<font size="5"><Center>
Obama's Mideast gamble</font size></center>
p o l i t i c o
By BEN SMITH
March 27, 2010
President Barack Obama’s relations with the Israeli government have hit a new low, but the tensions on display this week between him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be reviving another presidential project: His quest to improve America’s image in the Arab and Muslim world.
Obama raised high expectations among Arab leaders and publics with his promise of dramatic change from George W. Bush, and with high-profile gestures in the first days of his administration, but the administration’s awkward retreat last year from an initial demand of a total Israeli freeze on settlements dissipated much of that good will.
Now his return to the question of Israel’s continuing construction in East Jerusalem has signaled an acceptance of some Arab criticism of Israel.
<font size="3">The Evenhanded Gamble</font size>
The question facing Obama is whether he will be able to turn a perception of increased “evenhandedness” into Arab engagement in the peace process that the administration sought, but did not get, last year.
“The administration has used [the Jerusalem conflict] as an opportunity to bring back the settlement issue and to show that they’re willing to talk tough on settlements,” said Stephen Gordon, a Mideast scholar at the Brookings Institution. “I think that has sent the signal that yes, we are committed to the peace process, yes we are going to be evenhanded and, yes we recognize that this conflict is important to people in the Arab world.”
“I think inadvertently Netanyahu enabled the White House to restore a little bit of momentum to the idea that they are going to approach the Middle East problem in a new way,” said David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration trade official.
The new model drawing attention from Democratic foreign policy hands, he said, is to build support among Arab leaders for a U.S. plan, and then present that to Israel – to serve as the Arabs’ lawyer, rather than as Israel’s, in one formulation used to discuss the region.
“There is a sense that if the Israelis aren’t going to play, the U.S. is going to have to play a different kind of leadership role,” he said.
Senior American officials say their confrontation with Netanyahu is about the substance and timing of a housing announcement earlier this month, and nothing more. Their goal, they say, is no broader than bringing the Israelis and Palestinians back to the table in limited, indirect “proximity talks.”
But the confrontation also comes in the context of a long, unprecedented attempt by Obama to reset relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds.
“The outreach has been greater than we’ve ever seen before – probably because it’s more needed than it’s ever been before,” said Arab American Institute President James Zogby.
Obama signaled the direction early, explaining the goal in his inaugural address.
“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” he said.
Obama’s administration thrilled Arab leaders last May when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took an unexpectedly – and administration officials later said, inadvertent – hard line on settlements.
In June, his speech addressed to the broader Muslim world in Cairo included both philosophical appeals and more concrete.
“The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop,” he said.
Obama explained the logic of his actions in a private meeting with Jewish leaders that July, explaining the need to give Arab leaders “credibility” with their “street,” according to detailed notes taken by a participant in the meeting, “by creating space between us and Israel.”
The administration began to telegraph that it was on the brink of winning an unprecedented deal between Israel and a broader group of Arab states: In exchange for a true settlement freeze, the Arabs would offer a package of diplomatic initiatives on the way to full recognition, opening consulates and raising the level of their relations with the Jewish State.
Then the arrangements, and the apparent goodwill, collapsed. Israel would only agree to a partial freeze and the Arabs backed out of any action at all, accusing the U.S. of succumbing to Israeli pressure, even as American officials insisted that they’d won unprecedented concessions from Netanyahu.
This time, Arab expectations are lower. The Palestinian Authority has – helpfully, from the American perspective – avoided attaching its own demands to reports of what the U.S. has asked from Netanyahu.
Arab League leaders are meeting in Libya Saturday, but aren’t expected to make much headway there on the Middle East conflict, and the divided Palestinian territories, with Hamas in control of Gaza, may limit the scope of any negotiations.
“They do not want to start expecting something to happen that is not going to happen,” said Stephen P. Cohen, a former Bush Administration consultant on the region. “So they are holding their judgment for a while.”
It remains unclear what benefit Obama he will get in the region from the cost he’s paying at home.
“The current confrontation with the Netanyahu government over settlements comes in the context that hopes raised in the Obama Cairo speech have long since evaporated and the United States has no credibility to speak of on this issue,” Chas Freeman, a former ambassador whose nomination for a post in the Obama administration was withdrawn in part, because of accusations he sided with Arabs over Israel, said in a recent interview.
“At this point nobody wants a peace process; they want peace. They’re not going to be swayed or assuaged, nor will they be persuaded that the United States is serious, until there are results.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35099.html
Obama's Mideast gamble</font size></center>
p o l i t i c o
By BEN SMITH
March 27, 2010
President Barack Obama’s relations with the Israeli government have hit a new low, but the tensions on display this week between him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be reviving another presidential project: His quest to improve America’s image in the Arab and Muslim world.
Obama raised high expectations among Arab leaders and publics with his promise of dramatic change from George W. Bush, and with high-profile gestures in the first days of his administration, but the administration’s awkward retreat last year from an initial demand of a total Israeli freeze on settlements dissipated much of that good will.
Now his return to the question of Israel’s continuing construction in East Jerusalem has signaled an acceptance of some Arab criticism of Israel.
At the same time, Obama’s willingness to cross swords with the Israelis has come at a domestic political cost: The pro-Israel group AIPAC released a letter Friday with the signatures of three quarters of the members of the House, pressing the administration to retreat from public confrontation.
<font size="3">The Evenhanded Gamble</font size>
The question facing Obama is whether he will be able to turn a perception of increased “evenhandedness” into Arab engagement in the peace process that the administration sought, but did not get, last year.
“The administration has used [the Jerusalem conflict] as an opportunity to bring back the settlement issue and to show that they’re willing to talk tough on settlements,” said Stephen Gordon, a Mideast scholar at the Brookings Institution. “I think that has sent the signal that yes, we are committed to the peace process, yes we are going to be evenhanded and, yes we recognize that this conflict is important to people in the Arab world.”
Obama’s new focus, and the intense pressure his administration has placed on Netanyahu, has stirred deep concern among Israel’s allies on Capitol Hill, they say, because it represents an acceptance of the Arab narrative that Israeli intransigence lies at the heart of the Middle East conflict. And some observers see it in the context of a subtle, but major, shift in American strategy toward resolving it.
“I think inadvertently Netanyahu enabled the White House to restore a little bit of momentum to the idea that they are going to approach the Middle East problem in a new way,” said David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration trade official.
The new model drawing attention from Democratic foreign policy hands, he said, is to build support among Arab leaders for a U.S. plan, and then present that to Israel – to serve as the Arabs’ lawyer, rather than as Israel’s, in one formulation used to discuss the region.
“There is a sense that if the Israelis aren’t going to play, the U.S. is going to have to play a different kind of leadership role,” he said.
Senior American officials say their confrontation with Netanyahu is about the substance and timing of a housing announcement earlier this month, and nothing more. Their goal, they say, is no broader than bringing the Israelis and Palestinians back to the table in limited, indirect “proximity talks.”
But the confrontation also comes in the context of a long, unprecedented attempt by Obama to reset relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds.
“The outreach has been greater than we’ve ever seen before – probably because it’s more needed than it’s ever been before,” said Arab American Institute President James Zogby.
Obama signaled the direction early, explaining the goal in his inaugural address.
“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” he said.
Obama’s administration thrilled Arab leaders last May when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took an unexpectedly – and administration officials later said, inadvertent – hard line on settlements.
In June, his speech addressed to the broader Muslim world in Cairo included both philosophical appeals and more concrete.
“The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop,” he said.
Obama explained the logic of his actions in a private meeting with Jewish leaders that July, explaining the need to give Arab leaders “credibility” with their “street,” according to detailed notes taken by a participant in the meeting, “by creating space between us and Israel.”
The administration began to telegraph that it was on the brink of winning an unprecedented deal between Israel and a broader group of Arab states: In exchange for a true settlement freeze, the Arabs would offer a package of diplomatic initiatives on the way to full recognition, opening consulates and raising the level of their relations with the Jewish State.
Then the arrangements, and the apparent goodwill, collapsed. Israel would only agree to a partial freeze and the Arabs backed out of any action at all, accusing the U.S. of succumbing to Israeli pressure, even as American officials insisted that they’d won unprecedented concessions from Netanyahu.
This time, Arab expectations are lower. The Palestinian Authority has – helpfully, from the American perspective – avoided attaching its own demands to reports of what the U.S. has asked from Netanyahu.
Arab League leaders are meeting in Libya Saturday, but aren’t expected to make much headway there on the Middle East conflict, and the divided Palestinian territories, with Hamas in control of Gaza, may limit the scope of any negotiations.
“They do not want to start expecting something to happen that is not going to happen,” said Stephen P. Cohen, a former Bush Administration consultant on the region. “So they are holding their judgment for a while.”
It remains unclear what benefit Obama he will get in the region from the cost he’s paying at home.
“The current confrontation with the Netanyahu government over settlements comes in the context that hopes raised in the Obama Cairo speech have long since evaporated and the United States has no credibility to speak of on this issue,” Chas Freeman, a former ambassador whose nomination for a post in the Obama administration was withdrawn in part, because of accusations he sided with Arabs over Israel, said in a recent interview.
“At this point nobody wants a peace process; they want peace. They’re not going to be swayed or assuaged, nor will they be persuaded that the United States is serious, until there are results.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35099.html
