Silence Is Golden?

Maybe. And maybe not:

"If I were Obama, I wouldn't want to talk about it either. Frankly, it's a lot more comfortable to let this one hang on the president," said Edward Walker Jr., who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel from 1997 to 1999.

"I don't think he wants to be tagged at this point with either advocating the Israeli response or condemning it because our (U.S.) interests are sort of torn on this one," added Walker, an analyst with the Middle East Institute think tank.

Pro-Israeli comments by Obama risk upsetting the Arab world even before he takes office. Comments that seem critical of Israel would anger its American supporters.

Rock, meet hard place. It's not that Obama doesn't care about what's going on in the region, or that he doesn't have an opinion. Indeed, he's voiced foreign policy opinions before this (specifically on the Mumbai attacks) but these have hardly been statements of ongoing policy or binding opinions. In Israel, he would be held accountable after he takes office. Silence seems to be golden.

 

Presumably, the uptick in violence in the Gaza region is deliberate. Israelis and Palestinians both have a reason to test Obama's foreign policy from day one, given the crazy rumours that abounded when Obama was a candidate: Obama is secretly Muslim, will take the oath on the Koran, that sort of stuff.

 

You see, the problem with the Big Lie (via Goebbels) is that someone will believe it, no matter how insane the rumour is, and usually that someone is insane enough to take innocent people with him. In a situation as incendiary as Israel and Palestine, it only takes one crackpot to set off the entire region. Ask Ariel Sharon.

 

Right now, on this issue as on so many issues that Obama is faced with, his demeanor must be that of the horseshoe crab: apparent immobility from above, but if you flip one over the feet are scurrying like mad. My guess is Obama has people in the Middle East on fact-finding missions to try to determine the extent of the problem and that he is receiving the same daily briefings that Commanderguy is getting.

 

Which leads to silence NOT being golden. I also get the sense, given Obama's desire to hit the ground running, that he has people not only finding fact, but expressing reassurances and leaving impressions of precisely what he plans to do. I would not want to start my Presidency with this hanging over my head and have to play catch up with the Israeli and Palestinian governments, such as it is.

 

One can only guess at what Obama's thoughts are, and he's been shrewd to show his hand only to those who really need to see it.

 

Personally, my solution would probably be as simple as the following: Reassure Israel that America stands ready to defend her interests, however, make it perfectly clear that readiness is predicated on Israel finding the strength within her to begin negotiations in earnest with the Palestinians and other antagonistic parties. I would suggest this was precisely the stance that Bill Clinton took and he came as close to finding peace in the Middle East as any president.

 

You see, it's been decades since American interests were aligned completely with Israeli interests. Indeed, the OPEC embargoes of 1973 and 1979 were in large part retaliations against America for her support of Israel. The Arabic world couldn't beat Israel on the field of battle, so the battle was bought into the oilfields.

 

That America resisted the urge to jump ship and take our economic interests with us has never really been properly appreciated by Israel or her champions here in America, I think. Nonetheless, as it turns out, support for Israel has other facets to it, from a strategic point of view, that make having Israel a firm ally important. One very important reason is stability. Imagine if we had jumped ship and sided with Egypt under Nasser, or Syria. Or Iran. Or Iraq, for that matter.

 

The violence must stop. The slaughters on both sides of civilians must end. Now. One can only hope that Barack Obama will be the President to do just this.

The "Hail Mary" Pass

You're going to read a lot over the next few days about Bush's courage in tackling the Middle East peace process.

Keep in mind that this issue was supposed to be settled with the establishment of a stable democracy in Iraq, that Iraq's neighbors would somehow, mirabile dictu, gaze in wide wonder at the sight of the Sunni lions lying with the Shi'a lambs, beat their swords into plowshares and study war no more, accepting Israel as brethren in Abraham.

Yea, how's that working out?

So, in Annapolis today, we see the start of phase two of Bush's foreign policy: If you can't beat 'em, bore 'em.

Mr Bush said in prepared remarks ahead of the Maryland conference that the aim of the meeting was to launch talks, not conclude an agreement.

Mr Bush is hoping to find a solution before he leaves office in early 2009.

(parenthetically, I wonder if this was how he pulled Gentleman C's in college and grad school: waiting until the last possible minute, then cramming?)

In remarks prepared for delivery to the diplomats and representatives from more than 40 countries and international organisations, Mr Bush said the goal of creating a Palestinian state to co-exist in peace alongside Israel would not be easy.

"Such a state will provide Palestinians with the chance to lead lives of freedom, purpose and dignity," Mr Bush said in the statement released by the White House.

"And such a state will help provide Israelis with something they have been seeking for generations: to live in peace with their neighbours."

...except that Hamas was distinctly not invited to the meeting, and Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, which for all intents and purposes is the major sticking point to a dual state in the region.

*Ahem*

In fairness to Bush he is downplaying the importance of this summit, but his true ambitions are obvious from the fact that over 40 interest regional and world leaders are sitting in on the talks, including China, Russia and much of the EU. He's not doing this just to talk about talks about talking.

Had this been 2003, and we were not tied up in a horrible invasion of Iraq, I'd give him a fifty-fifty chance of succeeding. I simply don't see how a rushed solution to problems that have existed for thousands of years is going to be either effective or long-lived. The enormous pressure he can bring to bear on Israel and some of the surrounding nation-states can make them bend to his will, grudgingly, but to get the Palestinians, particularly Hamas, to agree to terms is beyond ludicrous.

They're not stupid. They have calendars, and they know Al Gore won the Peace Prize this year, so they understand Bush's self-aggrandisement in this matter and the urgency he is under. They'll ask the moon, and when they don't get it, they'll stomp their feet and lob a few shells into Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.

I expect there will be lots to talk about before they even get to the peace process:

1) Three Gazans die in Israel strike

2) US fire kills Iraq bus passengers

3) Putin says US behind poll boycott

Given Bush's history in foreign affairs, things will deteriorate to the point where he could have done better by steering clear of the entire situation.

And we'll pay that tab, too, when the time comes.

Praying The Problem Goes Away

And just in time for Bush's "legacy" to kick in. Condoleeza Rice is trying to undo the damage of eight years of Bush neglect:

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice joined Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Monday in voicing hope they could reach a peace agreement before President George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009.

But wrapping up two days of talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, she again gave no date for a U.S.-led conference which all parties have said would serve as a launching pad for statehood negotiations.

Rice said only that the meeting, in Annapolis, Maryland, would take place "before the end of the year".

She offered no details on how Israel and the Palestinians might settle their deep divisions over core issues they have pledged to tackle after the conference: borders and the future of Jerusalem and millions of Palestinian refugees.

When we last saw a light at the end of the tunnel, Bill Clinton was President.

"The. Greatest. President. Ever." had a solution pretty nearly in hand, and had Yassir Arafat signed off on it, who knows where we'd be today?

Having chosen to leave this flashpoint and focus of anger alone to sort itself out until recently (turning their attention towards the ill-fated invasion of Iraq), the Bush administration had allowed things to get way out of hand before stepping in to try to settle things out.

And now? Well, saying peace is on "a wing and a prayer" is probably wishful thinking on our part. Yes, things have been quieter than they ever have been in this century. In 2003, the Bush administration, in a backhanded slap at both sides, negotiated a "road map" to peace, yet failed to insist in immediate implementation from either side, much less both sides.

Indeed, if anything, both sides have moved the goal posts back a bit with their actions in the wake of this agreement: Israel, rather than withdraw settlements, has done nothing to stop the expansion of some, and the Palestinians, rather than securing the border with Israel, have forced Israel to build walls and fences in some places.

Not good.

Other key aspects of the Middle East policy that the Bushies have pursued have also either frozen in place (like democratic reforms in regimes like Saudi Arabia or Syria) or backpedaled (the current crisis in Pakistan is a good example).

And now, Condi Rice believes that she can somehow wrangle cats into a line in less than fourteen months.

One suspects someone in the policy shop at the White House was watching too many episodes of The West Wing's sixth season.

Hey, I guess if you can't be President Bill Clinton, you can at least pretend to be his TV character!

I Got A Bad Feeling About This

Maybe I'm wrong. I probably am. I certainly hope I am. But it's late Friday as I write this, in the Middle East, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. The Muslim holy day is nearly done, when:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli police forces entered the area around Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and fired stun grenades at stone-throwing Palestinian worshippers in clashes at the end of Friday prayers.

Muslim leaders had called for protests over excavations near Islam's third holiest shrine. Arab states had asked Israel to halt the work, charging it could undermine the foundations of Al-Aqsa. Israel says the work will do no damage.

A police spokesman at the scene said 15 policemen and nine protesters had been lightly injured in the clashes. Seventeen people were arrested, some of them in the streets outside Jerusalem's Old City walls.

Keep in mind that this clash comes just ahead of the Jewish Sabbath. While there is no prohibition against warfare during that time (and Israelis took pains to ensure the clash took place after prayers marking the day), such an inflammation comes at a particularly inopportune moment in our process to sort out the Middle East (as wrong-headed as that procedure is).

The Al-Aqsa mosque and it's location have a pretty strong history for all three major religions of the region, and ranks just behind Mecca and Medina in Islamic lore. It is, in fact, the Dome of the Rock/Temple Mount, where, in 2000, Ariel Sharon destroyed the burgeoning Israeli/Palestinian peace process back when Ehud Barak was Prime Minister and Bill Clinton was President. Jews believe biblical King Solomon built the first temple there 3,000 years ago. This is the temple that must be rebuilt, according to Rapture lore, in order for Jesus to return and the end times to commence. It was also alleged to be the spot where Jesus drove the moneychangers out (thus establishing His credentials as a spiritual Communist). Muslims believe the Prophet Mohammad ascended into heaven from the spot during a night journey to Jerusalem.

Could there be a more inflammatory place for Israelis to stir up trouble, particularly since in 1984, Israel uncovered a plot by a group of Jews to blow up Al-Aqsa mosque so that a new temple could be built? That would be the second attempt to destroy the mosque (in 1969, an Australian Christian tourist tried burning it down in an attempt to bring the Second Coming, thus kicking off the worldwide Rapturist movement). In 1996, Israeli archaeologists attempted to tunnel under the mosque for, by all rational accounts, historical purposes, but instead set off a flash of violence that saw 65 Arabs and 15 Israeli soldiers dead.

And now this: according to the AP, the excavations are being done in conjunction with the repair of an earthen ramp to the mosque. Such excavations are required by Israeli law in order to ensure that no historical (and holy) sites are disturbed by the construction.

However, Muslims see the excavations as an attempt by the Israelis to prove that the Temple Mount is, in fact, Jewish first, Muslim second and therefore should be turned over to the Israeli government. It is currently administered, with Israeli concurrence, by the Islamic Waqf, a trust that oversees the site.

The Palestinians are already in a mini-civil war as factions of Hamas and Fatah wrestle for control of the parliament, making Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah member and President of Palestine, a rather lame duck for the time being. This can't be helping matters any.

Too, an attack viewed by Muslims across the region as an attack on the mosque itself by Jewish soldiers can only have repercussions and reprisals in Iraq and Afghanistan, particulaly coming at the end of the week's holy day. Imagine St. Patrick's Cathedral being shot up at the end of 11 o'clock mass to get a better feel for this story.

Already, three American soldiers were reported killed in Iraq on Friday, bringing the toll for the past three days to 14. Worse, American forces killed 8 Kurdish soldiers, a group we had hoped would be our allies, even after we screwed them so badly after Gulf War I, a group we hoped would send troops to help us out in Baghdad.

Like I said, I got a bad feeling about this...

Bush
Iraq
Israel
Jerusalem
Palestine
Dome of the Rock
Temple Mount