3/17/10

For much of the past six months, the Obama administration has engaged in quiet, behind the scenes diplomacy with Israel and the Palestinians to try to get peace talks between them back on track.  This shift occurred after having spent much of 2009 putting public pressure on both of the parties to resolve the conflict.  In response to this shift however, and despite Vice President Biden's nearly week-long goodwill tour to Israel, the Netanyahu Government announced new settlement starts in order to cover its right flank within its coalition.  Though there are obvious policy differences between the Israeli government and the Obama administration, it does not change the urgency of reaching a peace agreement. Achieving a peace deal is a priority for America's national security leadership. 

National security experts and leaders agree that the conflict's perpetuation is intimately connected to our country's ability to project power and influence across the Middle East, a region where we have 200,000 troops, significant alliances, and multiple national security challenges.  While this current flare up will settle down over time, the imperative of achieving Middle East peace, for American national security reasons, will remain, and therefore the U.S. will continue to need to be engaged.  American national security experts agree that active American engagement in Middle East peace negotiations is an essential ingredient to both building lasting peace, and advancing our national security interests.

Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the priority.  Since last week's highly publicized announcement by the Israeli government of new settlements in East Jerusalem, the message from the U.S. has been clear: a peace deal, and not disagreements, is what matters.  Vice President Biden, speaking at Tel Aviv University stated emphatically that turning the vision of peace into reality "is among the hardest challenges we face, but we have to face it," adding, "[t]here is no alternative."  Back in Washington, Biden's colleagues in the Obama administration spoke from the same page.  Responding to questions from reporters, Secretary of State Clinton stated: "we believe in the two state solution...we want to see confidence building measures and actions that will-- result in the resumption of negotiations and then a move toward the resolution on the final status issues."  Outside of the Administration, the emphasis on resolving the conflict was equally strong.  For example, Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee stated: "We need to disentangle bilateral relations from the peace process. Let's keep in mind that peace talks are not a gift to one party or the other. They are an opportunity for both parties, Israelis and Palestinians, both of whom badly need peace."  In addition, in an interview with Middle East Progress, former Congressman and President of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace Robert Wexler expressed his view that Israel's settlement announcement had the unfortunate effect of distracting from the objective of resolving the conflict: "The problem is, while the United States is seeking to bring the parties to proximity talks, no party should be creating facts on the ground that complicate the start of negotiations or the ultimate resolution of the final status issues." Wexler's interview followed an op-ed by Congressman Bob Filner (D-CA), Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, who just returned from a visit to the region.  In his piece, he wrote that he sensed "an urgency to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a two-state solution."  Filner added, "There seemed to be a growing consensus across a range of Israeli leaders - like Defense Minister Ehud Barak, opposition leader Tzipi Livni and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - that time is short." [Vice President Biden, 3/11/10. Secretary Clinton, 3/13/10. Former Congressman Robert Wexler, 3/16/10. Congressman Bob Filner (D-CA), 3/15/10. Congressman Howard Berman (D- CA), 3/16/10]]

American national security interests in the Middle East are connected to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.  Finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has far-ranging implications for critical U.S. national security interests in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.  In prepared testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, CENTCOM Commander General David Petraeus expounded on how U.S. interests are affected by the connections between the conflict and regional instability: "The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [CENTCOM Area of Responsibility]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."  When addressing the audience at Tel Aviv University, Vice President Biden highlighted the benefits of a solution within the context of U.S. - led efforts to check the Iranian threat. According to Biden, pursuit of an Israeli-Palestinian peace-deal "denies Tehran the opportunity to exploit the differences between Israelis and Palestinians, and Israelis and the Arab world, and to distract the many countries that stand united against Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the support of terrorism."  [General David Petraeus, 3/16/10. Vice President Biden, 3/11/10.  "

American national security experts support active American diplomacy to resolve the conflict.  The U.S. had a strong history of engaging in the Middle East peace process, and several of the most important breakthroughs, including the Camp David Accords and the disengagement accords of the mid 1970s all took place 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 progress.  And we know that when American administrations disengage, serious spikes in violence and deterioration in prospects for peace occur. The region, however, depends on U.S. leadership on this issue.  Also, in his piece Congressman Filner, who met with Israeli, Palestinian, and Jordanian officials explained that, "Over and over, we heard that U.S. leadership is vital to a diplomatic solution."  In addition, as Richard Haas and Martin Indyk wrote 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 continued involvement in the peace process is vital for both the parties involved and for American interests.  History shows that constructive American engagement is a key ingredient for spurring progress, while episodic or superficial engagement leads to deterioration and increased violence - which harms broader U.S. national interests.  [Rep. Bob Filner, 3/15/10. Foreign Affairs, January/February 2009. ]

What We're Reading

With 80 percent of the votes counted, a secular Iraqi coalition led by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has pulled ahead of incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki by about 9,000 votes.

Due to a shortage of available service members, roughly 2,000 contractors are working to train the Afghan army, about the same as the number of military personnel doing the job.

Tens of thousands of security forces took up positions at Tehran's main squares and intersections to block traditional celebrations marking the coming end of the Iranian year; the government fears those celebrations would turn into protests.

Attorney General Eric Holder, in response to questions from GOP lawmakers about whether U.S. officials should mirandize Osama Bin Laden if he's caught, said that shouldn't be an issue because Bin Laden would most likely not be taken alive.

Nigeria's forthcoming election could be held three months earlier than scheduled if electoral reforms are adopted.

Confused hit men may have gone to the wrong party, the FBI said as it cast doubt on fears that the slaying of three people with ties to the U.S. consulate shows that Mexican drug cartels have launched an offensive against U.S. government employees.

Thai protesters seeking a change of government turned to shock tactics Tuesday, pouring gallons of their own blood into a glistening puddle at the gate of the prime minister's office.

A wave of indignation has swept the major industrial nations of Europe over the Pentagon's handling of a $40 billion contract to buy new aerial refueling tankers, with political and economic leaders accusing the Obama administration of protectionism.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reiterated the administration's demand for a "full commitment" to peace talks from Israel but also ever so slightly bolstered her rhetorical support for the Jewish state.

Information hacked from government databases is on sale in downtown Moscow.

Commentary of the Day

John Ackerman argues for replacing "military aid and blind confidence in Mexico's sitting government with support for public institutions and broader citizen diplomacy."

The NY Times Editorial Board says China's currency manipulation would be best addressed through multilateral organizations such as the IMF and by other developing nations that are hurt by the policy.

David Ignatius discusses the role of private contractors in intelligence operations in Afghanistan.

Follow NSN on Twitter @natsecnet. Follow Democracy Arsenal on Twitter @demarsenal.