Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Obama Mideast Peace Plan in the Works?

The Obama administration appears to be considering launching a major push later this year to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, much to the displeasure of the Likudniks and neocons.

Inter Press Service

Amid still-unresolved tensions over Jewish settlement expansion in East Jerusalem, two major publications reported Wednesday that President Barack Obama is seriously considering proposing later this year a U.S. peace plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Both the Washington Post and the New York Times reported on a Mar. 24 meeting between Obama and former national security advisers who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations and who expressed support for launching a U.S. initiative designed to break the longstanding deadlock and achieve a two-state solution.

The meeting, which was organised by Obama’s national security adviser, ret. Gen. James Jones, reportedly reached a consensus that the failure so far to make tangible progress toward a peace agreement was harming U.S. security interests throughout the region, including efforts to isolate Iran and other anti-Western forces, and that the Israelis and Palestinians were unlikely to reach a comprehensive agreement by themselves.

Putting forward a U.S. proposal, presumably based largely on understandings reached between the two sides at negotiations at Camp David in 2000 and at Taba, Egypt, in early 2001, would mark a major departure in U.S. policy, which has long insisted that final peace terms can only be arrived at by the parties themselves.

Such an initiative would likely be strongly opposed by the right-wing government of President Binyamin Netanyahu and its supporters here. Indeed, the latter wasted little time in denouncing the idea of advancing a U.S. plan as “dangerous”.

“Palestinians will conclude that they have no reason to negotiate seriously, or to make concessions, when Obama may deliver what they want on a nice platter while Israelis will conclude that Washington no longer takes their security seriously, so they must toughen their stance,” wrote Elliott Abrams, former President George W. Bush’s top Middle East adviser on the neo-conservative Weekly Standard website.

The two reports come amid continuing tensions between the Obama administration and Netanyahu that were set off last month when the Israelis announced the approval of a new construction project in Arab East Jerusalem during the visit of Vice President Joseph Biden (see also Leon Hadar, “No Tea Parties for Bibi,” Right Web, April 1, 2010).

In unusually harsh language, Biden publicly “condemned” the Israeli action. His remarks were then followed by a call to Netanyahu by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who reportedly demanded not only that Israel freeze Jewish construction in East Jerusalem, but also that it immediately agree to discuss with the Palestinians so-called “final status” issues, including final borders and the fate of Palestinian refugees and East Jerusalem.

Netanyahu, who visited Washington for the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) the following week, remained publicly defiant, although, during subsequent meetings with Obama himself and Clinton, he reportedly tried to appease the administration’s concerns. His efforts, however, have failed to satisfy the White House, which indicated this week that Netanyahu, one of 46 foreign heads of state scheduled to attend a summit on safeguarding nuclear materials here next week, had not yet been cleared for a much-sought-after bilateral meeting with Obama.

The harder line taken by the administration is attributed by analysts here not only to the anger provoked by Israel’s actions in East Jerusalem, but also by the growing conviction, particularly in the Pentagon, that the failure to make tangible progress in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was jeopardising U.S. security interests – and the lives of U.S. servicemen and women – throughout the region, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to Israeli media reports, Biden made precisely that point with Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials behind closed doors during his visit.

In Congressional testimony a week later, the chief of the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), Gen. David Petraeus, echoed that message, noting that “The (Israeli-Palestinian) conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favouritism for Israel.”

He added that the Arab-Israeli conflict had an “enormous effect” on “the strategic context in which we operate,” and that a “credible U.S. effort on Arab-Israeli issues that provides regional governments and populations a way to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the disputes would undercut Iran’s policy of militant ‘resistance,’ which the Iranian regime and insurgent groups have been free to exploit.”

A similar message was conveyed as well during Obama’s Mar. 24 meeting with the former national security advisers, who agreed that the “incremental” approach taken by Special Mideast Envoy George Mitchell was unlikely to bear fruit, according to the Times and Post accounts.

Brent Scowcroft, who served under presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, was the first to urge Obama to launch a peace initiative. He was followed by Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Both men have long called publicly for Washington to put forward its own plan for a comprehensive peace based largely on the Camp David and Taba parameters.

According to the Post account, which was written by columnist David Ignatius, they were joined by Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, and by Colin Powell, who served in the same position under Ronald Reagan and as secretary of state under George W. Bush. Frank Carlucci and Robert McFarlane, who also served under Reagan, reportedly went along with the consensus view.

The Times account, written by White House correspondent Helene Cooper, quoted a senior administration official as saying that a U.S. plan was “absolutely not on the table right now”, and that Washington remained committed for now to the “proximity talks” that are to be mediated by Mitchell. But, he said, when those bogged down, “then you can expect that we would go in with something”.

Ignatius, who wrote a book with Brzezinski and Scowcroft, quoted one official as saying the White House is considering an inter-agency review process similar to the one carried out last year on Afghanistan and Pakistan, to “frame the strategy and form a political consensus for it.” The same official said it could be launched in the fall.

“It means they’re questioning some of the assumptions they inherited,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator and co-director of the Middle East Task Force of the New America Foundation.

“It seems they’ve realised that some of those assumptions – that the Israelis and Palestinians could do this on their own; that they could gradually, incrementally build confidence between the parties without addressing the big questions – may have been wrong,” he said.

“What’s remarkable is that it was what the neo-conservatives did to the U.S. under Bush and what Bibi Netanyahu did for Israel in the last year that has produced this moment of clarity,” Levy noted.

“The neo-cons helped clarify what so much of the national-security establishment, including Centcom and the former national security advisers, has been saying – that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to U.S. security interests throughout the region, while Netanyahu helped clarify how entrenched Israel’s addiction to settlements and occupation is and that incrementalism has no chance in the face of that addiction. You therefore need an assertive intervention.” 

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to IPS Right Web (https://rightweb.irc-online.org/) He blogs at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share