Did Israel `Apologize' to Turkey? Well, No, Not Exactly

By Barry Rubin

Israel apologizes to Turkey, reads every headline. That simply isn’t true in the sense it is taken to imply. To understand what happened one must examine the long negotiations on this issue.

The issue began when several ships were sent to break the Israeli sanctions on the Gaza Strip in May 2010. These sanctions were put on by Israel—Egypt, then under the government of President Husni Mubarak, had its own restrictions—against a radical Islamist regime in the Gaza Strip that openly rejected peace, used terrorism, and called for genocide against the Jews and the elimination of Israel.

This flotilla was not interested in helping the people of Gaza. It refused to land the cargoes in Israel and have them passed across the border after inspection. Rather, the goal was to help Hamas. A key role in the flotilla was played by the IHH, an Islamist group that has been involved in terrorism, backed by Turkey’s government.

These ships were intercepted by Israel’s navy and after warnings were seized. On all of the ships this happened without any injuries except on the Mavi Marmara, where radical jihadists with weapons had sworn to fight. They attacked the arriving soldiers, injured several, and took a couple of soldiers hostage. At that time the soldiers opened fire and several Turkish citizens were killed.

It is important to understand that the flotilla issue was not the cause of Israel-Turkish problems, which had begun long before. The real basis was the election of an Islamist government in Turkey. Discussions inside the Israeli government for years had known Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s hatred for Israel but did not want to be seen as responsible for any breakdown of relations.

During the talks, Erdogan made three demands:

--Israel must apologize completely.

--Such an apology implies a legal responsibility to pay reparations.

--Erdogan insisted that Israel drop the embargo against the Gaza Strip.

Israel rejected these demands and instead offered:

--To say it regretted the clash and the loss of life.  This is like saying: If I offended anyone I’m sorry.

--It offered to pay voluntarily, as a humanitarian gesture not as part of a guilty plea, the families of those killed.  

--Israel rejected any change on its policy toward the Gaza Strip.

Erdogan angrily rejected Israel’s offer.

Now, a compromise has been reached, apparently with some help from President Barack Obama. The agreement, which includes restoring normal bilateral relations, has been portrayed as some sort of Israeli surrender.

That is simply not true. The agreement is much closer to Israel’s position. There is no change on Israel’s strategic policy toward the Gaza Strip at all. While the word “apology” appears in Netanyahu’s statement, it is notably directed at the Turkish people, not the government and is of the sorry if your feelings were hurt variety.

Moreover, Israel denied that it killed the Turkish citizens intentionally, a situation quite different from what Erdogan wanted, and offered to pay humanitarian assistance to families.

Should Israel have expressed regret when it should instead receive an apology from the Turkish government for helping to send terrorists to create a confrontation? On purely moral grounds, no. Yet as I pointed out Israel did not abandon its long-standing position on the issue. It does not want an antagonism with the Turkish people nor one that will continue long after Erdogan and his regime are long out of office. Perhaps this was undertaken to make Obama happy and in exchange for U.S. benefits. But what has happened is far more complex than onlookers seem to be realizing.   

Perhaps these seeming word games and niceties are beyond the interest or comprehension of many people, but everyone involved directly on this issue knows exactly what is happening. Erdogan knows very well that this was not a Turkish victory—except in public relations-- though Israel won’t object to letting it be claimed as such.   

Israel acted to try to reduce the tension with Turkey but without any illusions that the Erdogan regime would now be friendly. Indeed, there were implications that Erdogan was breaking his commitment on the deal. Immediately afterward, he said that a legal case against Israeli officers for alleged responsibility in the death of the Turks would continue and he was not yet sending back his ambassador to Israel. This might be posturing for a few hours or a real deal-breaker. We will see.

But Israel has good reasons for making such a deal at this time. The longer-term one is the desire to reduce its number of conflicts, especially with a possible confrontation with Iran over nuclear weapons in future. But the more immediate issue was Syria. Indeed, with two exchanges of fire between Syrian and Israeli army forces in two days a military confrontation with the Syrian regime is possible. Since Turkey also opposes the regime an Israeli rapprochement with Turkey is going to deter the Assad regime. It will also let Israel better discover what's happening with Turkish policy and among the Syrian opposition groups that are mainly based in Turkey.

Obama’s role in this deal is not entirely clear. Did he put any pressure on Erdogan or Netanyahu? Did he promise either or both sides some benefits for making a deal? 

The danger is that this is the kind of arrangement that is all too common in the region. The media proclaim progress; the political leaders say what they want; but nothing changes in reality. One possibility is that Obama doesn’t understand (or doesn’t care) how deeply Erdogan’s anti-Israel feeling runs just as he doesn’t understand how deeply that is true for the Muslim Brotherhood.  

Still, this deal is clearly in U.S. interests since it supposedly heals a rift between two countries that are close allies to itself in Washington’s eyes. As I said above, let's see if this deal sticks or if there is any progress in fixing Israel-Turkey relations in the coming weeks.

Note: On the matter of Israel's conciliation with Turkey, two important articles have come out explaining the strategic reasons for this step, here in Haaretz and here in Yediot Aharnot.

This article is published on PJMedia.

-----------------------
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 32,249 (among about 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

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 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 Obama Visit: A Parable

By Barry Rubin

By Barry  Rubin

After some years, marked by tensions between them, the baron decided to pay an unexpected visit to the village. The people were very excited and turned out to give him a warm welcome. The mayor and the baron spoke of the eternal friendship between the castle and the village.

Everyone cheered, especially when the baron promised his help in defending the village from dangers prowling around its borders. The baron urged the village to make peace with those forces but said he understood if it couldn’t do so and confirmed his support for the village’s right of self-defense.

The people were pleased but the mayor remarked to the town clerk: “Funny he didn’t mention his ongoing role in creating the problem.”

Still, the visit of Baron Viktor Frankenstein could be considered a big success.

Of course, President Barack Obama did not fully create the new monstrous threats facing Israel as much as Frankenstein did his monster. But the president did a lot to nurture these problems to life or made them much worse by coddling Iran for most of his first term, taking a soft stance toward Syria, praising the Turkish regime despite its anti-Israel and even antisemitic activities, and encouraging or even supporting Islamists who took over Egypt and are seeking to take over Syria.

Make no mistake. Obama’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority did mark an important shift but only on part of his policy. He has given up on promoting the “peace process” as a high priority.

While publicly his administration blames Israel more, it also acknowledges that it cannot press Israel into taking high risks and making big concessions. The White House clearly knows that the PA is a large part of the problem, though it publicly remains silent on this point and doesn’t comprehend that the PA is almost all of the problem.

In practical terms, that means he understands that pushing on the peace process won’t work and trying to bully Israel will damage him in several ways. American public opinion and Congress, including most of the Democrats, are supportive of Israel. He has no interest in throwing away political capital that he needs for other things in order to pursue a goal that he knows cannot be attained.

The main international problem he needs to deal with is the Middle East itself, especially the two issues he focused on for his visit: Iran and Syria. Obama intends to spend 2013 negotiating—futilely—with Iran. While the strong sanctions against Tehran have damaged the economy they are unlikely to force it to stop the nuclear weapons’ drive.

As Iran gets closer to obtaining nuclear weapons, Israel’s government will increasingly consider an attack on Tehran’s facilities. Obama has spoken of all options being on the table and Israel’s right of self-defense. But assuming, which seems accurate, that Obama does not want to back an Israeli attack how is he going to restrain Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government? Obama needs Netanyahu’s cooperation in making a very tough decision and for that the president must have Israel feeling more secure and rewarded by the United States.

On the second issue, Syria, another country neighboring Israel is on the verge of a revolution that will bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power and even more extremist Salafists into having a powerful armed presence. While Obama still claims Syria will produce a democratic and moderate regime, that outcome seems increasingly unlikely.

What appears quite possible is that the weapons and training supplied with U.S. support will be turned against Israel. So how will Obama get Israel’s cooperation in trying to keep things quiet despite that new threat? This, too, requires him to be friendlier to Israel on bilateral issues.

There is also a third issue that parallels Syria and that is Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood is already in control and armed Salafist groups roam the Sinai Peninsula. If Egypt breaks the peace treaty, Israel will call on the United States to put pressure on Cairo, a demand that Obama wants to avoid. Here, too, he wants Israel to exercise restraint and once again this requires an Israel that feels the United States is defending its back.

This, then, is the paradox of Obama’s second-term policy toward the Middle East. He has abandoned his earlier effort to distance himself from Israel that he hoped would curry favor with Arabs and Muslims while, at the same time (he thought) advancing toward Israel-Palestinian peace. The strategy clearly didn’t work as Israel’s enemies showed themselves unready to compromise and not eager to pursue peace.

That step is a victory for Israel.

But Obama has not abandoned the pro-Islamist policy that has created a far more dangerous security situation for Israel and, in fact, made Arab-Israeli peace an even more distant dream.

In short, he is now offering to protect Israel more while, at the same time, he is the one who is doing just about the most to endanger Israel. Obama has strengthened the most extreme anti-Israel, anti-democratic, genocidal-oriented, and anti-American forces. His new foreign policy team includes the strongest advocates of this policy, men who are either blind or worse to the damage they are doing.

There will no doubt be a series of crises around this problem, especially regarding Egypt and Syria. During Obama’s second term, his bluffs will be called on Iran as well. And there is no shortage of other potential conflicts and ways in which U.S. interests will be seriously subverted.

Thus, Obama’s visit to Israel represents a real shift, a policy change. Yet Obama never talks about the ways in which his policy isn’t changing which are far more dangerous and important.    

And thus one day, Obama might have to declaim, as did Mary Shelley’s main character, Dr. Frankenstein:

“At these moments I wept bitterly, and wished that peace would revisit my mind….But that could not be. Remorse extinguished every hope. I had been the author of unalterable evils; and I lived in daily fear, lest the monster whom I had created should perpetrate some new wickedness.”   

This article is published on PJMedia.


-----------------------
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 32,186 (among about 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

  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 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.

As Obama Continues Visit, His Themes Are Confirmed

By Barry Rubin

As President Barack Obama continued his visit to Israel the themes remained the same as the ones I covered here. The two main public events were a speech by Obama to Israeli university students and a joint press conference with Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas.

In his speech, Obama spoke at great length about Israel’s history, concerns, and related matters to try to show that he “gets it” when it comes to Israel. The basic phrases were in many cases similar to those used by previous presidents. The intention was to show warm sympathy and support for Israel.

But there were three things strange about the point of the speech, showing that Obama was completely out of touch with contemporary sentiments and thus showing that in many ways he doesn’t get it. These points are:

First, Obama’s big theme is that, and I’m not being satirical here, peace is good. He tried to make the students understand that peace is better than continued conflict and has many advantages. Yet all the students in the audience probably knew everything he was saying. Of course they think peace is good. They are the ones who have to serve in the military and risk their lives, not to mention know that they and their loved ones are the targets of terrorism and war.

Can Obama possibly not comprehend all of this? No, I believe he doesn’t. He seriously thought that he was bringing new ideas to his audience that they had never thought about before nor heard about for years.

Second, he did not deal with a single one of what I call “the day after” issues. In other words, assume that there is a peace agreement between Israel and the PA. Well, how do we know Hamas won’t take over the PA or more radical forces will come to power that will not recognize the deal?

--What is a deal with the PA worth when it won’t include the Gaza Strip, where Hamas would redouble its efforts to attack Israel and work hard to undermine any such agreement?

--What reason is there to believe that there won’t be cross-border terrorism across the new international frontier and the government of Palestine doesn’t do anything about it?

--What about the likelihood of the Palestine government inviting in the armies of other countries or at least getting advanced weapons from them?

--How is Israel going to deal with the PA’s passionately held demand that millions of Palestinians be allowed to come and live in Israel?

--Why should Israel believe in any guarantees and assurances from the United States and Europe when such promises have been repeatedly broken, including ones made by Obama himself?

These are only some of the questions Israelis have about what a peace would look like and whether a formal agreement would really be better than the status quo. This is especially true with the 30-year-old peace Egypt-Israel peace treaty possibly under dire threat. For Obama, none of these problems exist.  To his mind, you get a peace agreement on paper and that’s the end of the problem.

Third, Obama has not made one serious mention of the changed regional situation except to say that the United States wants democracy in the Arabic-speaking world and will try to work for that and Egypt’s continued adherence to its peace treaty with Israel. Yet he is still backing Islamists seeking or holding power.

To cite only one example, Obama has supported the new head of the Syrian opposition—apparently against real resistance in the opposition—despite the fact that this man, Ghassan Hitto, has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood,  Hamas, and support for terrorism against Israel.

Other than wishful thinking, how does Obama think that Israel can make new big concessions and take risks in the face of radical Islamist regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, the Gaza Strip, Turkey, Lebanon, Iran, and Syria? This is especially true when none of these regimes--except for Iran and to some extent the Hamas regime in Gaza—is strongly opposed by the current U.S. government?

So there is a disconnect between Obama’s new policy on the peace process which fits with Israeli interest despite is criticism, and a regional policy that is a big headache for Israel.

The other development was Obama’s visit to Ramallah. There he gave a message to the PA leadership that also preached the benefits of a two-state solution. He even referred to Israel as a Jewish state, which was a significant phrase.

In response, however, Abbas made it clear that he would only negotiate with Israel if certain preconditions were met, Including a new freeze on construction within existing Jewish settlements on the West Bank and also Israel providing its final proposal for where the border should be. Presumably, if Israel seeks to change the pre-1967 borders Abbas will not come to the negotiating table.

I wonder if Obama and his advisors noticed two things about Abbas’ statement and I think they did.

First, the last time Obama got Israel to do a freeze, Abbas did not negotiate seriously, leaving Obama looking foolish. Netanyahu cooperated; Abbas and the Arabic-speaking regimes didn’t. So why should Obama fall for the same trick twice?

Second, the situation is similar to what happened early in Obama’s first term when Abbas arrived in Washington and gave an interview to Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post making it clear that he was not interested in negotiating with Israel. Abbas has given several interviews recently in which he explicitly stated that now that the UN General Assembly has declared Palestine a “non-member state” he doesn’t need to negotiate with Israel.

In other words, Obama’s trip to Ramallah reinforced his view that the “peace process” is going nowhere and he cannot expect the PA to cooperate with any big effort by him to try to get talks going. So why should Obama bother to pressure Israel in trying to push ahead?

 -----------------------

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 32,186 (among about 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

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

 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 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.

This article is published in PJMedia.

Obama Visit to Israel: A Love Fest with Lots of Policy Complications

note: Don't miss the PS at the end.

By Barry Rubin

The Obama visit to Israel has become an unlimited love fest with expressions of mutual admiration and total agreement. In his joint press conference with Obama, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the foremost issue they were discussing was “Iran's relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

Netanyahu put forward his position by praising Obama for saying he was determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons using “determined diplomacy and strong sanctions.”

But, Netanyahu continued, despite all the great things Obama had done Iran’s nuclear program continued and said, “And as you know, my view is that in order to stop Iran's nuclear programs peacefully, diplomacy and sanctions must be augmented by clear and credible threat of military action.”

Netanyahu thus tried to build on Obama’s previous statements to thank Obama “for always making clear that Israel must be able to defend itself by itself against any threat.” In other words, he suggested implicitly that supporting an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities was a logical outgrowth of Obama’s policies, an idea that Obama does not share.

Whether right or not, Netanyahu suggested that there was only about a year before Iran got to the verge of the ability to have weapons. Thus, he is putting a time limit on how long diplomacy and sanctions can be tried.

He also subtly asserted Israel’s need for independent action: “I know that you appreciate that Israel can never cede the right to defend ourselves to others, even to the greatest of our friends, and Israel has no better friend than the United States of America.”

Regarding Syria, Netanyahu noted that this, too, was discussed and that both countries want to see a stable and peaceful Syria.  In addition, the weapons in Syria should not fall into the hands of terrorists.

The problem, of course, is that Obama is supporting a Syrian regime that would be Islamist and under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, a sworn enemy of Israel. Moreover, since the United States is practically handing out weapons to terrorists it is hard to imagine that these arms have not already fallen into the wrong hands.

Netanyahu concluded: “And I have no doubt that the best way to do that is to work closely with the United States and other countries in the region to address this challenge, and that is what we intend to do.” In other words, Israel will try to get U.S. policy to be careful and await the day it will come to its senses when it sees the size of the problem Washington has helped create.

The third point of discussion was the “peace process.” Netanyahu assured Obama that he was fully committed to peace and to a two-state solution. He is ready to negotiate without preconditions and work toward a historic compromise.

Here, Netanyahu knows that the Palestinian leadership is neither ready to negotiate unconditionally or make any historic compromises beyond accepting the pre-1967 boundaries, though even then on demand that hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs be settled inside Israel’s borders.

In his response, Obama praised Israel’s “thriving democracy,” Israel’s unique security needs, his appreciation about the threat from Hamas, and his commitment to Israel’s security. He noted such things as military and intelligence cooperation, joint exercises and training, and security assistance and advanced technology.

Almost openly making an appeal for domestic support, Obama stated:

“In short -- and I don't think is just my opinion; I think, Bibi, you would share this -- America's support for Israel's security is unprecedented, and the alliance between our nations has never been stronger.”

In other words, so Mr. Prime Minister don’t you think that I’m the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House? Netanyahu wasn’t going to say “no.” His answer later in the press conference, though, was on his own terms:

“I appreciate the fact that the president has reaffirmed, more than any other president, Israel's right and duty to defend itself, by itself, against any threat. We just heard those important words now. And I think that sums up our -- I would say, our common view.”

In other words, yes, Obama has laid the basis for Israel saying that he is willing to support it in defending itself even if that requires an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. I don’t think Netanyahu believes that but he has to try that gambit.

Then Obama made an extraordinary statement:

“I think that what Bibi alluded to, which is absolutely correct, is each country has to make its own decisions when it comes to the awesome decision to engage in any kind of military action. And Israel is differently situated than the United States, and I would not expect that the prime minister would make a decision about his country's security and defer that to any other country, any more than the United States would defer our decisions about what was important for our national security.”

What Obama just said publicly is that if Netanyahu decided that Israel’s defense required an attack on Iran, the president would not expect the prime minister to be deterred by U.S. opposition. Did Obama mean that? It is hard to believe that he did, yet what no Israeli leader is going to miss that seeming “green light.”

Obama announced continued military assistance to Israel, continued funding for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system, and other unspecified help.

Naturally, Obama continued, any two-state solution must leave Israel secure alongside a sovereign and independent Palestinian state.

One statement that probably left Israeli officials amused was when Obama said:

“I'd note that last year was a milestone, the first year in four decades when not a single Israeli citizen lost their life because of terrorism emanating from the West Bank. It's a reminder that Israel has a profound interest in a strong and effective Palestinian Authority.”

They know how much the Palestinian Authority has done to promote violence, how weak and ineffective it is, and how much its survival is due to Israel’s protection.

Turning to regional issues, Obama said:

“As the United States supports the Egyptian people in their historic transition to democracy, we continue to underscore the necessity of Egypt contributing to regional security, preventing Hamas from rearming and upholding its peace treaty with Israel.”

Obama barely mentioned getting Egypt to maintain its peace treaty with Israel, a vital issue. Pushing Egypt to prevent Hamas from getting more weapons—a commitment under the last ceasefire between Israel and Hamas—has been an achievement for Obama. But much of the success is due to the recklessness of Hamas in going too far in supporting radical Egyptian Salafist groups that are attacking the Brotherhood regime.

He also mentioned support for Israel’s concern regarding Syria’s transfer of advanced weapons to Hizballah “that might be used against Israel” and efforts regarding Iran. Obama said what has been the standard U.S. position:

“We do not have a policy of containment when it comes to a nuclear Iran. Our policy is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” adding again that “all options are on the table. We will do what is necessary to prevent Iran from getting the world's worst weapons.”

But what does this mean? If negotiations fail and sanctions do not intimidate Iran, that leaves either an attack or accepting that Iran gets nuclear weapons, that is, containment. There are no other options, unless Tehran decides to give up or just to have the ability to build nuclear weapons but don’t actually do so. That wishful thinking—it could happen but it is less likely—is the only thing that could get Obama out of his dilemma.

Obama spoke at length about how it isn’t yet clear what the Syrian regime has done regarding chemical weapons. He defended his administration as having been actively involved in trying to get rid of Assad.

He did not address the likelihood that U.S. policy is helping to produce a new Syrian regime that will be a radical Islamist government extremely hostile to Israel.

Another interesting point raised by Obama is his acknowledgement that “what was already a pretty tough neighborhood has gotten tougher” and Israel could expect U.S. support not only because of Israel but due to U.S. interests. Obviously, if the neighborhood has gotten tougher it is due to U.S. policies toward Islamists coming to power.

Yet, again, Obama does not link this situation to his own behavior. So does he really understand the implications of what he’s saying or does he still feel it is the time for Israel to make risky concessions toward the Arabs? Perhaps Obama now does understand that, another factor in making the “peace process” a mere rhetorical flourish rather than a serious policy option.

Obama then spoke at length about why the “peace process” wasn’t advancing. And Obama added accurately—obviously reflecting internal discussions that have been going on in the U.S. government:

“And I purposely did not want to come here and make some big announcement that might not match up with what the realities and possibilities on the ground are.”

Obama had thus gone to a point where an American reporter could ask, very politely, whether the president might not have worked very effectively on the issue in his first term. He then rewrote history to say that he merely promised to work on a solution during his first term. He even blamed the press for exaggerating his emphasis on the issue. It was that blatant.

Yet he added:

“But ultimately, this is a really hard problem. It's been lingering for over six decades. And the parties involved have, you know, some profound interests that you can't spin, you can't smooth over. And it is a hard slog to work through all of these issues”

In other words, although he will never say so openly, he was wrong in thinking the problem could be solved easily and he now knows better. To listen to Obama you get the impression that he expects no progress in his second term either. In fact he reduced expectations pretty low:

“And -- and -- and my goal here is just to make sure that the United States is a positive force in trying to create those opportunities as frequently as possible….”

So this is Middle East policy in Obama’s second-term: downplaying Israel-Palestinian issues, pushing for a new regime in Syria while disregarding the real dangers of producing a monster there, and trying to convince Israel from not attacking Iran by insisting that all options are on the table although his bluff will be called at some point.

On bilateral relations, this represents a gain for Israel but it is still stuck in dealing with radical Arab regimes which U.S. policy is not going to confront and which it even sees as friendly. Moreover, for the next year Israel will enjoy firm American rhetoric on Iran but what if things come to a crunch? Obama’s hints and pledges could collapse like a house of cards once Tehran approaches a nuclear weapons’ arsenal.

Also, Obama now faces the situation of previous American presidents, a dilemma that he has long ridiculed. The Saudis and Jordanians, along with some other countries, don't care but the Iranian, Turkish, and a number of Arab regimes (including the Palestinian Authority) are going to be outraged by what Obama did and said. The Islamists will see this as a declaration of war, though of course they already viewed themselves as in a state of war with America. The Cairo speech will be spit upon; all the efforts to distance himself from Israel and create a new orientation for U.S. policy have failed.

Obama is now--on matters directly regarding Israel--a typical American president. The idea that Obama made policy out of raw hatred against Israel should be put to rest.

Nevertheless, the incompetence and the deluded strategy toward Islamists still remain, as does the dangerous situation for U.S. interests that Obama has helped create. Fireworks will no doubt take place during Obama's second term.

PS:  Palestinian anti-Obama demonstrations showed the "gratitude" amassed for Obama's previous support by branding him as a Zionist, imperialist running dog. But one detail drew my close attention. The demonstrators sang a song called "America is the head of the snake." That's the song that then PLO leader Yasir Arafat led in singing at the Palestine National Council meeting almost 45 years ago. In other words, after 45 years of effort and especially the last 23 years in which America tried to help create a Palestinian Arab state, it has made zero progress toward winning Palestinian support or recognition of America's aid and efforts. The same story, of course, will be reproduced regarding Obama's efforts to show his respect for Islam and his empathy for Islamism.

This article is published on PJMedia.

-----------------------
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 32,186 (among about 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

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 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.

Obama's Middle East Visit as a Case Study in Media Manipulation

By Barry Rubin

When President Barack Obama arrived in Israel, March 20, for his visit he said it was "no accident" that he went there as his second term's' first overseas trip.

Question: Who was the first foreign leader Obama called when his first term began? Answer: Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. 

So is this juxtaposition also "no accident." I have written that this trip symbolizes Obama giving up the idea of pressuring Israel on the "peace process" issue and explained in detail why that is true. Everyone else seems to be predicting that Obama is being nice right now to lower the boom on Israel either during this trip or afterward. I haven't seen a single other article that agrees with my assessment. I stand by my assessment.

It is all the more amusing how one establishment writer portrayed my analysis. She made me into the spokesman for a large bloc and distorted the whole point. And that tells us a lot about how the Middle East and Obama's policies are distorted by the ruling establishment and misunderstood by the opposition.

Here's what Slate has to say about me:

"The anti-Obama peace-process skeptics can’t help but gloat. As Barry Rubin, a conservative, pro-Israel American pundit put it on his Facebook page: “I think we have just won a huge victory … Obama has admitted defeat on trying to bully, manipulate, or pressure Israel.'"

This is a very revealing sentence in several respects:

--First of all, the article was not on my Facebook page. On my Facebook page was a link to my article in PJMedia. Zacharia is not a friend on my Facebook page so she could not have seen the material quoted there. Consequently, she wrote it that way to avoid having to admit the existence of PJ Media and linking to that publication. By saying something was on my Facebook page--rather than on one of the biggest news/analysis sites on the Internet--I am to be made to sound like a basement-dwelling blogger.

--As I have said repeatedly and everyone knows me knows, I am not a "conservative." I have repeatedly said that I am a traditional liberal and explain this in detail in many articles as well as regularly in conversation. Zacharia's point here is to deny that anyone except conservatives can criticize Obama. This is to signal Slate readers that they should ignore what I say. It is ironic since one of my main points is the hijacking of liberalism by the left which then redefines liberalism in its own image. By the way, one reason it is necessary to appear in conservative publications is because the mass media has closed out--except in very limited ways--dissenting opinions about the Middle East.

--It is not true to say "skeptics can't help but gloat." I have seen about 15 articles written by real live conservatives that all took a totally different tack. They read what was important in the Obama statement as an anti-Israel theme, blaming Israel for the lack of peace. Others have predicted dire consequences for Israel from Obama's visit. As far as I know I'm the only person who has written up the event as a victory for Israel.

But you see the problem is stereotyped approaches. Zacharia and company are looking at things in terms of Obama always doing good. Conservatives tend to look at things as Obama always doing bad. What's rejected by Zacharia and her type is trying to figure out what's actually happening.

I think the typical analysis among both Obama's supporters and critics is to say what  Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the best writers on the region, told Haaretz: ""The Obama of the first term did not come to Israel and demanded a settlement freeze. The Obama of the second term is coming to Israel so he could be in the position to demand a settlement freeze in the future."

Some who say that like it; some who say that don't like it. But it seems to be what everyone but me is saying. Yet I believe Obama has learned something and I also believe that the Palestinian Authority and Arab states--many of which are now ruled by Islamists--will never give Obama an incentive to press Israel.

--The word "gloat" is intended to make the "liberal" readers of Slate angry and ignore what I said. Gloating is a nasty behavior, bragging, taking pleasure in others failures, etc. Change the words to read: gloating about the poor state of the U.S. economy, gloating about the mess in Egypt. The use of the word gloating cancels out the fact that someone was correct and that the writer was wrong. An attempt to understand an important issue has been turned into a ping-pong game. Rather than "gloating," I explained why Israel should talk about what a great president Obama is even though I retained freedom of action as an individual. I think that also accurately predicted what is happening on this trip.

--The word "American." Yes, I'm proud to be an America and to think the United States is a great and wonderful country, unlike many (most?) of those on the left. But I write largely from an Israeli perspective. By leaving that out the author then is saying: Not a perspective from Israel but just another domestic opponent of the president. Maybe she's a bit sensitive because she's in California, thousands of miles away from the scene and I am actually here. From what she writes I might as well be in California, too, getting my information from the New York Times or Los Angeles Times and not an hour away by car from the Gaza Strip (five minutes away by rocket, see below).

--By not mentioning my being Israeli, Zacharia redefines the "we" who has won a victory. I meant the "we" as Israeli interests. But by the way she wrote it (Zacharia teaches communications, remember) it would appear that the "we" are American conservative opponents of Obama! So suppose you like Israel but also like Obama. That turns my analysis from something you would regard as a good thing--good for Israel and Obama since he would avoid making a policy mistake--into a bad thing--some nasty, smirking person attacking your favorite political leader.

--And, of course, all the reasons I give for my analysis are left out. The statement must be made to seem like an argument of a bitter critic, not an analysis based on facts and long study.

--As for Zacharia, here's what I wrote about her here six months ago:

"The elite currently in power in the Western mass media will never comprehend the Middle East. There is a problem with bias, for sure, but the big issue is the impenetrable ignorance of the very people entrusted with explaining the region to others. They insist on imposing their own misconceptions on the situation while ignoring the evidence."

Yep, same thing as now.

"Consider Janine Zacharia. What a distinguished resume: Jerusalem bureau chief and Middle East correspondent for the Washington Post (2009-2011), chief diplomatic correspondent for Bloomberg News (2005-2009), and before that five years working for the Jerusalem Post in Washington, D.C., and another five years working for Reuters and other publications from Jerusalem. Right now she’s a visiting lecturer at Stanford University in communications.

"Surely, such a person must understand the region’s issues, and if anyone isn’t going to have an anti-Israel bias in the mass media it would be her. And she isn’t anti-Israel in a conscious, political sense. Indeed, she obviously views herself as sympathetic. Rather, her assumptions make her type of views inevitably anti-Israel and, more broadly, inevitably destructive of U.S. interests on other issues."

I think I tried to characterize her fairly rather than using a stereotype. But here's the best part:

''Here’s her article in Slate. The title is “Why Israel’s Gaza Campaign is Doomed.” Not why this response is the best of a set of difficult options; not why the world should support Israel; not why Hamas should be removed from power with international support but why Israel is wrong and stupid to fight. “Doomed” is a strong word."

You see! Again, no sense of context or what's really going on, just two teams playing a game and she knows which team she is on.

"The subhead — adapted from Zacharia’s text — is “Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to bomb Hamas militants will leave Israel more isolated, insecure, and alone.” Not the decision of Israel’s unanimous leadership including first and foremost its military and defense experts but that of a prime minister who now plays a role for the American media most closely approximated to that held by former President George W. Bush."

Now think about it. Six months ago she wrote an article saying that Israel was being defeated and was badly isolated. I wrote the opposite. I was right. Obama is in Israel saying nice things and not pressuring Israel. Nobody is pressuring Israel. And Israel isn't insecure, or at least to the extent that is true it is largely due to White House policies.

Oh, and this is rich. She concludes that the American media hate Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as much as Bush. True, but that's through the work of people like her.

So I was right; Zacharia and Obama were wrong (you can see all the quotes about how he was going to solve the conflict) but this point must either be concealed from the American readers or explained away so as to make them more firmly believe all the wrong ideas they have believed up to now.

It's a great teachable moment but another example about how the left-wing media refuses to teach.

This article is published on PJMedia.

-----------------------
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 32,186 (among about 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

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 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.