MIDDLE EAST “PEACE PROCESS” KERRY AND OBAMA’S M.E. PEACE MIRAGE: A DEAL WITH IRAN—AND WITHDRAWAL FROM THE REGION

John Kerry’s Middle East Dream World: Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, Nov. 10, 2013 —  Imagine a world in which the Middle East is not descending into carnage and chaos but is on the brink of a monumental series of breakthroughs.                                                                                           No Illusions Concerning the Obama Administration: Isi Leibler, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 11, 2013 — Israel is heading for what could be its most severe confrontation with the United States, despite reassuring words from the Obama administration to the contrary.

Israel: The Impudence Accompanying Betrayal: Barry Rubin, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 17, 2013  — I’ve always been amazed anyone thought the United States would ever act against the Iranian nuclear threat.

The Arab-Israeli Peace Process Is Over. Enter the Era of Chaos: Lee Smith, Tablet, Oct. 30, 2013— This past weekend the White House clarified yet again what’s been apparent to everyone in the Middle East for quite a while now: The United States wants out, for real.

On Topic Links

France Calls on Israel to Halt Settlements: Ruth Bender, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 18, 2013

The Kerry Fiasco: Jerold S. Auerbach, American Thinker, Nov. 17, 2013

Hamas and the “Peace Process”: Shoshana Bryen, Frontpage, Nov. 1, 2013

There Will Be War: Mike Konrad, American Thinker, Nov. 15, 2013

JOHN KERRY’S MIDDLE EAST                                                                DREAM WORLD                                                                               Jackson Diehl

Washington Post, Nov. 10, 2013

Imagine a world in which the Middle East is not descending into carnage and chaos but is on the brink of a monumental series of breakthroughs. By next spring, Iran’s nuclear program will be secured and Egypt will be a liberal democracy. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has stepped aside. And, not least, Israelis and Palestinians have settled on the terms for a Palestinian state. This is the world that John Kerry inhabited as he shuttled across the world last week: a fantastical realm created by his billowing vision of what he can accomplish as secretary of state. Meanwhile, on this planet, aid agencies reported starvation and an outbreak of polio in Syria; Egypt’s last elected president was put on trial; Israeli and Palestinian leaders described their U.S.-brokered peace talks as broken; and France’s foreign minister suggested the would-be accord with Iran was “a fool’s game.”

Call it Kerry’s Magical Mystery Tour. On Nov. 3 in Cairo, he announced that “the road map [to democracy in Egypt] is being carried out to the best of our perception,” after failing even to mention the politicized prosecution of deposed president Mohamed Morsi. On Tuesday, Kerry offered the following explanation of why the Syrian peace conference he’s pushing will succeed: “The Assad regime knows full well that the purpose of” the conference is “the installation of a provisional government.” And “the Syrian government has accepted to come to Geneva.” It apparently follows that Assad will show up and placidly agree to hand over power. If not, Kerry ventured, “the Russians and the Iranians . . . will make certain that the Syrian regime will live up to its obligation.” Kerry’s optimism was far from exhausted. His next stop was devoted to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, both of whom had broken a vow of silence to say the negotiations Kerry persuaded them to begin in July had gone nowhere. Not to worry, said Kerry: “I am convinced from my conversations” with them “that this is not mission impossible; this can happen.” All this was before his weekend trip to Geneva for what became a failed attempt to close a deal with Iran on its nuclear program. Kerry’s conclusion: “I can tell you, without any reservations, we made significant progress.”

Stipulated: The mission of the U.S. secretary of state is to tackle big problems diplomatically, even if it means taking on missions impossible. Still, it’s hard to think of a previous chief of Foggy Bottom who has so conspicuously detached himself from on-the-ground realities. To those outside the Kerry bubble, Egypt is ruled by a regime more repressive than any in decades, with a muzzled media and thousands of political prisoners. Syria is mired in an anarchic struggle whose most likely winners appear to be Assad and al-Qaeda, with neither inclined to negotiation. Israelis and Palestinians are further apart on the terms for a settlement than they were at the turn of the century. And the emerging conditions for a deal with Iran threaten to drive a wedge between the United States and some of its closest allies.

This raises the question: Does Kerry really believe his rhetoric? In fact, it appears he does, particularly on the Israeli-Palestinian account. Desperate for a legacy at the end of his long career, the former senator has convinced himself that a) the terms for a settlement are readily apparent and b) he has the political skills to convince Netanyahu and Abbas to accept them. Kerry, like President Obama, also is convinced that detente, if not a “grand bargain,” has all along been possible between the United States and Iran, if only the right people (like him) are at the table.

Other Kerry stances are the logical result of Obama’s decision to radically retrench U.S. policy in the Middle East. Obama decided at summer’s end to restrict U.S. activity to “core interests” that don’t include the defense of democracy, preventing humanitarian catastrophe or ending “someone else’s civil war.” That means that Kerry, who once pushed to arm the Syrian opposition as a way of “changing Assad’s calculations,” is left with little recourse other than to plead with Russia and Iran to accomplish what the United States will not. Faced with Obama’s dictum that U.S. cooperation with Egypt’s military will continue, Kerry must pretend that the generals are installing a democracy and pray that they take the cue.If any one of Kerry’s dreams comes true, the world would be better off, so I hope skeptics like me will be proved wrong. If not, this secretary of state will be remembered as a self-deceiving bumbler — and his successor will have some large messes to clean up.                                                                      

                                               Contents
                  NO ILLUSIONS CONCERNING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

Isi Leibler

Jerusalem Post, Nov. 10, 2013

Israel is heading for what could be its most severe confrontation with the United States, despite reassuring words from the Obama administration to the contrary. President Barack Obama’s policies have led to a US retreat at all levels in the global arena, particularly in the Middle East where his disastrous policy of “engaging” with rogue states coincided with alienating, even abandoning, traditional US allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. His administration has also totally failed to mitigate the rampant bloodshed, with hundreds of civilians being killed daily in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world.

However, despite all evidence to the contrary, the administration persists in its mantra that the principal problem in the Middle East is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and displays a determination to impose a settlement on Israelis and Palestinians. It does so – even setting aside the problem of Hamas – despite the fact that the undemocratic Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, whose term expired years ago, is neither willing nor has the authority to make any meaningful concessions to Israel.

The US chooses to disregard to the extreme intransigence of the Palestinians and the massive ongoing incitement by the PA against Israel and continues to pressure the Israelis, their only regional democratic ally, to make additional unilateral concessions, many of which have long-term negative security implications for the future viability of the Jewish state. US Secretary of State John Kerry presents himself as a “friend” of Israel. Yet his offensive off-the-cuff remarks not only depict him as somewhat of a buffoon, but demonstrate that he now openly sides against Israel in the confrontation with the Palestinians.

He utterly failed to act as an honest broker in his November 6 joint interview with Israel’s Channel 2 News and PA TV, when he targeted Israel for criticism and failed to even relate to Palestinian intransigence. He provocatively asked “whether it [Israel] wanted a third intifada,” which he declared would eventuate if the talks failed. He warned that the Palestinians would “wind up with a leadership committed to violence.” Following a meeting in Bethlehem with President Abbas, brushing aside the venomous incitement to hatred manifested daily by the PA, Kerry stated unequivocally that “President Abbas is 100% committed to these talks.” He reiterated that the US considers construction in settlements, including Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, to be “illegitimate,” and went so far as to state that Israel was sending “a message that perhaps you are not really serious.” He never even referred to the PA demand that Palestinian refugees and their 5 million descendants be given the right of return to Israel. He refused to confront the Palestinian leadership over their refusal to reconcile themselves with the reality of Israel as sovereign Jewish entity.

There have been hints, subsequently denied, that if progress was not achieved by 2014, the US would propose bridging proposals – an ominous signal to Israel. Kerry also threatened that if Israel could not find an accommodation, the US would not be able to deter the rest of the world from imposing real sanctions against Israel. Such remarks effectively guarantee Palestinian intransigence by declaring that after the talks collapse, the world will in any event seek to impose a solution on Israel and shall not blame the Palestinians for once again reverting to terrorism. And this is following Israel’s capitulation to intense American pressure resulting in the outrageous release of Palestinian mass murderers who were subsequently glorified by the Palestinians as heroes.

These statements by Kerry parallel other negative vibes from the US: Obama’s failure to condemn Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s provocative anti-Semitic remarks and the repudiation of his commitment to set aside the confrontation with Israel after Netanyahu had been pressured to apologize to him; the US effort to divert attention from its cyber-attacks on the French government’s communications network by hinting that the Israeli Mossad was to blame; and, most damaging of all, despite deliberate Israeli silence over the issue, the formal US announcement that Israel was responsible for bombing the Syrian military base in which missiles en route to Hezbollah were located. That is not how one treats an ally.

Over the past few months, there has been immense pressure directed at Israel and American Jews to ease up on Iran. Although accused of seeking to sabotage American diplomacy with the “moderate” President Hassan Rohani, Netanyahu has never challenged the role of diplomacy. He merely reminded the Americans of the proven duplicity of the Iranians and Rohani himself as he engages in protracted negotiations while proceeding to advance Iran nuclear status. On the basis of Obama’s recent track record, Israelis were increasingly skeptical as to the fulfillment of his repeated commitment to employ military force if necessary to prevent the Iranians from becoming a nuclear power.

These concerns were confirmed when, despite repeated assurances by Kerry that “no deal is better than a bad deal,” the US and the Europeans (other than France) demonstrated a willingness despite all evidence to the contrary to ease the sanctions on the Iranians without receiving anything tangible in return. Clearly, the US administration lied when it promised to brief Israelis in advance of any deal, so as not to surprise them, and gave repeated reassurances that short of an agreement by the Iranians to end their nuclear objectives, no partial deal was contemplated.

A shocked and distraught Netanyahu publicly admonished Kerry for making a “monumental mistake,” accusing him of providing the Iranians with “the deal of the century” and “in no way reducing their nuclear enrichment capability.” Netanyahu stated that under such circumstances, Israel did not consider itself bound by any agreement between Tehran and the six world powers and “will do everything it considers necessary to defend itself and the security of its people.” There is of course the outside possibility that by the time the talks resume next week, Netanyahu’s warnings are heeded and a Munich-like capitulation is averted. But we should be under no illusions.

The next three months will be seriously challenging for Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu will need to marshal all his resources and seek to salvage what he can of the likely capitulation to the Iranian mullahs in a deal which in no way guarantees that the centrifuges will not soon again resume spinning. In addition, Israel must resist American pressures to make further concessions to the Palestinians which may well have devastating repercussions our future security. To confront these threats, it is imperative that the prime minister devise a strategic plan, engaging the broadest possible coalition, providing a united front, and work closely with the American Jewish community and other pro-Israel groups to orchestrate a major campaign to enlighten the American public and seek congressional support to rein in the appeasers.

For American Jews, this will be a real test of their commitment to the security of the Jewish state. There have been conflicting reports that leading Jewish organizations and representatives of the administration had agreed to defer for two months efforts to intensify sanctions on Iran, but this was adamantly denied by AIPAC and AJC spokesmen. Regrettably, American Jews committed to the security of the Jewish state appear to be heading toward a direct confrontation with an administration willing to diplomatically abandon Israel and appease the most lethal global terrorist state. ADL head Abe Foxman predicted that Kerry’s “outrageous behavior” and his “chutzpah” in lecturing Israel about peace would unite the American Jewish community. The question is will they have the courage to stand up and be counted?

                                                                            Contents
                                  

ISRAEL: THE IMPUDENCE ACCOMPANYING BETRAYAL

Barry Rubin

Jerusalem Post, Nov. 17, 2013

I’ve always been amazed anyone thought the United States would ever act against the Iranian nuclear threat. There was never any chance that such a thing would happen. Moreover, there was never any chance the US would let Israel attack Iran. In a Huffington Post article by Steven Strauss, the author quotes Netanyahu: “‘I believe that we can now say that Israel has reached childhood’s end, that it has matured enough to begin approaching a state of self-reliance…. We are going to achieve economic independence [from the United States].’ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a Joint Session of the United States Congress – Washington DC, July 10, 1996 (Source: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs).” Unfortunately, today, almost 20 years later, this is not a fair statement to quote.

Strauss continues: “In 1997, Israel received $3.1 billion in aid from the US. In 2012, Israel was still receiving $3.1 billion annually in US aid.” This, however, is not an appropriate comparison today. Let us look at the current situation: Egypt will receive $2b. in US aid; Saudi Arabia will receive military aid, as will the anti-Assad Syrian rebels; Turkey will receive billions of dollars and probably military equipment.

Moreover, the US and Europe will also reach out to Iran, and Hezbollah and Syria will receive aid from Iran. In addition, the Palestinians have not made the least bit of commitment on a two-state solution . In other words, only Israel would lose. And this is “childhood’s end”? Strauss further notes, “Israel has become an affluent and developed country that can afford to pay for its own defense.” But the point is that other hostile countries will receive more, while Israel will get the same amount. He continues, “…Israel has a well developed economy in other ways.” But again, Israel will be placed at much more of a disadvantage.

The article’s claim that, “Other countries/ programs could better use this aid money,” does not state the reality. “Even domestically, the aid that goes to Israel could be useful. Detroit is bankrupt, and our Congress is cutting back on food stamps, and making other painful budget cuts.” Again, the US does not face immediate threat from its neighbours, while Israel does. Moreover, this argument is shockingly implying that Israel is stealing money from poor people in the US. “Israel and the United States have increasingly different visions about the future of the Middle East,” the article continues. But again, so what? This is absolutely irrelevant. A major (bipartisan) goal of the United States has been the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Once again, this is a policy that is impossible to implement, but the United States is going to try to force it on Israel anyway. Note that the less security the US and the West provide to Israel, the more difficult it becomes to secure or promote a two-state solution.

Strauss adds, “However, the current Israeli government is clearly not committed to the US vision, and has done everything possible to sabotage American efforts.” The problem with this last point is that the Palestinians have always tried to sabotage this. If this concept hasn’t gotten across in the past quarter century, I can’t imagine when it will get across. The current Israeli government has tried for many years to achieve a two-state solution and has made many concessions. And if Secretary of State Kerry can’t take Israel’s side on this issue, then I can’t imagine how decades of US policy has been carried out. To say that the Israeli government is not committed is a fully hostile statement. This claims Israeli settlement and not Palestinian intransigence has blocked the peace process. Note that the author of this article has “distinguished” credentials: “Steven Strauss is an adjunct lecturer in public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.” Yet if this is what the US government understands, things will end badly.

Moreover, the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons is not the important point; rather, it is the transformation of the US Middle East position that is significant. I do not believe there is any chance Iran will use nuclear weapons. The problem is that this is reversal of US policy. In other words, it is like going back to 1948 and opposing partition. Finally, what this is all about is money and greed. Many European countries are drooling at the money to be made. For example, Vittorio Da Rold writes (Il Sole 24 ore), “Italian SMEs are hoping for a rapid agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue in order to return as soon as possible to trade without limits with Tehran and the rich Iranian market in hopes of finding new markets in a time when the European market flirts with deflation.”

Contents

THE ARAB-ISRAELI PEACE PROCESS IS OVER.                                ENTER THE ERA OF CHAOS

Lee Smith

Tablet, Oct. 30, 2013

This past weekend the White House clarified yet again what’s been apparent to everyone in the Middle East for quite a while now: The United States wants out, for real. “There’s a whole world out there,” National Security Adviser Susan Rice told the New York Times, “and we’ve got interests and opportunities in that whole world.”

To judge by the president’s decision making, Egypt and Syria apparently are no longer important parts of that world, nor is the shakeout from the Arab Spring, or preserving Washington’s special relationship with the Saudi oil kingdom, or other familiar features of American Middle East policy, like democracy promotion, which have been taken for granted by locals and the rest of the world alike. What matters seems to be getting out of the region faster, by making a snap deal with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani over Tehran’s nuclear program. But yeah, administration sources told the Times almost as an afterthought, we still care about the peace process.

The problem is that a deal with Iran, when taken together with a U.S. withdrawal from the region, means the end of the peace process. As an Israeli official visiting Washington told me last week, one result of the administration’s minimalist regional profile is that the Arab allies of the United States—from Jordan and Egypt to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council states—will no longer enjoy the luxury of being able to count on the United States to pursue and protect their national interests, which means that they’ll have to do it themselves in a region where, as President Barack Obama said in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly meeting last month, the leaders “avoid addressing difficult problems themselves.”

What that means is that Washington’s Arab partners who are most concerned about Iran, like Saudi Arabia, now have a choice: They can defend themselves with all the weaponry the American defense industry has sold them over the years—or they can get someone else to do it. If most Arab regimes never really cared that much for the Palestinians in the first place, they clearly had even less use for the Israelis. But in the wake of a bad American deal with Rouhani, the Israelis may come in quite handy, as the only local power capable of standing up to a nuclear-armed Iran or stopping the Iranian nuclear program in its tracks…

What’s clear amidst all this traffic is that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is presently the least important and least bloody conflict in the region, after the Syrian civil war, the Libyan civil war, Iraq’s violent partition, Egypt’s military crack-down, etc. From the point of view of national realpolitik, the only people who should be thinking long and hard about the end of the Arab-Israeli peace process are American policymakers.

Maybe it’s good news then that the lake of crocodile tears shed for 80 years over the Palestinian cause is about to evaporate into the thin desert air because the United States is leaving, and the Arab regimes obviously have more important things to worry about now—like their own security and survival. Yet from an American standpoint the end of the peace process is unfortunate—and not because it was ever likely to bring about peace between Arabs and Israelis, or usher in a reign of good feeling and peaceful relations across the Middle East….

[To read the full article, click on the following link – ed.]

                                                 Contents

France Calls on Israel to Halt Settlements: Ruth Bender, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 18, 2013 — French President François Hollande Monday called for the "complete halt" to the building of Israeli settlements during his first visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories since taking office.

The Kerry Fiasco: Jerold S. Auerbach, American Thinker, Nov. 17, 2013 — Who could have imagined it? Secretary of State John Kerry is making his predecessor James Baker seem like Israel's best friend.

Hamas and the “Peace Process”: Shoshana Bryen, Frontpage, Nov. 1, 2013 — The Palestinians have thrown a monkey wrench in the works again –  as they have a pattern of doing every time the “peace process” is supposed to be close to “solving” the problem.

There Will Be War: Mike Konrad, American Thinker, Nov. 15, 2013 —  What was going through the President's head when he eased up on sanctions on Iran?

On Topic Links

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at https://isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.