Iraq pullout makes Israeli-Palestinian peace crucial for U.S.
Timing is crucial as Obama convenes as many Arab leaders as he possibly can and gambles on a diplomatic breakthrough.
By Akiva EldarDespite the fact that they occurred almost simultaneously, any connection between the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq and Washington's invitation of the leaders of Jordan and Egypt to a summit inaugurating direct Israel-Palestinian talks might appear to be entirely coincidental.
But it is hard to believe the White House is unaware of the strategic implications of its unilateral withdrawal from Iraq for the balance of power between pragmatic regimes, like Egypt and Jordan, and fundamentalist forces led by Iran. And Washington sees thawing the frozen peace process between Israel and the Palestinians - and not only the Palestinians - as the key to bolstering the region's pro-Western axis.
 |
U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walking at the White House, on July 6, 2010. |
| Photo by: Reuters |
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan were not invited to Washington only to add color to the proceedings. They will be there as the salesmen of the Arab Peace Initiative, which offers Israel normalized relations with all members of the Arab League in return for a withdrawal from all the territory conquered in June 1967 and establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
To avoid upsetting the Jews, in both Israel and the United States, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not mention the initiative adopted in Beirut in March 2002 in her statement announcing the summit in Washington. She left that dirty job to the Quartet, which mentioned the Arab Peace Initiative in the statement it issued in parallel with Clinton's.
Were Syrian President Bashar Assad to distance himself a bit from his Iranian friend, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and were Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri able to rid himself of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, U.S. President Barack Obama would gladly host them too. And if Saudi King Abdullah were willing to shake hands with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "without preconditions," he, too, would have been among those invited.
But Obama had to make do with only two players from the Arab League. For the time being, that is all the Americans have with which to win this round.
The bitter experience of the Camp David summit in 2000, whose failure sparked the Al-Aqsa Intifada, suggests that the peace process lives or dies on the question of Jerusalem. Even a charismatic leader like Yasser Arafat did not dare make any concessions over the holy sites in Al-Quds by himself. But only after the talks hit a crisis did then-president Bill Clinton rush his ambassadors to Arab capitals with a request that they grant Arafat permission to adopt the American compromise formula.
Ten years later, the dispute over Jerusalem - this time over a Palestinian demand to freeze Jewish construction in the city's eastern half - is threatening to foil the 2010 Washington summit.
The significance of the blessing Egypt has given the process stems from its primacy in the Arab and Muslim world. The Hashemite Kingdom, which ruled East Jerusalem until June 1967, still contributes to preserving the holy sites - and to vocally protesting any Israeli attempt to alter the status quo. The establishment of a Palestinian state would also grant Jordan an important new role: protecting its border with the new state.
At a time when Democratic candidates in the upcoming Congressional elections are looking for excuses to avoid a photo-op with the president, it is not entirely certain that an invitation to the White House will bolster the standing of an Arab leader. But Egypt's Mubarak and Jordan's Abdullah have no other choice: They will have to make do with the American president's promise that this time, he is serious.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
.... the peace we are looking for has some influence on all of us, no? And it never came even close to be.... consummated .... If anything, it became less and less attainable. The occupation increased all the time while the bombing of Israel ceased only at the price of murderous wars. etcetera.....The people, mainly the Arabs, but also the Israelis, became more and more polarized. They hate us. We hate them. So, they vote Hamas....and we vote Lieberman! And all of a sudden, President Obama wants us to make peace, PRESTO, in one year (Intermission to laugh..). And all this is influenced, CRUCIALLY, by the pull-out from Iraq. (another intermission...but nothing follows).
crucial for ME peace ? Nonsense. America is trying to throw her weight upon Israel.......... Israel said,'End of freeze by the end of September' stick to it, otherwise those around you will see you as a paper chicken. ! This is the ME it goes by another code of conduct. Show weakness,& you become the laughing stock of the world. & especially the Middle east . Now,let's see how Bibi acts.
1. First target , let Iran become a nuclear power. Obama now achieved it 2. Run out of Iraq, Obama achieved it (muslims rejoyse!) 3. Hand over Jersusalem and the West bank to Islam - work in progress The step number 4 and the final will be to flud Israel with many millions of Arabs (the so called refugies) Check and Mat
I think Obama is taking the right steps to get a new round of negotiations going. While I'm skeptically optimistic, I think putting the Arab Peace Initiative on the table and using it as a way to get the talks rolling will help. There was also a joint Israeli-Palestinian Initiative in 2003 - the Geneva Accords. The Geneva Initiative (updated in 2009) elaborates on the parameters set forth by the Arab Peace Initiative. And I think it's an excellent starting point with some viable ideas.
peace in the mideast would have been achieved years ago but for americas blank cheque to israel. are the yanks aware of the damage they do themselves, and bring israel to heel, or is this just another exercise in doing israels bidding... wandwatch
We all now look back at Vietnam and see it as a US defeat, with pictures flashing through our brains of the last US helicopter out of Saigon in 1975. However, back in 1973 it looked different. Then the US signed a peace treaty and withdrew its forces with their flags flying and bands playing. They left behind what seemed a strong pro-western government with plenty of US civilian and military aid still arriving. Sound familiar? The US had planned to stay forever in South Vietnam, as it did in Iraq. In both cases it has been forced out by local resistance. I would be surprised if Iraq is still in the Western orbit in 2 or 3 years - pleased, but surprised.And if youw ant any more discouraging parallels look at what happened to the pro-Soviet government left in power in Adghanistan, after the Red Army withdrew with flags flying and bands playing from there.
I am old enough to still remember the Vietnam debacle. I lost friends and neighbors and classmates there. I also remember the fall of Saigon. Bush may have originally planned on a permanent occupation. But he came to his senses and negotiated a withdrawal. And the US people ratified that withdrawal when given the chance in the last Presidential elections. McCain clearly was for staying for 100 years and said so. He was defeated. Will Iraq remain in a Western orbit. I doubt it. That was an unrealistic neocon dream, like controlling China's economy through control of Middle East resources. Hopefully we can be smarter that we were after helping create the current opposition in Afghanistan, the one that ousted the Soviets.
after destroying the country, killing hundreds of thousands... does ayone in his right mind expect iraq to be pro western?.. you must be joking... you reap as you sow.
Of course it couldn't be that he is genuinely interested in peace, and sympathises with the Palestinians for that reason alone?
It is nearly impossible in a talkback to contest every error is fact and opinion in this article. Eldar, head is on so screwy, he maybe needs a reset. 1) US is not unilaterally pulling out from Iraq. The withdrawal/draw-down is according to a written agreement made by President Bush and the Iraqi government. US Presidents don't have the luxury of ignoring written agreements. 2) An end to the state of war between Israel and the Palestinians is a national security interest of Jordan and Egypt. They will have borders with Palestine, if it comes into being. They are not there for color. 3) Unusual as it may seem, the Christian and Muslim holy sites conquered in 1967 are not Israeli property to remodel or dispose of as Israel feels. They are not tourist amusement parks as the Israel Antiquities Authority treats them, either. The priests and nuns and monks and sisters are not Disney characters on a stage. Not all get along. And Jordan has preserved agreements dating from the Crusades that Israel would overturn with its high-handedness. 4) An agreement with the Palestinians is only a first step towards meeting the Arab Initiative. Israel still occupies parts of Lebanon and Syria. Could Bill Clinton have done better. Yes. But, at least he didn't drive half the government of the Palestinians into the arms of Iran and engineer the downfall of half the Palestinian government.
Iraq lies between Iran and its protege Syria. Or - put another way - Iraq is a bridge between the armies of Syria and Iran. While the US army is in Iraq that bridge is shut tight, but after those US troops leave Iraq is certain to fall into Iran's orbit. Think about it..... and Israel's stategic position would be grave indeed if there was a Syria/Iraq/Iran military pact, precisely because the head of the IDF's Northern Command could wake up one morning and find half a million Revolutionary Guards on his doorstep, and all demanding that he withdraw from the Golan Heights.
Yes, there is and may be some Iranian influence in Iraq after the US is fully out. But Iraq is still a democracy in its infancy. And it does not have a history of being easily influenced by Persia. Rather the reverse is true. And some Persians resent that influence. The US withdrawal, even when it is finished will be only of military personnel. We are upping civilian and diplomatic and technical aid already and plan to continue. Iran is not a model for getting the electricity running or making life better in Baghdad. They are not a model of multi-ethnic tolerance and democratic compromise, either. Both of those are things that Iraq really needs.
israel would never allow half a million revolutionary guards to build up on her borders. war would break out long before that. iran would be destroyed. syria also would be destroyed.
What you just said about destroying two countries is not possible by conventional means available to Israel, not even to the US. And then do you leave the survivors the what? Al Qaida's government? Do you ever think beyond the initial battle. Or do you think the survivors will welcome you with flowers?
The REAL reason that Obama & Company are pushing for continuity is ONE THING alone--U.S. voters are set to deal him perhaps the worst defeat in recent history and he is DESPERATE for some kind of "perceived" success. He is grasping at straws. I, for one, HOPE these talks will fail miserably, simply because I view Obama as the BIGGEST danger in the long term to Western security--and Israel's very existence. Let them fail. Let him add yet another of the string of failed involvements he has demonstrated in his brief tenure.
It is much in our interest to loose jerusalem and even all palestinian occupied territories after a (horrible) war but not through a deceiving vicious negotiations. Jerusalem was lost during crusade invasions but has been recovered after about 100 years of ccupation.
In reality everybody knows that a Palestinian state will have to comprise all of the land before the 67 war and East Jerusalem as its capital, with, in addition, its sovereign air and sea rights. And the right to return for the refugees. It is that simple. If that cannot be reached, then a one-state solution with equal rights for Palestinians is the only alternative. Netanyahu's intention to continue indefinitely peace talks leading nowhere while Israel appropriates all the land of the Palestinians, will not work. It will impose a one state solution in which the Jewish state will disappear. For its own good. Al Aqsa mosque must remain Muslim. It is one of the greatest works of art and culture. That means, East Jerusalem will remain Arab. That is only right.
israel is here to stay. all of the core issues to the conflict will be subject to negotiations. israel will not agree to any "right of return." israel will not agree to any dicatates from the arabs or from the u.s. israel will remain the sovereign state which is the homeland of the jewish people.
To my knowledge, the international community has not to this date adopted any resolutions calling for a full throated right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel as that would amount to a civilian invasion force demographically and would sabotage the peace deal in and of itself. The farthest the international community and the US has come toward the Palestinian side of the issue is to ask that Israel accept a token number of refugees.
"Iraq will turn against Israel as soon as USA pulls out" No, that is far too egocentric. It is more accurate to say that Iraq will turn TOWARDS Iran, which will result in Iran having an arc of allies that leads from Tehran all the way through Baghdad to Damascus, and from there onto the borders (Hah! What borders?) of Israel. That's not good for Israel - not by a long shot - but perhaps it will drum home to Israel that you reap what you sow.....
Dear Akliva, You write "...its unilateral withdrawal from Iraq...". Why do you believe that the US has withdrawn from Iraq? There will be at least 50,000 soldiers remaining plus thousands of armed civilian mercenaries (i.e. private contractors) plus thousands of civilian employees working in the largest embassy in the world. The US will remain the dominant military power in Iraq for many years to come.
The only reason Mubarak and Abdullah show up is because they are propped up by the US military. Egyptians would throw out Mubarak in 1 second flat - same with the Jordanians and Abdullah. All Arab countries next to Israel are US run dictatorships. The reason the Arab world does not have Democracy is because the Zionists and US actively suppress democratic movement in the Middle East. This is done so pro-US dictators will not cause problems for Israel. If Egypt were a democracy, Gaza would have food and electricity. If Jordan were a democracy, then the Israel would not be able to kill Palestinians with impunity. The US govt and Zionists are suppressing human rights.
the muslim brotherhood, the only significant opposition in egypt, is not a democratic movement. it is an islamist dictatorial movement. the opposition in saudi is al qaeda. indeed, the opposition in the vast majority of the arab world is radical islamist fundemantalism.
You are both ideologues. The only US military in Egypt is the tripwire force of observers in Sinai, plus the embassy staff and a few attaches.. There are only a few attaches in Jordan - no forces, unless you count the Embassy Guard force, like we have in London, too. And there are several democracies developing in the Arab world, including in Iraq. Some are in higher stages than others. Great Britain's democratic form of government evolved from Magna Carta, more than a few years ago. It had ups and downs and took more than a few years to mature. And if not for Simon de Montfort, may have never evolved at all.
to the extent that there is any democracy in iraq, it is a direct result of american intervention. as i said, and correctly, there is no democracy in the arab world. nor are there any democratic movements in the arab world. calling me an ideologue will not change this fact.
Its the nearest thing to South African aparheid in the world. Segregation between Jews and Arabs, Religious and non religous and men and women. Corruption at the highest levels And you call this democracy?
1 israel has freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press, freedom of religion; 2 israel has a multiparty system, where each iindiividual can be represented and in which each individual can vote for the party of her choice freely; israel has separation of powers. the judiciary is separate and independent from the executive and from the legislative; israel has a vibrant and mixed school system where arabs can teach their own corriculum. segregation is mostly voluntary, although not always. kupat holim and other social services are available to all. so, yes, israel is a democracy of which we are proud.
At the time of John or Simon de Montfort, or just after Cromwell? Do you even know de Montfort's role? Democracies evolve.
Of Ariel Sharons provocative visit to the mount but more importantly the heavy handed way Israel dealt witht he protesters firing live rounds and killing several protesters...
It would have happened regardless since captured documents showed it was part of Arafat's strategy. And the nauseating idea that a Jewish leader's visit to Judaism's holiest site is somehow a "provocation to the Muslims" is at the heart of the religious racism that sits at the core of Islam. They have their Mecca, Catholics have the Vatican, Hindus have the Ganges. Jerusalem is the holy site of the Jews for 3000 years, before any of these. Jerusalem, a Hebrew word, isn't mentioned even once in the Koran - ever wonder why Abbas keeps demanding to the West "a state with Jerusalem as its capital" instead of calling it by the Arabic name _ Al Kuds". Ever hear an Arab talk about "Arab East Al Kuds"? Even Once? Its because Jerusalem is Hebrew and Jewish. Abbas gets his capital in Abu Dis, where the PA built its parliament building, as the 2000 Clinton Plan provided, and that's it. Any "sweetening" of the deal Arafat blew up over "right of return" would be a reward for Arab terrorism, and endanger every American. Well, except for Obama. What the PA now deserves is less. Israel is never going to go for the "Saudi Initiative" because it offers fake normalization - group diplomatic relations through the Arab League, not individual Arab embassies in Israeli Jerusalem. A fraud that is the opposite of "normalization".
As I've said previously, the concept of power can make a man a fickle hypocrite. The ultimate clash: Heart vs Mind.