Israeli pogrom

An innocent Palestinian family, numbering close to 20 people. All of
them women and children, save for three men. Surrounding them are a few dozen masked Jews seeking to lynch them. A pogrom. This isn't a play on words or a double meaning. It is a pogrom in the worst sense of the word. First the masked men set fire to their laundry in the front yard and then they tried to set fire to one of the rooms in the house. The women cry for help, "Allahu Akhbar." Yet the neighbors are too scared to approach the house, frightened of the security guards from Kiryat Arba who have sealed off the home and who are cursing the journalists who wish to document the events unfolding there. -Avi Issacharoff

I am generally more sympathetic to the Israeli point of view than the average western liberal, but there is simply no way to defend such behavior. Webster dictionary defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" and that is exactly what those settlers are doing.

Syria first

Someone in the mainstream media agrees with me on the Middle East Here is Aaron David Miller in the Washington Post arguing for a Syria first approach to the Middle East:

The more compelling argument is for a major push on another negotiation: between Israel and Syria. Here, there are two states at the table, rather than one state and a dysfunctional national movement. A quiet border, courtesy of Henry Kissinger's 1974 disengagement diplomacy, prevails. And there are fewer settlers on the Golan Heights and no megaton issues such as the status of Jerusalem to blow up the talks. Indeed, the issues are straightforward -- withdrawal, peace, security and water -- and the gaps are clear and ready to be bridged.

For a president looking for a way to buck up America's credibility, an Israeli-Syrian agreement offers a potential bonus. Such a deal would begin to realign the region's architecture in a way that serves broader U.S. interests. The White House would have to be patient. Syria won't walk away from a 30-year relationship with Iran; weaning the Syrians from Iran would have to occur gradually, requiring a major international effort to marshal economic and political support for Damascus. Still, an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty would confront Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran with tough choices and reduced options.

I've made a similar argument before. Also here.

Via Matthew Yglesias

Update: Itamar Rabinovich over at Jerusalem Post makes essentially the same arguments (hat tip FP Passport)

Smart take: Israel, Palestine and Syria

Blake Houndshell makes two good point:

Most of these ideas, regardless of whether Gates really intends to implement them, are worth exploring. I really, wonder, though, about the viability of a "big push on Israel-Palestine peace" at this point.

It hasn't gotten a lot of coverage, but the Palestinian Authority is in huge trouble right now. Hamas insists that Mahmoud Abbas's term as president expires on Jan. 9. For his part, Abbas is threatening to call presidential and parliamentary elections, the latter of which Hamas would deem illegal.

It's a huge mess, making it hard to imagine Israel engaging in serious negotiations, much less allowing a failed state to set up shop next door. As peace process veteran Aaron David Miller bluntly puts it, "The dysfunction and confusion in Palestine make a conflict-ending agreement almost impossible."

That is a huge problem right now. Whoever attempts a peace process will have to recognize that there will need to be at least 2 Palestinian representatives at the negotiating table, or that Fatah and Hamas agree to form some sort of coalition government, which is unlikely. I still think that if Kadima is reelected, there might be a way to work around it because the Arab Peace Initiative is a proposal made by Saudi Arabia and supported by the Arab League. If Hamas wants to spoil the peace process, the Arab countries are much better placed to pressure them into negotiating than any tough talking American politician. The Arab states currently believe it is in their interests to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem because they are worried that it is fueling fundamentalism in their own country. This is an important window of opportunity for peace between Israel and Palestine, maybe in 10-15 years Arab governments will not be as worried about fundamentalism and will not actively support a peace process.

The second point:

Second, if I were Barack Obama, I'd probe the Syrians to find out what their price is for making peace with the Israelis. If it seems doable, I'd start laying the groundwork so that once the new Israeli government is in place, direct talks could quickly follow with the United States, not Turkey, as a mediator.

Claims that getting the Syrians to stop supporting Hamas will cause the Palestians to be less radical are probably overblown -- if anything, the exiled political leadership in Damascus is more pragmatic than the guys in Gaza -- but a Syria-Israel peace deal has its own logic. Syria has foolishly spurned such opportunities before, but it's worth a shot.

That is also very important. Syria has no ideological reason for not being at peace with the West and Israel. Negotiations with Syria would be one of my top priority if I was Obama (assuming Kadima is also elected in February, if Netanyahu wins, forget all hopes for peace for a while).

Syria or Iran first?

Indeed, the Syrian elite itself may be split over Western overtures and their Iranian relationship. Whether or not it is as quixotic a dalliance as the Times suggests, it is correct that Iran is the key, and a resolution of that standoff will force Syria to move so as not to risk further isolation. -Boz

I think the logic is backward here. After eight years of a Bush administration which strengthened Iran's standing in the region through a succession of blunders, Iran's position is strong enough to be able to extract significant concessions on any sort of deal it would agree to sign with western powers. I do not think that a new President in the White House will magically shift the balance of power in the Middle East; we saw how that worked at Vienna in 1961 in regard to Russia. Iran has few incentives to give up on its nuclear program now; it knows that if it manages to build nuclear bombs, the balance of power will be further shifted toward them. I think the smart thing to do is weaken Iran's position through diplomacy and then reach a deal, rather than attempt to do so when Iran's position is strong.

Syria has shown its willingness to negotiate with Israel and to work with the west even during the Bush years. The leaders of the country are largely secular and come from a small religious minority of the population (Alawite) who have had problems of their own with fundamentalists. Therefore, they do not have any ideological objections to cooperation against terrorism. While allegedly "allied" with Iran, Syria is definitely the minor partner in the operation. The odds are that they dislike Iran's new influence in Lebanon through Hezbollah, since Syria considers Lebanon its own backyard. Again, Syria has no ideological commitment to its alliance with Iran, it is simply a marriage of convenience by two countries hated by the west. I think Syria would be much easier to bring into a peace deal with the west and Israel, by giving them back Golan Heights, normalizing relations and maybe recognizing its "special relation" with Lebanon*.

Making a deal with Syria would improve chances of reaching a satisfying peace deal with Iran, especially if other policies intended to isolate Iran diplomatically such as improved relations with Russia are pursued.

*The caveat is that this strategy depends on a Livni win in February.

Via: Arthur Goldhammer

Obama to try to solve Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Kashmir is not enough, it looks like Obama also wants to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, I've heard through the cracks that he intends to transform Darfur into a Japan clone during his second term. This is coming from very well placed sources.

Alright, back to the Middle East. An article published today in the Sunday Times hints that Obama is thinking about solving the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Apparently, Barrack Obama intends to pursue the Arab Peace Initiative, originally proposed by Saudi Arabia in 2002. To say that the plan is ambitious is an understatement. If implemented by all parties, Israel would retire to its pre 1967 borders (including Golan Heights), recognize a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and in return they would get full recognition from Arab states. According to the Times, the Right of Return would be subject to Israeli veto; it is only cited in the plan. So the plan is basically a full normalization of the state of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian State.

The Peace Deal is definitely interesting, if only because it came from the Arab states and show that they are finally committed to solve the problem. One of the reason why they want to solve it is that they almost all have internal problems with fundamentalists; and they would all sleep better at night if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was solved, in the belief that it would slow down fundamentalist recruitment. But before we start being optimist, there are a lot of questions left unanswered:

1. Who will win the Israeli elections of February 10th 2009? Livni, the leader of the ruling Kadima Party, has supported the plan. But on the other hand, Netanyahu of the Likud Party is totally opposed to the plan. Several polls show Likud with a small lead, but it is very close. If Likud wins, forget about the plan.
   
2. Will the plan still be acceptable to Arab states and all leading Palestinian factions once it is clear that the Right of Return will be "vetoed" by Israel? This is a huge sticking point.
   
3. Is the plan acceptable to both Fatah and Hamas? The article does not mention Hamas at all, but they must be aware that they are in charge of Gaza and no comprehensive peace deal will lead to anything if Hamas is not on board. According to wikipedia, Hamas has supported the plan after it was released; but that was a long time ago when the intra-Palestinian situation was different. What about now? Also, Fatah might not want to sign a Peace Deal which would leave them a country that they think would vote them out for Hamas. It seems Fatah has become almost parasitically dependent on Western propping
   
4. Is Barrack Obama experienced enough to pass it? I can't say I'm impressed by what he said according to the Times; that Israel would be "crazy" if they refused such a plan which "give them peace with the Muslim world". Telling choice of words but not very diplomatic; and if he wants to do this thing he will need all the diplomacy he can get. I tend to agree that this is as good as a deal that Israel will get, but I could see plenty of scenarios where I would not regard it in Israel's self-interest to sign (for example if some Arab countries backed off or if Fatah or Hamas disengage from the negotiations).
5. Will there be fundamentalists on either sides that will do whatever it takes to make it fail? If so will they succeed?

Anyway, it will be another subject I'll follow closely.

But I think we can see a pattern emerging from Obama; from Kashmir to health care to the Middle East, it can be summed up in 2 words: THINK BIG.