The UN Disaster is Obama's Fault -Jonathan Tobin
For many liberal pundits, the blame for the circus that will unfold this week at the UN with the start of a debate over Palestinian statehood is to be assigned to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu whom they wrongly claim has obstructed peace talks. Others are inclined, with more justice, to put the onus for the problem on Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas whose pursuit of UN recognition of statehood without first making peace with Israel is seen as both futile and counter-productive to the end that he claims to seek.
But the lion's share of the blame ought to fall on President Obama. Though peace talks were stalled when he took office in January 2009, the deterioration of a relatively stable standoff into the volatile situation that exists today is due in no small measure to the blunders that the president's team has committed over the past 32 months. Though friends of Israel will rightly give Obama credit for sticking to his word and vetoing the Palestinian resolution, the diplomatic disaster that is about to be played out is the fruit of his own misjudgments.
Obama was convinced the problem had more to do with his predecessor's closeness with Israel than the realities of Palestinian politics. So instead of waiting for the Palestinians to come to their senses, Obama plunged ahead with a new strategy that distanced the United States from Israel in a futile effort to entice its foes to come back to the negotiations that they had abandoned months earlier.
The president's decision to ask Israel to make unilateral concessions to bribe Abbas to talk as well as his inexplicable decision to pick fights with the newly elected Netanyahu over the status of Jerusalem only persuaded the Palestinians that they need only sit back and watch while America battered its Jewish ally. Rather than working on the Palestinians to take yes for an answer and accept a state that would recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state next door and conclusively end the conflict, Obama's actions encouraged Abbas to believe that he did not have to make concessions. Every demand from Obama on Israel was taken up by the Palestinians and put forward as a non-negotiable condition for the resumption of talks. Yet even when the Israelis gave in on some points and accepted a settlement freeze, the Palestinians still refused to negotiate.
Obama's determination to distance himself from Israel upset the precarious balance that made an accord at least a theoretical possibility. Though the Palestinians claim they are going to the UN because the peace process failed the truth is what they are doing is an effort to evade negotiations. Obama's weakening of Israel had the effect of undermining America's own diplomatic standing leaving the Palestinians thinking they could ignore Washington's interests. Their UN gambit is a crude maneuver aimed at clipping America's influence in the region.
[This] must be understood as a profound defeat for American diplomacy that was only made possible by the hubris of Barack Obama.
[Jewish World Review]
*
Tumult Prompts Worries in Washington -Steven Lee Myers
The bold vow by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to seek full membership at the UN amounted to a public rebuff of feverish American diplomacy.
"The region has come unglued," said Robert Malley, a senior analyst in Washington for the International Crisis Group. "And all the tools the United States has marshaled in the past are no longer as effective."
(New York Times)
*
Showdown at the United Nations -Lee Smith
The UN "is a perfect venue for making Israel look like David going up against Goliath," says Martin Kramer, the Wexler-Fromer fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.
While Middle Eastern and European media typically portray Israel as the bully, the optics at the UN, with virtually everyone lined up against the Jewish state, are going to be rather different. "The Europeans," says Kramer, "are going to be left feeling a little dirty for ganging up on Israel."
Some are wondering if the UN bid may at last provoke a Palestinian version of the Arab Spring. Doubtful, says Kramer. "If there was going to be a Palestinian Arab Spring, it would've happened already. But the Arab Spring has shown that the other Arabs are not all free with only the Palestinians waiting to be liberated. Rather, the Palestinians are arguably better off than lots of others around the region. What irks the Palestinian leadership is that it hasn't been in the spotlight for a while."
(Weekly Standard)
*
5 comments:
I will admit that it is possible that Obama's attempt at something different may have helped goad some Palestinian ideas by making it seem they did not have to act much. However, it is ridiculous to blame Obama for any of this. Nothing has changed---nothing has gotten worse or better. The UN ploy could have come under any administration. This particular ploy was not empowered by Obama and it has been made clear he would not let it pass. Admittedly Obama has not made the situation any better but while different it is also no worse. And whatever his methods and however wrongheaded, Obama will not allow Israel's security or sovereignty be damaged any more than any other administration has. Sadly America and Israel together have not moved these issues much as they cannot go it alone.
I have less faith in Obama than you do. I wonder: if the election were not so close, would he veto the UN resolution?
One of the reasons i will not consider voting for him is that i fear that he is an Arabist. In a second term, unchecked by an election, we could see some really far out MidEast policy ala James Zogby.
I can understand your concern and I cannot say what his internal motivations are but I believe he would veto the resolution and I have faith that the other branches of our government will stand firm in support of Israel, even if we elect someone with aspirations we did not know at the time. I still maintain that a supposed friendlier administration towards Israel, that of George W. Bush, did more harm to Israel's safety by destabilizing the region and empowering Iran than Obama has done in his wrongheaded approach to the Palestinian situation. With friends like that Israel does not need enemies.
It's interesting to imagine what would have been if Bush had gone after Iran instead of Iraq...or if Obama had called for regime change in Iran while the protests were hot.
One thing is for sure...the region will continue to surprise. Whether it's the Arab Spring, Winter, Fall or Summer, we can be sure of an interesting ride.
I hope some positive outcomes arise.
That could have proved effective and interesting. I think part of the formula is a look at how many are protesting and what change might be brought. It seemed like the protests were large this time around in Iran but that was not necessarily the viewpoint earlier in the decade. Once we had Iraq there was no way Obama was going into Iran. I think Iraq happened because they started with the invasion of Kuwait and then we saw they could not really stand up against our army. Iran was and still is an unknown quantity.
Post a Comment