Post by DBunker on Aug 30, 2010 10:50:14 GMT -5
Jerusalem is Not Negotiable
posted Mar 17, 2010 12:03 PM by D. Bunker [ updated Mar 17, 2010 12:04 PM ]
by D. Bunker
16-March-2010
The third time is the charm or so they say. We stand at the precipice of change in the Middle East. There is change and there is what is apparently eternal. The resentment and hatred is as a pot set on the fire, the water is soon to boil and many continue to stoke the coals. From the potential of revolution within Egypt, a third Intifada, and a deteriorating US / Israeli alliance, the Middle East may stand at the edge of an Abyss of violence. Is this the change we can believe in or more of the same short sightedness that has plagued US foreign policy since 911? The runaway train has no one at the controls.
Egypt maybe in Play
Within a single week, Egypt went from promises to aid in funding Synagogues to not only nixing that idea, but accusing Israel as disinterested in any sort of peace agreement. Egypt is becoming disgruntled and there is a reason why. It is not passion, but politics.
Mubarak, who recently underwent gallbladder surgery, has been out of circulation for several days. With little comment as to his condition, the rumor mill began to churn. Concern about his health prompted speculation about the leadership of Egypt, a US Ally, which plays a critical role in issues ranging from Mideast peace efforts to curbing Islamic militancy. Also, they control the important waterway known as the Suez Canal.
A government spokesman said Mubarak would address the nation by the end of this week and released photos showing him sitting up in bed speaking to doctors in Germany. Mubarak's term in office ends next year and the idea that he may be incapable of running has fueled the wheels of his adversaries. The country doesn't have a truly democratic system and a violent power struggle may result. That possibility is what is causing rising tensions in the Arab world's most populous country. The opposition would also like to see several constitutional amendments introduced, mostly in areas where political and media freedoms are constricted. Meanwhile, Egyptians are wondering how Mubarak is doing. Reports are the Egyptian leader is doing well; nevertheless, his release remains pending.
It is well-known that Mubarak is trying to install his son Gamal as the next Egyptian president. This is not especially popular, and opposition parties demanded constitutional changes to make presidential elections less of a façade. Indeed, the New York Times reported on March 14 that Egyptian political arrests have begun a bit earlier than is usual before the May parliamentary elections. On March 13, about 300 Muslim Brotherhood members were arrested. The Mubarak regime isn't interested in liberal democracy, and the Obama administration isn't interested in supporting Egyptian liberal democrats. We thus face a continued authoritarianism possibly military in nature or an Islamist upheaval that could affect international trade. Both direction lay fraught with danger for Western interests and certainly play a part in the Israeli paranoia. If Egypt is lost, we have a definite game changer.
Intifada - Temple Mount
Past Intifadas have lasted years, are marked with random spontaneous attacks, and have cause Israel to make general concessions in order to restore order. Israel has in past resistances deployed tanks in order to blockade access to roads and limit movements, but such actions serve to spread forces thin as well as fuel the anger behind the rioting. At the center stage is the city of Jerusalem.
Netanyahu has defied the US by proclaiming, “We will keep building in Jerusalem.” The US seeks a calming of tensions, but here too, it has less to do with passion and more to do with political expedience.
Netanyahu is under a great deal of pressure from the conservative wing that helps keep his coalition together along with the opposition party headed by Livni. She has commented that Netanyahu does not know what he wants and is on the verge of losing his government. She may be correct. Such a reality may be behind the hidden goal of Obama’s Administration.
While Arab rights groups visit the Temple Mount, Masked Palestinians hurl rocks at police and burn tires in east Jerusalem, roadblocks are set up at Galilee junctions to block the `day of rage` protesters, and Sde Dov airport is closed for security drills Israelis have to wonder where all this will lead.
Comments such as, “Netanyahu has broken the national backbone and brings about the division of Jerusalem...he should demonstrate power and not fold on Jerusalem" are becoming more common place and are voiced from both political spectrums.
Israeli / US Government Troubles / Obama seeks regime change?
After years of lukewarm reactions to statements about new settlements by Israel, the United States chose to push events to the brink this time, and a common incident became a major crisis. Why?
It was intended to show Israel that the United States is not going to accept everything Israel wants. A special focus on the need to gain at least minimal credibility with Arab leaders also lay at the heart of this rift. Arab leader are increasingly of the opinion the Obama administration is weak on the Middle East and much of this is due to settlement activity and the perception that the US cares only about Israel.
Even if the United States is able to change these perceptions, it is increasingly unclear where Obama goes from here. If one plans to pick a fight, one should have a sense of how and if it can be won. To insure this, one must define what it is to “win.” Obama cannot seem to decide what it is he wants let alone find a path to achieve it. Short of regime change, taking down the Netanyahu government, I see no plausible strategy. If he intends to weaken Netanyahu, this has other implication least of which who would replace him. Better the devil you know in other words. A lack of trust is thus developing and this makes the crisis allot more serious. At center stage could be the Suez Canal and to embolden radical Islamic groups to start the very war Obama hopes to avoid.
In general, the sense on the Middle Eastern street, as it were, can be summed up in the following two quotes:
PALESTINIAN MAN: "They have proven years ago that they are not relevant. Because the only thing the Americans care about is Israeli security and not the security of others."
ISRAELI WOMAN: "If Obama would make an effort to deter all those who are out against Israel, they will respect Israelis and increase the chances of making peace."
Such irreconcilable views require mediation and mediation requires credibility. Netanyahu’s options become very limited as he moves for his own political survival; meanwhile, Obama continues his agenda that can only be described as a political campaign to effect regime change in Israel. This plan is more likely to backfire than succeed. Israeli’s do not take well to such manipulation especially when it comes to Jerusalem. Obama may well strengthen the Netanyahu regime.
Daniel Kurtzer has served as U.S. ambassador to Egypt and Israel. "I have been disappointed this last year with the lack of boldness and the lack of creativity and the lack of strength in our diplomacy with respect to this peace process," he said. He points to an increasingly complicated situation in the region. Robert Malley worked in the Clinton White House and also comments, "I cannot recall a time that was more complex, contradictory, and confusing," said Malley.
It all seems to be change we can look puzzled at.
Senior White House advisor David Axelrod on NBC's Meet the Press television program. "This was an affront, it was an insult," Axelrod said. "But most importantly, it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region." In the limited scope of the Obama vision this may be true, but it was an all too common statement about new settlements that are a normal set of tactics in such negotiations that the Administration chose to use as a catalyst toward a calculated change. That change will not be a peace conference. That change has only served to complicate matters and create perplexity among our allies.
"Too old, too slow ... and too late."
Division in the highest levels of military command and government within the US and Israel are becoming clear. Obama in some cases seeks a middle road where fewer are offended, but he risks offending everyone, as he does not grasp the region at all. Apparently, those who do and those who are charged with advising him cannot get him to listen or are as lost as he appears to be. Moving the Palestinian problem into the realm of unified combatant command may not be the answer, but naïve plans not rooted in any type of realistic strategy also are not an answer either.
Movements in alliances are signals we should look for short term. Both the Druze and the Saudis are indicating concern with the path and have moved to consolidate their position or at least create options. They choose to do this via Syria, as capitulation to Hezbollah or Iran is simply not an option. Perhaps, they seek to find a wedge or at least remove themselves from the fray of regional targets. Israel must face a new paradigm with the loss of the Druze and the US may be faced with a broader issue in such nations as Saudi, Kuwait, UAE etc. As these nations posture away from the US, we can gauge how close we may be to the opening of hostilities. Fear is a powerful thing.
The focus has shifted away from Iran and onto Israel and the growing rift with the US, and yet munitions are moved to Diego Garcia in the form of Bunker Buster bombs. This is obviously a threat to Iran, but faced with the lack of dazzle Obama has managed to muster with the regime, he simply prefers a fight with Netanyahu. When there are no solutions, frustrated parties tend toward creating them. Often they create more problems instead.
Movement of military assets is certainly an incremental strategy, but it is lost in the shuffle and noise limiting the potential impact. Perhaps, another Carrier will be dispatched but it would require 3+ weeks at this stage. There is other hardware in the region, but the threat level becomes more credible with Carrier Strike Groups in place to back them. Iran believes the US is bluffing and not resolute, as does Israel. The message coming from Washington is one of ‘avoidance of conflict’ no matter the cost and the deployment of a few bombs will not change that perception.
In the meanwhile, the EU is attempting a new political push intended to restart talks. The EU wants the Quartet of Mideast peacemakers — the EU, the United States, the United Nations and Russia — to do more to nudge Israel and the Palestinians to peace. "The European Union is ready to step up its involvement." It is difficult to say at this stage, but I suspect it is too old, too slow and too late. Barring some unforeseen breakthrough via the Russian Quartet Summit, The Peace Process in my opinion is dead.
What moral can we extract from the last few weeks? It is a simple one, Jerusalem is not negotiable.
sites.google.com/site/dbunkernews/home/my-opinion-1/jerusalemisnotnegotiable
posted Mar 17, 2010 12:03 PM by D. Bunker [ updated Mar 17, 2010 12:04 PM ]
by D. Bunker
16-March-2010
The third time is the charm or so they say. We stand at the precipice of change in the Middle East. There is change and there is what is apparently eternal. The resentment and hatred is as a pot set on the fire, the water is soon to boil and many continue to stoke the coals. From the potential of revolution within Egypt, a third Intifada, and a deteriorating US / Israeli alliance, the Middle East may stand at the edge of an Abyss of violence. Is this the change we can believe in or more of the same short sightedness that has plagued US foreign policy since 911? The runaway train has no one at the controls.
Egypt maybe in Play
Within a single week, Egypt went from promises to aid in funding Synagogues to not only nixing that idea, but accusing Israel as disinterested in any sort of peace agreement. Egypt is becoming disgruntled and there is a reason why. It is not passion, but politics.
Mubarak, who recently underwent gallbladder surgery, has been out of circulation for several days. With little comment as to his condition, the rumor mill began to churn. Concern about his health prompted speculation about the leadership of Egypt, a US Ally, which plays a critical role in issues ranging from Mideast peace efforts to curbing Islamic militancy. Also, they control the important waterway known as the Suez Canal.
A government spokesman said Mubarak would address the nation by the end of this week and released photos showing him sitting up in bed speaking to doctors in Germany. Mubarak's term in office ends next year and the idea that he may be incapable of running has fueled the wheels of his adversaries. The country doesn't have a truly democratic system and a violent power struggle may result. That possibility is what is causing rising tensions in the Arab world's most populous country. The opposition would also like to see several constitutional amendments introduced, mostly in areas where political and media freedoms are constricted. Meanwhile, Egyptians are wondering how Mubarak is doing. Reports are the Egyptian leader is doing well; nevertheless, his release remains pending.
It is well-known that Mubarak is trying to install his son Gamal as the next Egyptian president. This is not especially popular, and opposition parties demanded constitutional changes to make presidential elections less of a façade. Indeed, the New York Times reported on March 14 that Egyptian political arrests have begun a bit earlier than is usual before the May parliamentary elections. On March 13, about 300 Muslim Brotherhood members were arrested. The Mubarak regime isn't interested in liberal democracy, and the Obama administration isn't interested in supporting Egyptian liberal democrats. We thus face a continued authoritarianism possibly military in nature or an Islamist upheaval that could affect international trade. Both direction lay fraught with danger for Western interests and certainly play a part in the Israeli paranoia. If Egypt is lost, we have a definite game changer.
Intifada - Temple Mount
Past Intifadas have lasted years, are marked with random spontaneous attacks, and have cause Israel to make general concessions in order to restore order. Israel has in past resistances deployed tanks in order to blockade access to roads and limit movements, but such actions serve to spread forces thin as well as fuel the anger behind the rioting. At the center stage is the city of Jerusalem.
Netanyahu has defied the US by proclaiming, “We will keep building in Jerusalem.” The US seeks a calming of tensions, but here too, it has less to do with passion and more to do with political expedience.
Netanyahu is under a great deal of pressure from the conservative wing that helps keep his coalition together along with the opposition party headed by Livni. She has commented that Netanyahu does not know what he wants and is on the verge of losing his government. She may be correct. Such a reality may be behind the hidden goal of Obama’s Administration.
While Arab rights groups visit the Temple Mount, Masked Palestinians hurl rocks at police and burn tires in east Jerusalem, roadblocks are set up at Galilee junctions to block the `day of rage` protesters, and Sde Dov airport is closed for security drills Israelis have to wonder where all this will lead.
Comments such as, “Netanyahu has broken the national backbone and brings about the division of Jerusalem...he should demonstrate power and not fold on Jerusalem" are becoming more common place and are voiced from both political spectrums.
Israeli / US Government Troubles / Obama seeks regime change?
After years of lukewarm reactions to statements about new settlements by Israel, the United States chose to push events to the brink this time, and a common incident became a major crisis. Why?
It was intended to show Israel that the United States is not going to accept everything Israel wants. A special focus on the need to gain at least minimal credibility with Arab leaders also lay at the heart of this rift. Arab leader are increasingly of the opinion the Obama administration is weak on the Middle East and much of this is due to settlement activity and the perception that the US cares only about Israel.
Even if the United States is able to change these perceptions, it is increasingly unclear where Obama goes from here. If one plans to pick a fight, one should have a sense of how and if it can be won. To insure this, one must define what it is to “win.” Obama cannot seem to decide what it is he wants let alone find a path to achieve it. Short of regime change, taking down the Netanyahu government, I see no plausible strategy. If he intends to weaken Netanyahu, this has other implication least of which who would replace him. Better the devil you know in other words. A lack of trust is thus developing and this makes the crisis allot more serious. At center stage could be the Suez Canal and to embolden radical Islamic groups to start the very war Obama hopes to avoid.
In general, the sense on the Middle Eastern street, as it were, can be summed up in the following two quotes:
PALESTINIAN MAN: "They have proven years ago that they are not relevant. Because the only thing the Americans care about is Israeli security and not the security of others."
ISRAELI WOMAN: "If Obama would make an effort to deter all those who are out against Israel, they will respect Israelis and increase the chances of making peace."
Such irreconcilable views require mediation and mediation requires credibility. Netanyahu’s options become very limited as he moves for his own political survival; meanwhile, Obama continues his agenda that can only be described as a political campaign to effect regime change in Israel. This plan is more likely to backfire than succeed. Israeli’s do not take well to such manipulation especially when it comes to Jerusalem. Obama may well strengthen the Netanyahu regime.
Daniel Kurtzer has served as U.S. ambassador to Egypt and Israel. "I have been disappointed this last year with the lack of boldness and the lack of creativity and the lack of strength in our diplomacy with respect to this peace process," he said. He points to an increasingly complicated situation in the region. Robert Malley worked in the Clinton White House and also comments, "I cannot recall a time that was more complex, contradictory, and confusing," said Malley.
It all seems to be change we can look puzzled at.
Senior White House advisor David Axelrod on NBC's Meet the Press television program. "This was an affront, it was an insult," Axelrod said. "But most importantly, it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region." In the limited scope of the Obama vision this may be true, but it was an all too common statement about new settlements that are a normal set of tactics in such negotiations that the Administration chose to use as a catalyst toward a calculated change. That change will not be a peace conference. That change has only served to complicate matters and create perplexity among our allies.
"Too old, too slow ... and too late."
Division in the highest levels of military command and government within the US and Israel are becoming clear. Obama in some cases seeks a middle road where fewer are offended, but he risks offending everyone, as he does not grasp the region at all. Apparently, those who do and those who are charged with advising him cannot get him to listen or are as lost as he appears to be. Moving the Palestinian problem into the realm of unified combatant command may not be the answer, but naïve plans not rooted in any type of realistic strategy also are not an answer either.
Movements in alliances are signals we should look for short term. Both the Druze and the Saudis are indicating concern with the path and have moved to consolidate their position or at least create options. They choose to do this via Syria, as capitulation to Hezbollah or Iran is simply not an option. Perhaps, they seek to find a wedge or at least remove themselves from the fray of regional targets. Israel must face a new paradigm with the loss of the Druze and the US may be faced with a broader issue in such nations as Saudi, Kuwait, UAE etc. As these nations posture away from the US, we can gauge how close we may be to the opening of hostilities. Fear is a powerful thing.
The focus has shifted away from Iran and onto Israel and the growing rift with the US, and yet munitions are moved to Diego Garcia in the form of Bunker Buster bombs. This is obviously a threat to Iran, but faced with the lack of dazzle Obama has managed to muster with the regime, he simply prefers a fight with Netanyahu. When there are no solutions, frustrated parties tend toward creating them. Often they create more problems instead.
Movement of military assets is certainly an incremental strategy, but it is lost in the shuffle and noise limiting the potential impact. Perhaps, another Carrier will be dispatched but it would require 3+ weeks at this stage. There is other hardware in the region, but the threat level becomes more credible with Carrier Strike Groups in place to back them. Iran believes the US is bluffing and not resolute, as does Israel. The message coming from Washington is one of ‘avoidance of conflict’ no matter the cost and the deployment of a few bombs will not change that perception.
In the meanwhile, the EU is attempting a new political push intended to restart talks. The EU wants the Quartet of Mideast peacemakers — the EU, the United States, the United Nations and Russia — to do more to nudge Israel and the Palestinians to peace. "The European Union is ready to step up its involvement." It is difficult to say at this stage, but I suspect it is too old, too slow and too late. Barring some unforeseen breakthrough via the Russian Quartet Summit, The Peace Process in my opinion is dead.
What moral can we extract from the last few weeks? It is a simple one, Jerusalem is not negotiable.
sites.google.com/site/dbunkernews/home/my-opinion-1/jerusalemisnotnegotiable
