It's time for Obama to face the Middle East

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Hillary Clinton tiptoed oh-so-carefully around the Israel-Palestine issue on her recent trip to the Middle East.

But she and President Barack Obama will have to make some tough decisions soon, as Israeli Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu prepares to form a right-wing government. Otherwise, any prospects for a two-state solution, even in the long run, will be dead before the end of Obama's first term.

Netanyahu is a smooth politician with perfect American English (he attended Cheltenham High School outside Philadelphia). But his policies are likely to complicate nearly every aspect of Obama's strategy for the Mideast -- including the Palestinian issue, and new approaches toward Syria and Iran.

For starters, Netanyahu appears to have chosen Avigdor Lieberman as future foreign minister, a figure whose inflammatory views may undercut any new peace moves in the region. The presence of such an outrageous figure will complicate uphill efforts to restart Israeli-Arab talks.

As for such talks, Netanyahu doesn't believe in the concept of a sovereign Palestinian state living alongside Israel. But unless a viable formula is found for a two-state solution, Israel will remain in permanent occupation of more than three million bitter Palestinians. That is a prescription for endless, poisonous Israeli-Arab war.

The Israeli leader argues, moreover, that the only correct avenue toward peace is to first pursue Palestinian economic development and consign any negotiations on sovereignty to the indefinite future. This approach is nothing but a Middle Eastern mirage. It has failed many times in the past. Anyone who has driven around the West Bank would understand that economic development depends on political progress.

And then there is Gaza. Even before Hamas took power there, Israel's fear of Palestinian infiltration had led to constant Israeli blockages of imports and exports from Gaza. Such uncertainty makes it impossible for Palestinian industries to develop, and ensures that foreign investors are unwilling to risk their money.

Bottom line: Without progress on Palestinian political issues (of which progress on security is a subset), forget economic progress.

• This leads to the first decision for Obama: He must declare that his administration believes that ''economic peace'' cannot substitute for political progress. He should make clear that his administration will pursue the two-state solution.

However, given the hawkish leadership in Jerusalem, and the weak Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, it may not be possible to move directly to political talks. In that case, Obama must ensure that the situation on the West Bank and Gaza doesn't worsen so badly that peace talks cannot be resumed later. And he must give Palestinians some real reason to hope.

• That requires a second decision: The president should firmly confront the new Israeli government on the issue of settlement expansion, making clear that such expansion contradicts our security interests -- and theirs.

According to the Israeli group Peace Now, which closely tracks settlements, the Israeli government is planning to build more than 73,000 housing units in the West Bank, doubling the settler population there. Without a freeze on all settlement construction, the prospect for a viable Palestinian state will soon disappear.

Netanyahu has said he supports ''natural growth,'' meaning the expansion of existing settlements. If Obama is unwilling to oppose this, he should admit the two-state solution is dead.

• The third decision revolves around talks with Syria. Even if talks with the Palestinians cannot be revived quickly, there may be hopeful prospects for negotiations with Damascus.

Turkey had mediated indirect talks between Syria and Israel before Israel's elections. The Bush administration was cool to Turkey's move; it wanted to isolate Syria. But Obama backs a thaw; Clinton has dispatched emissaries to Damascus.

In his election campaign, Netanyahu swore he would never return the Golan Heights to Syria. He says he's willing to talk, but he hasn't said he's open to giving back territory. Obama must try to convince Netanyahu that such an effort is in Israel's interest, and decide how hard to push if the Israeli leader resists.

This is a crucial moment: The new U.S. president needs to show that, besides being a close ally of Israel, he is committed to a stable Middle East.

With Netanyahu about to form a government, these decisions must be made now.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other-v...ory/959122.html

[Saddle Bronc 124]

No complication, as 0bama's already indicated that abject surrender (back) to Taliban of Afghanistan would be acceptable--so why would he do any less for Iran?

[Niels Bohr 72]

If anybody read "At the Center of the Storm" authored by George Tenet, former director of the CIA then the middle east isn't really a US problem. All Hillary, and Obama's team doing is trying to be the middle-men in the negotiation table.

Within those parts of the world, the US cannot be their "BOSS." Why does everyone think the US is the father of the middle-east? Whether there's war or not, their goal is acting as the middle-man in negotiations nothing more.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

If anybody read "At the Center of the Storm" authored by George Tenet, former director of the CIA then the middle east isn't really a US problem. All Hillary, and Obama's team doing is trying to be the middle-men in the negotiation table.

Within those parts of the world, the US cannot be their "BOSS." Why does everyone think the US is the father of the middle-east?

Many (including some native to the region) have historically tried--and failed between miserably and catastrophically--at being the region's "boss"?

Whether there's war or not, their goal is acting as the middle-man in negotiations nothing more.

I thought the goal was actually to simply have diplomatic relations (much less than acting as middleman in negotiations)...admittedly, I neglected post-WW2 hubris playing a role. Edited March 23, 2009 by CherryXS

[fozzie 41]

I'm in agreement. Israel will do what israel wants to do. The US cannot make any threats and they know it. Is a two-state solution the only way, probably, but will it ever hapen? I doubt it.

The rest of the surrounding countries say they support the palestinian cause because of the obvious arab links. However, those countries that boarder Gaza and the west bank have at some point had control over those regions and not given it to the palestinians. Why? Because they don't care about the palestinians they just care about getting rid of israel.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Not every country in the surrounding area wants to get ride of Israel and I do believe they give a great deal of care for the Palestinians. The US isn't the only one at the table of negotiation there are several other western heads of state at the negotiation table most recently France and Germany who are all interested in peace for the region as well.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I'm in agreement. Israel will do what israel wants to do. The US cannot make any threats and they know it. Is a two-state solution the only way, probably

as your own comment clarifies (see below)

but will it ever hapen? I doubt it.

The rest of the surrounding countries say they support the palestinian cause because of the obvious arab links. However, those countries that boarder Gaza and the west bank have at some point had control over those regions and not given it to the palestinians. Why? Because they don't care about the palestinians.....

On the nail; Egypt administered Gaza Strip (as an attached colony, not officiously part of Egypt) and Jordan controlled West Bank (declared as part of Jordan by Abdullah I, who actually wanted--but didn't get--under his rule; likely if Hussein had not believed Nasser's spins, Jordan would still be in control of WB). Edited March 23, 2009 by CherryXS