THE PLANK JULY 30, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Tough talk from the WaPo edit board:
U.S. and Israeli officials are working on a compromise that would allow
Israel to complete some housing now under construction while freezing
new starts for a defined period. Arab states would be expected to take
steps in return. Such a deal will expose Mr. Obama to criticism in the
Arab world -- a public relations hit that he could have avoided had he
not escalated the settlements dispute in the first place. At worst, the
president may find himself diminished among both Israelis and Arabs
before discussions even begin on the issues on which U.S. clout is most
needed. If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama
will need to show both sides that they can trust him -- and he must be
tough on more than one country.
--Michael Crowley
12 comments
Sorry, but I don't any confidence in what the "WaPo edit board" has to say about the Middle East.
- AMVHuck
July 30, 2009 at 2:18pm
Now I'm confused. If Obama takes a "hit" in the Arab world, isn't this going to please those who want the White House to be more pro-Israeli?
Maybe not. But then I would take the liberty of noting that a distinct lack of popularity in both Israel and the Arab street (or indeed the Arab kitchen/living room/garage) may well be the required posture for American presidents in the future.
Maybe, one day, both Israelis and Palestinians can come together over the realization that Obama isn't playing on either of their teams.
- ironyroad
July 30, 2009 at 2:47pm
Duly noted, Fred Hiatt. Now we can all go about our day. I look forward to the next round of 'tough talk' from the WaPo edit board when we need reminding how Obama isn't spitting and cursing enough over Iran... or Syria... or I can't remember what now. Maybe Bill Kristol will have some tough talk of his own soon, too.
- fbacon2
July 30, 2009 at 3:12pm
nothing is going to happen until the Palestinians make a serious effort, starting with recognizing Israel. They will not do that so I doubt it matters who the President is or what he stands for. In 4 years, or 8 years we will be having the same old tired arguments. As to the settlements, I really know of no other way to get the Palestinians to smarten up. The only thing I worry about is that even that probably will not be enough since I really can not recall a single instance of Palestinians taking advantage of real opportunities.
- blackton
July 30, 2009 at 3:17pm
Some reality - While the media and most of the talking heads are concerned with whether Netanyahu will recognize a Palestinian state and whether Israel will stop building, the good Palestinian Abbas still refusing to recognize and Jewish state and still refuses to give up the right of return. As for Iran it seems that Obama has no plan B if Iran refuses to change, accept for offering even more carrots or for Hillary, an amature diplomat, to suggest that the Iranian attitude isn't helpful.
- jneuberg
July 30, 2009 at 3:28pm
I have a hard time believing that Arab governments really labor under the delusion that the United States can simply dictate Israeli behavior. But if anyone does harbor that fantasy, then I submit, contra Hiatt's unsigned blast, it is a good thing for the thesis to be demonstrated false. The United States can mediate, it can facilitate, but it cannot dictate the resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- rhubarbs
July 30, 2009 at 3:30pm
While I am not opposed in principle to Obama's pressuring of Netanyahu on settlements, there is one serious drawback to the approach with the WaPo editorial touched on: pressure on Israel emboldens the Palestinians into being their normal rejectionist selves. Saeb Erekat said two days ago that he would not tolerate ANY compromise on the issue.
english.ramattan.net/newsdetails.aspx
The Palestinians are masters at setting up delusional expectations for themselves and reacting to their disappointment with violence (see: the year 2000).
- rozenson
July 30, 2009 at 3:59pm
rozenson, a useful rule of thumb is that any argument that contains the word "embolden" is bullshit. Regretfully, I think that this rule applies to your argument here. One cannot be "emboldened" to be one's "normal" self. And putting aside the purely semantic absurdity of what you posit, I don't see cause and effect here. Were the Palestinians rejectionist last year? Yes. Are they rejectionist now? Yes. Do we expect them to be rejectionist tomorrow? Yes. Outside "emboldenment" neither causes nor contributes to Palestinian rejectionism.
Avoiding "emboldening" one's adversaries is a losing game for suckers. If we press Israel on settlements, Palestinians will cite Israel's failure to give in to all U.S. demands as an excuse to reject peace. But if we don't press Israel on settlements, Palestinians will cite U.S. failure to press Israel on settlements as an excuse to reject peace. And this isn't hypothetical: We've actually seen the Palestinians play both sides of this game in the recent past.
- rhubarbs
July 30, 2009 at 4:55pm
Rhubarbs -- you know as well as I do that the Palestinians like to take advantage of Israeli stubbornness to try to take the moral high ground. They posture themselves as being the ones who are ready to make peace. Then when the United States pressures Israel, they demand totality on the issue. Arafat perfected the pattern and Abbas carries it on today.
What U.S. pressure does in the meantime is it artificially inflates the expectations of average Palestinians, who in turn vent their inevitable frustration through violence.
- rozenson
July 30, 2009 at 6:41pm
irony - 'Maybe, one day, both Israelis and Palestinians can come together over the realization that Obama isn't playing on either of their teams.'
This is a good point. If you read Dennis Ross's book 'The Missing Peace' one thing that jumps out: how neither side (Palestinian or Israeli) was held to any provisional decisions and agreements, often not held to formalized agreements, and even Ross offers this as a 'self-criticism' towards the end. Ludicrous. And both sides were at fault. Read it for youself.
The Israeli and Arabs are constantly trying to read whose side this statement supports or that one doesn't. So if the Obama administration exerts IT'S priorities - to get a peace agreement and move on with other strategic issues, the posture that it "isn't playing on either of their teams' may be a more effective version of the 'fair arbitrator' than anything in the past. Sort of, get over this already.
Nice interpretation. Thanks.
- CAMtwo
July 30, 2009 at 9:27pm
Ironyroad - good point, and here's hoping (if against better judgement).
- jobeek2
July 31, 2009 at 5:53am
Yes -- I should have said that too -- that it's more of a pious hope that a grounded speculation. And, to be realistic, there are a heck of a lot of people who think that the U.S. president should indeed be playing on the Israeli team. I don't think that's what being an ally, even a close ally, is all about -- but if an expectation is solidly in place, it's difficult to resist the pressure to meet it.
- ironyroad
July 31, 2009 at 11:26am