Soccer Dad

I look forward to middle east diplomacy 103

In its Room for Debate blog the New York Times asked a number of "experts" about the Israeli challenge to the U.S.. A few of the responses are worth mentioning.

Daniel Gordis:

Israelis do not trust Barack Obama. Insisting that Israelis freeze settlement expansion without making some equally explicit demand of the Palestinians -- and using the same term "settlement" for both massive neighborhoods that are home to tens of thousands and for illegal outposts that most Israelis want dismantled -- Obama has convinced Israelis that he has no command of the issues, and that he is predisposed to pressuring Israel much more than the Palestinians. It is Obama who is unwittingly fueling the pro-settlement movement.

Nor do Israelis trust the Palestinians. For years, Mahmoud Abbas negotiated with Israeli governments without insisting on a settlement freeze.

But Obama has afforded him an excuse to avoid the critical concessions Palestinians will have to make for peace, and Abbas is exploiting it cynically and fully. Few Israelis believe the Palestinians have the stomach for a genuine deal.

Gordis also faults Netanyahu for not imposing greater discipline over his government.

Michelle Dunne writes:

Although Prime Minister Netanyahu most likely was blindsided by the announcement, others in his coalition apparently thought it unproblematic to insult Biden and by association Obama.

And why should they? President Obama has shown Israelis neither consideration nor resolve. He failed to visit and use his much-vaunted powers of persuasion directly on Israelis last spring when he visited Egypt and Turkey; Obama also failed to show strength by imposing some consequence on Netanyahu when the Israeli leader refused to order a real freeze on settlements.

I assume that she means he failed to use his powers of persuasion to get Turkey and Egypt to act in a moderate fashion when it came to Israel.

In its own editorial, Middle East Diplomacy 102, the editors of the Times write (They flunked Diplomacy 101):

It must be noted that Mr. Obama and Mr. Mitchell also failed to persuade Arab leaders to agree to make any gestures to Israel in return for a settlement freeze.

That's after apportioning the majority of the blame for failed peace talks on Israel and President Obama's failure to convince Prime Minister Netanyahu to be reasonable. So Arab commitment to peace is an afterthought.

But for all of the hyperventilating about what must be done, Barry Rubin writes:

Note that it is important for the two sides to meet but the reason is to deal with far more immediate tasks: coordination on economic and security issues particularly. I guess I'm going to have to go on for decades saying that there won't be a comprehensive peace agreement for decades.

Instead of pushing for a peace agreement that won't happen, why don't the editors of the Times push for a real change: a change in the Arab approach to Israel? Without that there will never be peace.

Yaacov Lozowick notes:

The Palestinians want all Israeli settlement activity to cease? That's easy. Agree to make peace with Israel, and there will be no more "illegal" settlements. it's that simple. Really.

That would require the change that no one seems to be demanding.