleased about even though the peace process is dead, there’s no realistic prospect of a state, and Hamas looks set to govern the Gaza Strip forever.
The media angle is especially amusing. Abbas can reject Obama’s demand that negotiations resume without a single adjective of criticism while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is regularly said to be “defying” Obama because he only invoked a total freeze on non-Jerusalem construction. You can’t buy publicity like this.
But never overstate the importance of image. What’s really true—though often misunderstood in the West—is that a no war, no peace option suits the PA just fine right now. There is a question of whether hot-heads among Abbas’s colleagues, Hamas sabotage, or some accidental event will set off a new confrontation. Yet that doesn’t seem too likely in the short- to medium-run.
Finally, while Fatah and the PA can’t wean themselves—indeed, they aren’t even trying—from a basic strategy whose main goal is destroying Israel some day, that doesn’t mean they can’t get along with Israel on a current basis. Behind the scenes, things aren’t so bad.
Indeed, when Abbas speaks privately, he is likely to spend much of his time attacking Hamas and urging higher sanctions on Iran. He knows who his real enemies are, even if most Western observers take him at his (public and propagandistic) word.
Back on the air
This blog is back up after being taken down by Google briefly. I actually received a letter from Google when they returned it which said: Your blog is not in violation of our rules so we're deleting it. I want to thank all of you who wrote me and those who protested to Google.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The Palestinian Authority Sets its New Strategy: Tempts Obama Administration with Instant Peace if it Pressures Israel
Please subscribe for breaking stories and original analysis
By Barry Rubin
We now have Mahmoud Abbas’s answer regarding short-term Palestinian Authority (PA) strategy. He says that if Israel stops all construction now—in Jerusalem and the 3000 apartments being completed—and accepts in advance the 1967 borders and there will be peace within six months. This is the basic story we’ve been hearing since around 1988: one or more Israeli concessions and everyone will live happily ever after.
This is clearly bait being dangled for President Barack Obama, offering him an “easy” way out of his dilemma of not having any peace talks after almost a year in office: pressure Israel to give up more and you will look good, with plenty of photo opportunities of you presiding over Israel-PA talks.
Of course, what Abbas wants to do is to remove one of the main points of Israeli leverage, the borders to be agreed upon and the status of east Jerusalem. Moreover, is leaving out both the additional demands he will be demanding (all Palestinians who want to can go live in Israel) and all the Israeli demands he will be ignoring (recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, the end of the conflict and dropping all Palestinian claims, security guarantees, an unmilitarized Palestinian state, settling all refugees in Palestine).
In addition, of course, he can’t speak for about half the people and territory he claims to represent, that is, the Gaza Strip. And by not holding elections and unilaterally extending his term, Abbas leaves the door open for some future Palestinian leadership saying he had no legitimate mandate to negotiate and therefore any agreement he made isn’t binding.
Finally, he made one very big misstatement of fact, hoping—as usual—that the West pays no attention to what’s said in Arabic. He claims that the PA has stopped incitement against Israel, in terms of urging violence and rejecting Israel’s existence. While the PA is, of course, far better than Hamas on such matters, a very large dossier can be compiled on how that is a lie.
The question is what will the Obama Administration do? Is it going to press Israel for still more unilateral concessions so that the PA will come to talks and President Obama can claim a success? Will it try to get the PA to do something in terms of confidence-building measures or to talk without preconditions? Israel is certainly not going to accept the 1967 borders with absolutely no change before even talking with the PA (and probably not even as part of a peace agreement).
Indeed, it is now Obama administration policy that there need to be minor border modifications to accommodate the post-1967 changes on the ground. Moreover, Israel can say that if it stops all construction immediately, including in Jerusalem, the PA still won’t talk so what’s the point?
Incidentally, Abbas admitted that he never asked for an Israeli construction freeze before but is only doing so in the context of the Roadmap Plan. However, even after the Road Map, Abbas never made this a big issue until after Obama demanded the construction freeze. In objective terms, the president has no one to blame but himself for this mess, but of course he isn’t going to blame himself. He has to blame either Israel or the PA. Which will it be?
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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
By Barry Rubin
We now have Mahmoud Abbas’s answer regarding short-term Palestinian Authority (PA) strategy. He says that if Israel stops all construction now—in Jerusalem and the 3000 apartments being completed—and accepts in advance the 1967 borders and there will be peace within six months. This is the basic story we’ve been hearing since around 1988: one or more Israeli concessions and everyone will live happily ever after.
This is clearly bait being dangled for President Barack Obama, offering him an “easy” way out of his dilemma of not having any peace talks after almost a year in office: pressure Israel to give up more and you will look good, with plenty of photo opportunities of you presiding over Israel-PA talks.
Of course, what Abbas wants to do is to remove one of the main points of Israeli leverage, the borders to be agreed upon and the status of east Jerusalem. Moreover, is leaving out both the additional demands he will be demanding (all Palestinians who want to can go live in Israel) and all the Israeli demands he will be ignoring (recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, the end of the conflict and dropping all Palestinian claims, security guarantees, an unmilitarized Palestinian state, settling all refugees in Palestine).
In addition, of course, he can’t speak for about half the people and territory he claims to represent, that is, the Gaza Strip. And by not holding elections and unilaterally extending his term, Abbas leaves the door open for some future Palestinian leadership saying he had no legitimate mandate to negotiate and therefore any agreement he made isn’t binding.
Finally, he made one very big misstatement of fact, hoping—as usual—that the West pays no attention to what’s said in Arabic. He claims that the PA has stopped incitement against Israel, in terms of urging violence and rejecting Israel’s existence. While the PA is, of course, far better than Hamas on such matters, a very large dossier can be compiled on how that is a lie.
The question is what will the Obama Administration do? Is it going to press Israel for still more unilateral concessions so that the PA will come to talks and President Obama can claim a success? Will it try to get the PA to do something in terms of confidence-building measures or to talk without preconditions? Israel is certainly not going to accept the 1967 borders with absolutely no change before even talking with the PA (and probably not even as part of a peace agreement).
Indeed, it is now Obama administration policy that there need to be minor border modifications to accommodate the post-1967 changes on the ground. Moreover, Israel can say that if it stops all construction immediately, including in Jerusalem, the PA still won’t talk so what’s the point?
Incidentally, Abbas admitted that he never asked for an Israeli construction freeze before but is only doing so in the context of the Roadmap Plan. However, even after the Road Map, Abbas never made this a big issue until after Obama demanded the construction freeze. In objective terms, the president has no one to blame but himself for this mess, but of course he isn’t going to blame himself. He has to blame either Israel or the PA. Which will it be?
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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
