Obama-Netanyahu must not be Kennedy-Khrushchev
Far rightwing Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is meeting Monday with President Barack Obama in Washington.
It is the most fateful encounter of two world leaders since Kennedy met Khrushchev. And Obama absolutely must not allow himself to be cowed or misunderstood as timid by Netanyahu, who is a notorious bully and warmonger. (Bill Clinton complained that Netanyahu when last prime minister thought that he was the superpower). If Obama can cow Netanyahu, his Middle East policy may have a chance. If Netanyahu comes away thinking he can thumb his nose at Washington, the whole Middle East could be in flames by the end of Obama's first term.
The two come to the encounter with starkly different agendas for the Middle East. Obama wants better relations with Iran (which he needs for a clean withdrawal from Iraq and for success in Afghanistan). And Obama wants to be the president who finally established a Palestinian state, implemented a two-state solution, and resolved the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict, which has generated so many wars and so much terrorism and instability. (As I have said before, the key problem in all this is Palestinian statelessness.)
Netanyahu on the other hand wants to attack Iran and attempt to destroy its nuclear enrichment research facilities. And he absolutely does not under any circumstances want a Palestinian state or to be forced to withdraw Israeli squatters from the Palestinian territories that they have been colonizing since 1967 (unlike most of Israel proper, the UN never awarded that territory to Israel, nor has it been recognized implicitly by international treaties, as Egypt's Camp David accords implicitly recognized 1949 Israeli borders.)
Obama, concerned that Israeli sabre-rattling might itself lead to hostilities, sent CIA head Leon Panetta to Israel recently to demand that the Netanyahu government tone down its belligerent rhetoric. Netanyahu maintains that Iran has vowed to destroy Israel, which is not correct. The Iranian government is hostile to Israel and wishes that the Zionist enterprise would collapse the way the Soviet Union or the shah's government did. But it has said that it would accept a two-state solution if that was what the Palestinians wanted. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never threatened to 'wipe Israel off the face of the map,' since there is not even such an idiom in Persian. He was talking about an ideological collapse of a Zionist regime and its occupation of Jerusalem, Islam's third holiest city. Iran has not launched an aggressive war possibly since Karim Khan Zand took Basra in the 1780s.
Netanyahu's plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities would fail, and would only cause Iran actually to seek nukes, which it is not presently doing according to US intelligence. I like Israelis, but they are understandably traumatized by all the things that have happened to them since the 1930s and have developed an unhealthy hysteria and tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. They were convinced that a US overthrow of Saddam Hussein would change the Middle East in their favor. It has not (Hizbullah in Lebanon has new friends in Baghdad, as does Tehran). Obama must impress on them that the answer to every problem is not a bombing raid. The good thing about having Rahm Emmanuel in the White House is that he will be able to phrase the instruction colorfully enough for it to be understood unambiguously.
An Israeli attack on Iran might well reactivate the Mahdi Army and Badr Corps as anti-American Shiite militias in Iraq- all hell could break loose in that country, leaving Obama's hopes for a withdrawal in tatters. And Iran has many clients in Afghanistan that could be mobilized against NATO-- in fact it could join an effort to keep military materiel from even getting to Afghanistan, leaving NATO forces vulnerable to being cut off and killed.
Netanyahu's talk of improving the economic lives of Palestinians instead of giving them a state is also nonsense. Statelessness prevents economic security and progress. And people aren't just motivated by material things. Palestinians want a concrete manifestation of their national identity, just as everyone else does.
Only a viable Palestinian state resolves this huge decades-long mess in the short to medium term. I think it may be too late but am willing to see what Obama has in mind.
Aljazeera English reports on the Obama-Netanyahu meeting from a pan-Arab point of view.
Aljazeera English also looks at the impact of the aftermath of the Gaza War on US-Israel relations.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/18/2009 12:05:00 AM
|
Facebook
9 Comments:
Glad to read your clear statement that Iran has NOT threatened to annihilate Israel. Too bad the AP does not read your blog, i.e., today AP says:
quote:
"Netanyahu regards Tehran as the greatest threat to Israel -- a fear magnified by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated references to Israel's annihilation."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/05/18/us/politics/AP-US-US-Israel.html
People forget that a Palestine state does not need Israel's approval. I would hazard a guess that this is the Obama plan, or else he would be held hostage to the Likudists.
The Palestenians can declare a state at any time. The legitimacy of that state comes from countries around the world officially recognizing it. It can then apply to be a member of the UN, obliging the UN to defend it against foriegn occupation.
The US and its axis have in the past made it clear that they would torpedo such a declaration. All what Obama needs to do is to signal that he would support, or at least not oppose an independent Palestinian State.
Well, I think your evaluation of Obama's intentions is at best absurd pollyanna-ism. And I think indications are that Obama intends to cower before Netanyahu, while seeking to prevail through sheer crushing force of arms against all 'enemies' of the US, meaning anyone who doesn't cower before the Empire (which in turn cowers before Israel's hardliners, bizarrely enough).
What is at stake is not whether the US 'wins'. What is at stake is how, and with what consequences for humanity. Will the crushing power of military/economic might always prevail? Must human society revert to a kind of global feudalism? Or will humanity finally realize that the bomb and the corporation are not the answers to all questions?
So I can agree with you on one thing. This meeting is likely to be the single most important summit we have seen. Obama MUST make it clear to Netanyahu that the direction of Israel's policy must be more humane, more fair, more open, more trusting, more peaceful. But he could take the lead on this by changing US policy towards Iran. He must stop relentlessly and viciously hyping fake threats. Yes, there are serious concerns. They do not mount to 'threats'. The main threat to world security is American/Israeli paranoia. Let Obama show Netanyahu how a leader lets go of paranoia.
So far, there is no sign he will do so. One must always hope, however. No time is the right time for despair.
Just thinking of things that didn't happen, I give Obama far more credit for there not having been another Israeli attack on Gaza than I give Bush for there not having been another 9-11. Preventing another Israel-Gaza very clearly required back-scenes arm-twisting and firm "No!!"s.
"It is the most fateful encounter of two world leaders since Kennedy met Khrushchev."
Netanyahu is no "world leader", like Khrushchev was. He is the leader of a small client state of the US, who is completely dependent on US money, US weapons and US political support. To "upgrade" Netanyahu to the level of a Secretary General of the Soviet Union, the only other superpower in the world during the Cold War, is highly misleading, and gives a completely false picture of the power relations between Israel and the USA.
The USA could force Israel to change its policies tomorrow, if it wishes do so; the problem is not so much that Israel's doesn't want to change them, but that to the US support for Israel - including support for Israel's policies towards the Palestinians - is deemed a strategist interest of such importance that the US simply refuses to force Israel to change it, beyond some cosmetic changes.
Netanyahu talks as if Israel is the superpower because Israel has been the superpower. No Washington official can be elected without the blessing of Israel.
However, Obama's super intellect may change the course of history by convincing the Zionists their course is suicidal-homicidal, as Seymour Hersh put it in his 1991 book "The Samson Option".
Hey Professor, don't suppose you've seen this one yet:
http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret
I do not disagree with your assessment, but I do think we need to look a little deeper.
First, the Israeli Agenda, extends (however tacitly) beyond that of any passing government. This has been demonstrated by actual actions toward a 2-state solution over the last 40 years. Eviction and colonization of the WB has continued apace since a few months after the 67 war ended, with some combination of governmental support in terms of money, or protection once territory was taken. The actual pace of settlement has been modulated due to international attention, but that's about it. Withdrawing from Gaza a few years ago, for example, was a PR stunt to distract the media as Israel picked up the pace on wall construction. Take a good look at that wall. As Jeff Halpern (a respected scholar living in Israel) noted, roads were being build outside not only to facilitate construction, but also to encourage Israeli settlement in the lands immediate adjacent. Remaining Palestinians, once such a "2-state solution" is found, will be left to farm rocks on some small fraction of any arguable partition based on the '48 partition. There will never be a roll back of settlements beyond those scraps of land the Israelis don't want. What becomes apparent is how Israeli negotiation toward a 2-state solution has never been done in good faith, but rather as a tactic. So, the question now is what they're doing by this maneuvering with Syria and posturing toward Iran.
Second, you assume Israel might actually want to actually attack Iran. Even assuming over-flight clearance and limited tactical support from the US, with well under 200 combat aircraft all Israel could do with conventional weapons is piss off Iran. Delivery of Russian S-300 air defense missiles to Iran are now being delayed as Putin plays spoiler, but could be deployed within days. They are the equivalent of the US Patriot system, and would form a nasty barrier to any conventional air campaign; they would also pose a barrier to missiles, like Israel's Jericho III, which is just now coming into service. So, the window on the ability of Israel to act militarily could close fast. (And this is aside from the fact that to destroy the Iran nuclear program effectively they'd need to use low-yield nukes). Israel did not misunderstand what the Big-A really said, nor would they mistake the fact he is not the real power in Iran. In fact, that mistranslation, parroted by the NYT and the MSM, was originally disseminated by the Jerusalem Post. Israeli translators are not incompetent, so it is reasonable to think this was deliberate misinformation, and again we have to ask what Israel really wants?
Israel cannot be determined to attack Iran militarily; it would accomplish nothing good, and it would be disastrous to the world. However, Israel can use the Iranian "threat" to drive an omnibus peace treaty. By ratcheting up tensions with Iran, Israel can use its forbearance to shake down the US to underwrite such a peace. They are not going to pursue a reasonable 2-state solution in good faith; they want/need the land and for all practical purposes the annexation is complete: just get a good map and look at the wall and roads already built. Israel can return the Gaza, or even the Golan under some terms, and that could provide just enough cover to keep the WB as they want it. So, the most plausible end-game for Israel is to pressure the US for an omnibus security umbrella under threat of attacking Iran unilaterally (implicitly, with nukes). US money and guarantees (possibly a stationing of troops), would be given in exchange for this peace, to include a Palestinian state, which will unfold (over time, as the world gets used to the reality) as a series of Bantustans.
This is a weak scenario, I'll admit, but someone paint one that is more plausible: it is not as though Israel is acting on impulse.
"If Obama can cow Netanyahu, his Middle East policy may have a chance. If Netanyahu comes away thinking he can thumb his nose at Washington, the whole Middle East could be in flames by the end of Obama's first term."Going out on a limb here .....
Netanyahoo might come away thinking he has bullied Obama because our President tends to avoid the macho confrontation, preferring to win the war rather than a thumb-wrestling match. I predict in about seven months time (that's one Friedman plus a cushion of 30 days) that Netanyahoo will be wondering how he became so powerless.
Post a Comment
<< Home