5/18/09

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives in Washington today to meet with President Obama. There has been much talk of tension and conflict in the run-up to this meeting. Netanyahu has refused to publicly support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has advocated the U.S. adopt a tremendously confrontational approach to the Iran problem. Both positions are at odds with the Obama administration, as they will only further destabilize the region. President Obama, like Presidents Bush and Clinton before him, has argued forcefully that the only way to create a lasting peace is through the formation of an independent Palestinian state. After witnessing the failure of the Bush administration’s isolation and bluster approach to stem Iran’s nuclear development, as well as the extremely dangerous repercussions military action would have on our troops in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, the Obama administration has sought a new course based on serious diplomatic engagement. However, despite these disagreements, the Obama administration has reaffirmed America’s special relationship with Israel and unlike the Bush administration has demonstrated its commitment to engaging in the peace process on all levels. Only through comprehensive engagement, both with all the countries in the region and with the Israelis and the Palestinians, will peace be achieved.

Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama prepare to discuss the Middle East. “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu landed in Washington ahead of a meeting with President Barack Obama as aides minimized speculation that their differences over Middle East peacekeeping would cause conflict... Obama is calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while Netanyahu remains skeptical,” writes Bloomberg News. As the Jerusalem Post writes, “Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu would not be able to advance the formation of a Palestinian state, due to the wide majority against it in the Likud faction, MKs who oppose a two-state solution said Sunday.”   However, others in Israel are eager to make a deal with the Palestinians. AFP reports, “Israeli President Shimon Peres welcomed on Sunday the prospect of a new US drive for Middle East peace that could mean the recognition of Israel by 57 states. ‘We were negotiating with them (the Palestinians) for quite a while. I think the gap was narrowed and I do believe it is a bridgeable gap. With... a little bit of fresh ideas, it can be bridged.’” In addition to Arab-Israeli relations, the controversial issue of Iran is also on the agenda. “Both countries regard Iran as the paramount threat in the region, but they have sharply different ways of responding: the Obama administration is asking for time to pursue its diplomatic overture to Tehran; the Israelis are warning that they will not stand by while the Iranians build a nuclear bomb.” [Bloomberg, 5/18/09. AFP, 5/17/09. Jerusalem Post, 5/18/09. NY Times, 5/14/09]

American engagement is a critical ingredient for spurring progress toward Middle East peace, something which must be achieved through a two-state solution.  For years, the U.S. had a strong history of engaging in the Middle East peace process.  Several major breakthroughs, including the Camp David Accords, the disengagement accords of the mid 1970s, the Madrid Conference and the Oslo Accords all occurred amidst robust U.S. engagement.  In many of these cases, American Presidents, their Secretaries of State, and special envoys spent weeks shuttling around the region, helping bring about this progress.  The disengagement of the early Bush years helped produce a serious spike in violence and deterioration in prospects for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. The U.S. still wields greater influence over the region than any other country and while its engagement is not sufficient to solving the conflict, it is necessary.  As Richard Haas and Martin Indyk write in Foreign Affairs, “the vast majority of Middle Eastern states still look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security and the power most able to help them achieve their objectives.”  America’s involvement in the peace process is vital for both the parties involved and for American interests.  The conflict continues to undermine American credibility in the Arab world and limits our policy options in the region.  Key US partners in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere have indicated that, for them, early US engagement in the peace process is a key litmus test.  Just as critical for success is a strong commitment on the part of the U.S., Israel, and the Arab parties to the conflict to a two-state solution.  “The Obama administration has pronounced the two-state solution — the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel — to be the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” wrote the New York Times, and President Obama “has pledged to work from ‘day one’ to forge a Palestinian state,” according to the Wall Street Journal.    However, as the Journal also reported, “[a]chieving a consensus on statehood could prove challenging, however, as Mr. Netanyahu hasn't formally backed Mr. Obama's call for the creation of an independent Palestinian state to help end the Arab-Israeli conflict.”  Middle-East expert Marc Lynch testified to the urgency of a two-state solution, observing that “Arab leaders have made very clear that they have no interest in another drawn-out peace process -- they want a peace settlement along the lines of a two-state solution, and soon.” [Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009.  Newsweek, 1/12/08. WSJ, 5/16/09. NY Times, 5/14/09. Marc Lynch, 5/11/09]

Only a comprehensive strategy for achieving American interests in the Middle East can succeed.  Lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved piecemeal.  As John Judis wrote in the American Prospect in 2003, Bush administration “neoconservatives were fond of saying, ‘The road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad.’”  Some now say the same is true of the challenge posed by Iran, something the Netanyahu government has suggested must be addressed before an Arab-Israeli peace deal.  According to the Los Angeles Times, “Netanyahu's primary focus” will be on Iran.  Going into today’s meeting, “he will argue that the U.S. needs to help Israel eliminate the threat posed by an already hostile nation allegedly seeking to build nuclear weapons,” before an Arab-Israeli peace deal can be reached.  But the road to peace goes neither through Baghdad nor Tehran – it can only be achieved through a comprehensive, integrated strategy, which accounts for all of the Middle East’s challenges.  In his speech in February announcing the withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq, Obama stated: “This reflects a fundamental truth: we can no longer deal with regional challenges in isolation – we need a smarter, more sustainable and comprehensive approach... That is why we are renewing our diplomacy, while relieving the burden on our military... developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world.”  Recognizing Iran’s role in the Middle East, Obama has also taken steps to shift US policy down a more productive path, signaling a shift rhetorically, through his inaugural address and a subsequent message for the Iranian New Year. The Administration has also begun outreach to Syria, sending acting Assistant Secretary of Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman and National Security Council Middle East hand Daniel Shapiro traveled to Syria to begin talks.  Finally, Obama appointed Sen. George Mitchell as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, saying, “Now, understand that Sen. Mitchell is going to be fully empowered by me and fully empowered by Secretary Clinton…So when he speaks, he will be speaking for us.”  Mitchell has already visited the region on three occasions, showing that the Obama administration plans to make a sustained commitment. As the Wall Street Journal reported, according to a U.S. official, “Part of what we're trying to do here is to create the context to move forward on regional peace.” [The American Prospect, 6/30/03. LA Times, 5/18/09. President Obama, 2/27/09. NSN Daily Update, 4/15/09. NSN Daily Update, 3/05/09. AFP, 3/02/09. President Obama, 1/26/09. CNN, 4/21/09. WSJ, 5/16/09]

What We’re Reading

The Sri Lankan military announced the killing of Velupillai Prabhakaran, leader of the Tamil Tiger rebels.  The rebels admitted defeat and agreed to lay down their arms for good.

The U.S. says that Pakistan is rapidly adding to its nuclear arsenal.

Sonia Gandhi’s Indian National Congress won a landslide victory in the Indian election.

Myanmar’s democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi went on trial today for allegedly violating the conditions of her house arrest.  Protestors surrounded the prison where the trial is taking place.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown put the fate of embattled Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, in the hands of MPs in the continuing expenses row.

The ICC charged three Sudanese rebels with committing war crimes in Darfur, the first time rebels have been targeted by the court.

Tensions rose between Kurds and Sunnis, partly over a land dispute in northern Iraq.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s brother, Ahmad Wali Karzai, was ambushed in an apparent assassination attempt, but survived unhurt.

Maoists stormed Nepal’s parliament and blocked a vote for a new prime minister.

Commentary of the Day

Roger Cohen discusses the issue of Iran in the context of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

Israel’s former ambassador to the UN, Dore Gold, .
previews today’s meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Tony Karon lays out the six issues dividing President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Matthew Engel analyzes the British “hysteria” over the MP expenses row.

Sally Quinn defends National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones, saying “if the president continues to have confidence in Jones, those who are attacking him should beware. They are messing with the wrong dude. Those ribbons on his uniform were not awarded for nothing.”