Our thanks to Mike Sachs, Northeast Regional Director of AIPAC
Why Doesn't Abbas Want Peace Talks? - Jackson Diehl
Eighteen months ago, when the then-new Obama administration tried to jump-start Middle East peace negotiations, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas balked. He said he would not agree even to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unless Netanyahu made several big concessions in advance - including recognition of a Palestinian state on the basis of Israel's 1967 borders and a freeze on all Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank.
Convinced that Netanyahu was the problem, the Obama administration spent the next year in a crude and clumsy effort to extract those concessions. Netanyahu stoutly resisted; the administration belatedly discovered that it could not compel a democratic ally to comply with its demands. Eventually a rough compromise emerged: Netanyahu publicly accepted the idea, but not the pre-defined borders, of a Palestinian state; and he imposed a partial and temporary freeze on the settlements, which is due to expire in September. The administration agreed that should be good enough to start formal peace talks. But Abbas is still refusing to meet Netanyahu unless the Israeli leader - or Obama - guarantees those big concessions on borders and settlements in advance.
This is not, as Abbas' spokesmen contend, a matter of either principle or domestic politics. The Palestinian president has negotiated with numerous Israeli leaders and did so without a settlement freeze or other preconditions. Here we come to the real mystery about Abbas: Does he really want peace? Or would he, like Yasser Arafat before him, prefer the messy status quo to going down in history as the Palestinian who once and for all accepted a Jewish state? Abbas received a far-reaching offer from Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, that met the territorial conditions he now sets. He refused to accept it even as a basis for negotiations. (Washington Post)
Should the U.S. Stop Funding the Lebanese Army? - Janine Zacharia
After Israel and Hizbullah fought a war in 2006, President Bush bolstered assistance to the Lebanese army to create a counterweight to the Shiite militia. Now, after a deadly clash last week between Israeli and Lebanese troops, some on Capitol Hill want to stop funding Lebanese forces entirely. A day before the Aug. 3 border fight between Israel and Lebanon, Rep. Howard Berman (D-Ca.), who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had put a hold on $100 million in assistance to the Lebanese military because of his concern that Hizbullah's influence over the army had grown.
Some lawmakers in both parties have also expressed frustration at the Lebanese military's lax patrolling of the border with Syria and the continued flow of Iranian-made weapons to Hizbullah. Israel estimates the group has now amassed an arsenal of roughly 40,000 rockets, four times what it had during the 2006 war. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said after spending more than $700 million over five years on the Lebanese military, "it has become clear that assistance to Lebanon has not advanced U.S. national security interests."
In interviews with former Lebanese military officials, current politicians and an array of observers in Lebanon, not a single person said he thought the army would take steps to disarm or distance itself from Hizbullah in the near term, with or without U.S. assistance. "Most of the Lebanese army now is against Israel and is pro-Hizbullah," said retired Lebanese general Elias Hanna. Israel and Lebanon are still technically at war. When Hizbullah took over Beirut in May 2008, the Lebanese army not only avoided confrontation, but also facilitated Hizbullah's seizure of certain key institutions. Many of the army's key figures are Shiites sympathetic to Hizbullah, including the powerful deputy head of Lebanese military intelligence. The last two Lebanese army commanders, both Christians, struck a pro-Hizbullah stance that helped them become presidents. (WashingtonPost)
Why the U.S. Must Make the Middle East Less Important - Michael Mandelbaum
American foreign policy this fall will feature the Middle East: we will see a push for direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear-weapons program and the hope that Iraq will remain stable as U.S. troops leave. Experience suggests that the chances of success for all three are poor. Over the years, the Middle East has proven inhospitable, if not downright hostile, to American initiatives. Recognizing this, the two previous administrations launched signature programs to transform the region into a friendlier place for American interests. Both failed. The Obama team should try a different approach, one that begins at home.
The Clinton Administration tried and failed to make peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The Obama Administration's prospects are no brighter. Since no policy open to it can make the Middle East safe for the U.S. and the world, the Obama Administration should act to make the world safe from the pathologies of the Middle East. It can do that by making the region less important. The Middle East matters because the world depends heavily on its oil. Since the U.S. uses so much oil, a major reduction in American consumption would substantially lower the global total. The less oil the world uses, the less important the region that has so much of it becomes. (TIME)
Mike Sachs |
Northeast Regional Director |
212-750-4110 • Fax 212-750-4125 |
AIPAC • The American Israel Public Affairs Committee |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment