What Obama Actually Said in 2010

Palestinians claim that when they go to the United Nations this Friday to receive recognition as an independent state, they will just be adhering to President Obama's words before the General Assembly last year. They say he called for the acceptance of Palestine as a member state within a year. Well, that isn't exactly what he said.

Here's the paragraph where he referred to Palestine as a member of the UN, with my own emphasis added:

"This time, we should draw upon the teachings of tolerance that lie at the heart of three great religions that see Jerusalem’s soil as sacred. This time we should reach for what’s best within ourselves. If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations — an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel."

So no, what the Palestinians plan to declare on September 23, 2011 is not in line with what Obama declared on September 23, 2010. He did not say a Palestinian state should be declared and admitted into the UN "when we come back here next year" no matter what. He hoped there would be an agreement that would lead to the establishment of Palestine. That is the exact opposite of what the Palestinians have decided to do.

Obama should quote himself in his 2011 UN address. He should emphasize that he called for an agreement bred by Israeli-Palestinian tolerance, not for a move that is counter to Israel's wishes. He can point out that during this year, neither the Palestinian or Israeli leadership acted tolerantly toward the other side. If Obama doesn't do so, Netanyahu should use the quote, not as a reminder to the American administration, which is on Israel's side on this one anyway, but as a reminder to Palestinians and to European countries.

Lieberman, Hero of Kurds and Armenians

I've lost count already of all the reasons why Israel's foreign minister should be fired. Now reason number trillion and something has been born out of the crisis with Turkey. Lieberman isn't responsible for the crisis, and I even agree with him that we should not apologize or pay restitution to those who were looking for a fight. However, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's crazy talk about sending Turkish battleships to escort future flotillas to Gaza has made Lieberman talk just as crazy. He proposed a plan to aide Kurdish rebels in Turkish Kurdistan.

So many things are wrong with this. First of all, Prime Minister Netanyahu told cabinet members not to say a word about Turkey. He wants to lower the flames as much as possible without apologizing. Good idea. But what is to be done when the foreign minister goes rogue (again)? He'd be fired from a normal government. With the government we have, he'll stay in his position, and Ehud Barak will be sent to explain to the world that Lieberman's policies are not the official policies of Israel.

I can't claim to know much about the Kurdish situation. I don't know how similar it is to the Palestinian situation, but one thing is clear to me. What's the difference between one kind of terrorism and another? If Kurdish terror is fine, so is Palestinian terror.

Besides all that, we need Turkey as an ally. Though it doesn't seem that way, we just might salvage these relations some day. We shouldn't further alienate the Turks.

Lieberman's proposal has one part I do endorse. He wants to recognize the Armenian genocide during World War I. I just don't think this move should be presented as punishment of the Turks. The Ottoman Empire did indeed conduct a genocide against the Armenians, and it is only just that we not deny that fact.

Pollard Isn't Going Anywhere

Benjamin Netanyahu recently promised Jonathan Pollard's wife that he will write an official letter to President Obama asking for the spy's release. I doubt the prime minister will hurry to write the letter, and when it is finally sent, it will probably be the only action he takes. There's nothing to gain from Pollard's release. Nothing to gain for anybody, except for Pollard himself and his family.

I don't think most Israelis really care about Jonathan Pollard. They wouldn't oppose his release, but they wouldn't be dancing in the streets. We'll be elated if Gilad Shalit is released. With Pollard, most would only say "oh, that's nice", and move on. The Pollard issue has no electoral power. Nobody will decide to vote for Netanyahu because he got our American spy out of prison. Neither will anyone decide not to vote for him because he failed to do so.

Jonathan Pollard's release isn't in Barack Obama's best interest, either. Even the staunchest American friends of Israel don't want to see the guy released, and freeing him would be seen as pandering to Israel, especially at a time when its government hasn't done anything deserving of rewards. Obama actually might lose votes over Pollard, with a release probably costing him more than it would benefit him.

Maybe this analysis is skewed by the fact that I don't want Jonathan Pollard released. He's a traitor to his country who may have spied for cash rather than ideology. I'm fine with him spending the rest of his life in prison.

The Obama-Netanyahu $3 Billion Deal

What the hell is President Barack Obama thinking? Yes, it is very important that Israel freeze construction in West Bank settlements, but Obama's way of getting this done is just foolish. His administration offered Israel a package worth $3 billion, which includes 20 state of the art fighter jets in exchange for an additional 3-month freeze. Why just three months? Because during this time, according to Obama's expectations, Israel and the Palestinians will reach an agreement about final borders, which would mean that it would be clear where Israel can build and where it can't.

Has Obama not seen how negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have gone over the last decade or two? Has he not seen that Netanyahu (and Abbas, to some extent) isn't very serious about moving forward? It will be a surprise if, at the end of three months, any progress will be made at all, let alone an agreement on borders. So, if the situation won't be as rose-colored as Obama expects, when settlement construction resumes a new crisis will arise. More accurately, the current crisis will be resumed after some postponement.

My main problem here isn't just the fact that the freeze is too short, but that the price the United States is paying for it is too high, especially at a time of a recession and when the US is dealing with a huge federal deficit. Sure, $3B is tiny compared to the deficit's hundreds of trillions of dollars, but still, spending such an amount just for a temporary solution that probably isn't going to bring results?

In effect, Obama is rewarding Netanyahu for being stubborn, instead of actually rewarding him for achieving real milestones. It's kind of like his own Nobel Prize in 2009 - awarded for nothing but false hope. This is moronic and sophmoric, and is just one little part of President Obama's horrible foreign policy.

For the Millionth Time, Fire Avigdor Lieberman!

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman gave a speech at the 65th session of the United Nations General Assembly today. He was speaking as the official representative of the State of Israel, of course, and so should have spoken about the Israeli government's official policy. That isn't what he did. Instead, he pushed his own agenda, saying peace with the Palestinians isn't possible in the next few years and that any peace deal would have to include not only land swaps but swaps of the populations on that land (meaning that technically, the people would stay put, only the border would move and, in the case of Israeli Arabs, their citizenship would change). So now, despite Benjamin Netanyahu distancing himself from Lieberman's words, this speech is now taken as the official policy of Israel by many countries. I can't blame them. After all, a foreign minister addressing the UN General Assembly is always assumed to be speaking for his country. That's part of diplomacy - when the president, prime minister or foreign minister of a country says something, it has has official significance.

Avigdor Lieberman has always been a loose cannon. Appointing him to be Israel's top diplomat was one of the most irresponsible things Netanyahu ever did. This speech at the UN should have been the final straw. In a normal country, a foreign minister who strays from official foreign policy at such an important international forum would be fired. That's what should happen in this case. I have no illusions. I know Bibi is too dependent on Yisrael Beitenu to keep his coalition together, and not losing the prime minister's seat is more important to him than Israel's standing in the world.

A Question About Ambassador Oren

Here's an issue I've been thinking about for quite a while but never blogged about. Ever since Michael B. Oren's appointment as Israel's ambassodor to the United States was announced last year I've been thinking that this is a problematic choice. I have nothing against Oren himself. He's a right-winger, but not a nut, and has proved himself to be quite a capable diplomat, even though he was an academic before he was chosen for the post. What bothers me about him is what some might see as a technicality, and others will see as a major problem.

Michael Oren was born in the United States, and from the time he immigrated to Israel and until his appointment as ambassador he was a dual citizen of the United States and Israel. The United States does not allow its own citizens to serve as a foreign county's representatives in the States, and so, Oren had to renounce his American citizenship to be accepted by the United States as Israel's ambassador.

People in Prime Minister Netanyahu's office said that the fact that Oren is American makes him understand American politics and diplomacy better, and so he's better equipped to serve Israel's interests in America. That might be true. But wouldn't such an appointment also offend many Americans priding themselves as patriots, who would see the new ambassador's renunciation of his American citizenship, and thus his American identity, in favor of serving a foreign government, as an act of treason on his part?

Ambassador Oren has been in office since the summer of 2009. I haven't heard of any American officials expressing their discomfort with his status as a former American. Still, the question remains whether there are people whose support Israel needs who are quietly offended by this.

Obama and Israelis: The Myth of Hostility

Long before Barack Obama was elected president, this notion arose out of nowhere that Israelis didn't like the guy. Maybe people expected Israelis to dislike anybody with "Hussein" in his name, even though King Hussein of Jordan was quite popular here. Yes, Israelis preferred Hillary Clinton, whose husband Bill is still probably the most popular former American president in Israel, and John McCain. But time and again we see that Israelis aren't as hostile towards Obama as people think. In the Democratic primary in 2008, Americans in Israel gave Obama 45% of their votes.

The recent crisis between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government is an excellent opportunity to check the pulse of Israelis' attitudes towards Obama. According to a poll published by Haaretz yesterday, Obama may not be as popular as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, but Israelis don't show hostility towards him either.

When asked how Obama relates to Israel, 51% said he is fair, 18% said friendly, and 21% said hostile. With the two previous presidents, the vast majority would have said they're friendly. But according to the hostility myth, you'd expect to see at least 80% of respondents saying Obama is hostile. That just isn't the case.

One thing Obama should be worried about if he cares about Israeli public opinion is the question of anti-Semitism. While the majority, 56%, don't think he's anti-Semitic, more than a quarter (27%) said that he is. That's a much higher number than previous presidents would get, and it is also ridiculous, considering the fact that his most trusted advisors are Jewish.

For furthur analysis of the Haaretz poll and other weekend polls, here's Daneil Levy's take in Foreign Policy.

Our Glorious Diplomats

Last week, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman announced a new policy of national pride, instead of what he saw as groveling by Israeli diplomats around the world. His deputy, fellow Israel Beitenu member Danny Ayalon, implemented the new policy this week by seating the Turkish ambassador on a low couch while he sat on a high seat, and told reporters in Hebrew that the whole point is that the ambassador will see that Israel is up and Turkey is down.

Lieberman and Ayalon confuse pride and steadfastness with rudeness. In a normal country, Ayalon and Lieberman would have been fired after such a fiasco. Then again, in a normal country the two wouldn't be our top diplomats in the first place. Prime Minister Netanyahu was totally inept and passive. He should have made Ayalon apologize immediately.

Why the hell isn't the Labor Party demanding Ayalon's head?

Forcing Peace

Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said Saturday that if Israel and the Palestinians don't reach an agreement on their own by a certain deadline, then the United Nations Security Council should recognize the Palestinian state without Israel's consent. This is a horrible idea. As unhappy as I am with the lack of progress in the peace process, I think the international community can only nudge and push, but it must not impose a solution. Such a solution would be doomed to fail, and I fear it would lead to more bloodshed.

Also, what Palestinian State would the UN recognize? What would be its borders, its capital? What about the Palestinian refugees? Would the international community adopt one side's position on these issues or would it go with something in the middle? How would such a decision be implemented? Would an international force be sent in to drive Israel out of the newly recognized Palestine?

Which Palestinian faction would the United Nations recognize as Palestine's legitimate government? I doubt they'd go with the terrorist group Hamas, so if they recognize Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah, what would be the status of Gaza?

This is a horrible, unconstructive idea. I have a feeling even Solana doesn't believe in it and is using it more as a threat against Israel, and Israel alone. It doesn't threaten the Palestinians. No matter what they do and whether they negotiate with Israel or not, they'll end up with a state and probably almost all of their demands will be met by the UN. In fact, Solana inadvertently encourages Palestinian negotiators to stall.

Egypt May Boycott Lieberman

The Egyptian ambassador to Israel may not attend the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the Camp David Accords, as protest for the upcoming appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister. Lieberman in the past suggested that Israel should bomb the Aswan Dam in Egypt and said that if President Husni Mubarak isn't willing to visit Israel he can go to hell. So who can blame the Egyptians for cooling off relations with Israel?

This is just one of the many reasons why it is insane and/or idiotic to appoint Lieberman as foreign minister.

Sarkozy: Obama Immature About Iran

Even though I still prefer Obama over McCain, I find the following story from today's Haaretz newspaper very disconcerting:

Sources: Sarkozy views Obama stance on Iran as 'utterly immature'
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is very critical of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama's positions on Iran, according to reports that have reached Israel's government.

Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content."

Obama visited Paris in July, and the Iranian issue was at the heart of his meeting with Sarkozy. At a joint press conference afterward, Obama urged Iran to accept the West's proposal on its nuclear program, saying that Iran was creating a serious situation that endangered both Israel and the West. According to the reports reaching Israel, Sarkozy told Obama at that meeting that if the new American president elected in November changed his country's policy toward Iran, that would be "very problematic."

Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.

Following their July meeting, Sarkozy repeatedly expressed disappointment with Obama's positions on Iran, concluding that they were "not crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open," the Israeli source said. Advisors to the French president who held separate meetings with Obama's advisors came away with similar impressions and expressed similar disappointment.

According to the Israeli source, Sarkozy plans to begin intensive negotiations with the new American administration, regardless of whether it is headed by Obama or Republican Sen. John McCain, even before the new president takes office in January, with the goal of persuading him to continue the current policy on Iran.

But Sarkozy's pessimism does not stem only from Obama's stance; it also stems from the overall behavior of the international community toward Iran's nuclear program, and particularly its inability to agree on a fourth round of Security Council sanctions against the Islamic Republic. This foot-dragging will make it impossible to effect a change in Iran's nuclear policy, Sarkozy believes.

The French intelligence community believes that Iran has already obtained about 40 percent of the enriched uranium it would need for its first bomb, and that at its current rate, it will obtain the rest of the uranium it needs in the spring or summer of 2009.

However, French agencies are divided over what Iran is likely to do once it has this uranium. One view is that the Iranians will immediately make a nuclear bomb, in order to demonstrate their capability. The other is that Iran will continue enriching uranium without making a bomb - at least until it has enough enriched uranium for several bombs.

Acceptable Iranian Nukes

Monday's Ha'arerz ran an article, reprinted from the New York Times, about how the Iranian people like Americans and American culture, and would like to restore relations with the United States. This made me think about the sad fact that Iran, one of the greatest nations in the world, is run by one of the worst regimes in the world. Sadly, unlike the United States and Israel, where the horrible governments currently in power could be replaced through elections, in Iran an election is not enough. The regime has to change into the kind of democratic regime the Persian people deserve, and nobody can do this but the people of Iran themselves.

I don't want the Ayatollahs to have nuclear weapons. However, were the regime to change into a non-theocratic Ayatollah-free democracy, I'd have no problem with the new Iran having nuclear capabilities. That is, if the new form of government is stable enough not to fall and be repaced by a second Islamic revolution.

The chances that the Islamic Republic of Iran would attack Israel with a nuclear weapon are not great, but the possibility still exists. The main threat from a nuclear Iran would be a change in the balance of power toward the governments and groups more hostile towards Israel, the United States and Western Europe. Reaching peace with our neighbors would be even more difficult than it currently is. However, a secular Iran that does not support groups like Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, would be a positive force in the region, with or without nukes.

The Iranian population supports the nuclear program. Once they get rid of the theocracy, there will be no reason to deny them their wishes.

J Street Lobby: Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace

Finally, a new organisation has been founded that will show Washington, DC that AIPAC's hawkishness isn't the only form of pro-Israel or pro-Zionist activism. J Street, which has two arms - a lobby and a political action committee, will endorse congressional candidates who support a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Good luck, J Street!

Huckabee and Palestine

Mike Huckabee is a right-wing nut who wouldn't only be disastrous for the United States, he'd be a disaster for Israel, too. Shmuel Rosner wrote an article last week about the reason American Jews are afraid of the former Arkansas governor, but one paragraph showed why the radical "Greater Israel" right wing fringe should love him:

Huckabee reportedly said he supported the establishment of a Palestinian state, as long as it was formed outside of Israel. He meant outside of Biblical Israel and suggested Egypt or Saudi Arabia as possible locations.

Yikes. Is Huckabee trying to make George W. Bush look good?

Bush's Biggest Fan

The George W. Bush Fan Club has very few members, but it looks like Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is applying for the job of chairman of its Israeli chapter. All the praise the Israeli chief executive lavished upon his American counterpart was way overboard and very embarrassing.

When Bush first landed in Israel, he told President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Olmert something like "this is a very nice ceremony. It's more than I deserve". That's certainly true about Olmert's Bushophilic superlatives.

Bush and Olmert have something in common: they are two horrible leaders whose commitment to pushing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward, as opposed to just going through the motions, is still in question. Maybe that's why Olmert loves Bush so much - they're two of a kind.

60th Anniversary of Partition

Today is a happy anniversary for us Israelis. The United Nations General Assembly voted on November 29, 1947, to establish two states in mandatory Palestine, one Jewish and one Arab state. This was the vote that brought about the creation of Israel, and the day after the vote a civil war broke out which would become the first part of Israel's War of Independence. Palestinians see it as a tragic anniversary. Even the U.N. sees it as a sad day, marking the plight of Palestinian refugees on this day each year. Israelis and Palestinians can't agree on whether this is a day to celebrate or to mourn, but they don't have to agree. Israelis should recognize that it is a painful day for Palestinians without being sad about it themselves, while Palestinians should recognize it is a happy day for Israelis without being happy themselves or demanding that the other side mourn.

Now, after Annapolis, I am cautiously optimistic that the idea of partition is on its way to fruition (good thing that along the 1967 borders and not the partition plan of 1947, though). I doubt there will be a Palestinian state by the time George W. Bush leaves office, but I do believe there can be significant progress in that direction.

The main flaw in Annapolis was that despite the presence of Arab leaders from countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia and others, no real dialogue started between Israel and these countries. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni complained that the Arabs treated her as if she was a leper. Too bad.

The Pakistani Menace

The United States should announce that it will sever its ties with the Pakistani government if Gen. Pervez Musharraf does not rescind his declaration of martial law. A democratic Pakistan is far from being the U.S.'s best interest, but continued martial law could lead to horrible chaos. A civil war could bring a Taliban-like regime to power. Needless to say that this would be bad news for the rest of the world because of a little thing called nukes.

A pure democracy would probably bring to power factions with similar views to the Taliban. A democracy where Jihadist parties are barred from running for office might be the best solution. Of course, barring certain parties is always problematic and can be easily abused, but as the Palestinian elections of 2006, which were won by terrorist organization Hamas showed, letting fundamentalists run can be disastrous.