The Culminations of a Bunch of Culminations

Barack Obama has polarized like no president has done before. Not exactly the confidence boost one would want to give with 2012 coming up, especially after how George W. Bush laissez faire attitude towards Israel led to him gaining in the Jewish vote in his reelection. Hell, for some reason, Slate, the cattiest of publications, let Elliot Spitzer, a man rich in experience as governor of the state with the most Jews, weigh in on the interpretive dance-off between Obama and Bibi in DC this weekend. Last night began the culmination: Bibi played the grand finale to the AIPAC Policy Conference, where he told a huge chunk of the friends of Israel how they will vote in 2012. And then today, he was the 49th foreign leader, and second Israeli prime minister after Menachem Began did so in 1978.

It was nice of Howard Kohr, AIPAC's Executive Director, to come on between the two as a warm-up for Bibi, and tell the press today that Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. So will Bibi drive the stake in tonight? If what National Security Council leader Yaakov Amrari is the advice Bibi is following, expect the posturing mostly align with Obama. Amrari sees the dispute as what it really is: the media distortion of Obama's words to a soundbite (this is the same conclusion you can draw from the analysis on today's Diane Rehm show, but there still is some question into the hostility of Netanyahu, which can be traced back to the existential safety Israel truly desires), and ignore the land swaps that would be part of the negotiations. Amrari points out that this swap would leave too many Israelis outside of Israeli borders for one reason: this coalition is very dependent on the votes of settlers to keep the small parties, the kingmakers with enough votes to hold that power.

Netanyahu's speech is more of the same: agreeing with Obama, but as an alum of MIT, his tone shows he is fighting, mostly because he doesn't think Obama understands what Israel needs. However, he knows what to tell AIPAC and lawmakers. Still, his address to AIPAC included one clause that Abbas has not been about: recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. For how similar his vision is to Obama, his tone may be the driver that

Netanyahu's speech to Congress looked and sounded like a George W. Bush speech to the same group: lots of standing ovations and no booing (looking at you, Joe Wilson, for ending the streak for Obama). Hell, it may have sounded better because of his obviously tighter grasp on the English language. But the sticking points are very obvious:

1. Hamas is a terrorist organization: They did condemn the killing of Bin Laden, and Netanyahu was wise to use that statement as a rallying around the flag moment for the US legislators. Calling them the Palestinian Al-Qaeda was a bit far, but he has a point, as they quickly accepted the 1967 borders, but still stayed with the goal of destroying Israel, and any Congressperson who doesn't stand to clap for that would be sealing their reelection loss.

2. He agrees with Obama on the swaps: June 4, 1967, didn't work, so there must be swaps. The only issue I have with this is the way he phrases it seems to put him in opposition to Obama. Some people only read tone, and for that reason I think his AIPAC speech might drive a lot of Jewish voters from Obama when he has done much more for Israel (I know, by doing very little) than Bush did (he of putting the Palestinians to election and allowing Hamas to be elected).

3. He wants to sit down to negotiate: Every Prime Minister since Rabin, save Ariel Sharon, has been willing to negotiate. Netanyahu is no difference, and as the first Likud leader to accept two states. Danny Danon and Mahmoud Abbas both made unilateral action sound destructive.

4. Rockets: The rockets need to stop or there will be more incursions. The rockets equal war, and if they don't stop, well, that isn't peace. There is no other way to look at it, and the people who justify it are misinformed.

5. Settlers: C-SPAN opened up to their listeners, and one American Orthodox Jew (he called the West Bank יהודה ושמרון) called to criticize Netanyahu, saying that he had no plan for the settlers. However, he did: the land swaps will bring in many of those settlers, but some will be forced to move. I think that the one sticking point will be Hebron, the second most holy site in Judaism, the Tomb of the Patriarchs, מערת המכפלה, is there, and they will not be willing to put it under the jurisdiction of the Palestinians. Especially with the coalition, this will be the main sticking point for any final agreement.

Having Congressional leaders meet with Netanyahu after his speech put the ball in Abbas' court. Especially with Fayyad's health issue (now not a heart attack) yesterday, Abbas needs to show himself as a stable partner for this to move forward. Otherwise, the American blame will go to the Palestinians, and we will see Abbas and Danon's pieces in the New York Times come to fruition this fall.

The Nakba and US-Israeli Relations: Lots Going On

May 14th was the Gregorian anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel, and the 15th marked the 63rd time that Palestinians have responded to those celebrations with mourning and defiance. The event is polarizing to say the least. Michael Oren wrote in Foreign Policy about the American need for Israel in these turbulent times, an assertion that was countered by Stephen Walt, he of the Israel Lobby fame (a book that just calls for AIPAC's legitimacy to be called into question, not the American relationship with Israel). This year, with the Arab Spring changing the tenor of the Arab world, Palestinians have began to protest in the countries bordering Israel. Ethan Bronner reported on the action for the New York Times, and the reports of protests within the West Bank were bittersweet to hear with the reaction from Israeli forces. A mixture of populist uprising for independence with action that delegitimizes the movement for Palestinian independence seem to be the ingredients of the past 41 years that has led to the stalemate that may have a chance to let up with a vote at the United Nations.

Civil disobedience is one thing that is missing from the Palestinian tenor. People throwing stones have been a part of the first two Intifadas, with protests barely ever staying nonviolent. But what has happened on the borders has provided the world with the polarizing issue that the Mavi Marmara did in its approach to Gaza last May. Both groups called for keeping with international law. The critics found the blockade of Gaza to be illegal and inhumane, and the raid to be in international waters. It is a double edged sword to deal with for the Israelis: keeping out the flotilla keeps their reputation for maintaining territorial integrity. Letting them in would make them lose that reputation (showing weakness) but make them seem so kind.

Rushing the borders in Lebanon and Syria create the same issue. Israel has maintained territorial integrity up there, and even had the UN take their side in a dispute when the Lebanese Army started shelling Israeli forces who turned out to not be violating any borders. These Palestinian refugees rushing the borders have had their actions pinned on the Lebanese government and Syrian government by Israeli intelligence officials. This seems a little irrational, as even a Lebanese MP blames it on UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army for abandoning their posts, probably at the behest of Hizballah. One can put the same blame on Syria's leadership for having their army abandon the border to focus on putting down the protests taking place all over their country. Of course, this can also be seen as Iran trying to make their influence in the region visible, and having it occur in two countries bordering Israel where their influence is known. Of course, Jordan and Egypt minimized the protests reaching the borders, a much harder task in Jordan where almost 2/3 of the population is Palestinian, but easier in both countries where their governments actually have authority throughout their territory.

These issues would stay in the limelight later in the week, with Benjamin Netanyahu scheduled to meet with Obama on May 20th. Mahmoud Abbas put the ball in Israel and the US's court with his New York Times Op-Ed that angered Netanyahu and led Danny Danon to say that Israel would gladly take an eye for an eye and pursue the same grievances and like any good constructivist, make what they will of any new political environment.

With this tense atmosphere, Obama was scheduled to give a sea-changing speech at the State Department in relation of US Middle East Policy, and he did not fall short, condemning the crackdown in Bahrain, telling Assad to either reform or get out of the way in Syria, and endorsing Israeli-Palestinian Peace based on the 1949 Armistice lines. Jonathan Schanzer points out that these lines will not be the endgame of negotiations for Israel, as they give Israel's main population center around Tel Aviv would be in a stretch of land 8 miles wide, with the West Bank on one side and the Palestinian state on the other.

Netanyahu arrived and showed his displeasure in front of the press. The word "unrealistic" doesn't seem to show good signs for the US-Israeli relationship. He was wrongly reported to have been livid beforehand, and the two leaders seem to still be cordial, while some bureaucrats believe that Netanyahu missed the point. While both view Hamas as a terrorist organization, Netanyahu still sees, and so does his whole coalition, that they have done all they can, despite their decisions to continue the construction of settlements.

Abbas made a quick reaction by calling a meeting with the Arab League. However, it does not look promising for Israelis to take the first steps with Hamas's response to the speech. Their legitimacy as a governing partner to negotiate with will not take any steps to give the Israelis good faith. It was refreshing to see Abbas take this step instead of engaging in the competitive chauvinism that his Op-Ed seemed to connote.

The biggest events will be at AIPAC starting today. Obama will preempt Bibi at AIPAC, speaking Sunday and with his Israeli counterpart following on Monday night. AIPAC's mission of blind support of Israeli policy seems to be backfiring as JStreet's mission for a two-state solution became Obama's stated goal. Alas, AIPAC's financial resources are much greater than JStreet's at this time, so their voice will be the one that stays in the ears of administration officials and legislators.

So, yes, basically, this is still a big mess.

A Case for Intervention

Marc Lynch already made the point that it may be necessary, and the evidence in the media seems to be enough of a case. If there was ever a time for a coalition to violate the Westphalian sovereignty of an independent state, it is in Libya right now. Protestors should not be the victims of jet attacks. But military interventionism is known to draw the ire of citizens when it fails, or help public opinion when it succeeds, so governments, especially the US after its experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue to walk a tight rope when getting involved in the domestic affairs of others.

The failure of the Clinton administration to intervene in Rwanda and the Congo has gone into the historical record as a failure because the US at the time was enough of a military power to make things right in a way that Belgian peacekeepers could not. However, neither Rwandan side had the military resources at their disposal what Qaddafi has in Libya. The protesters do not have access to fighter jets, but he does. To bomb your own citizens is disgusting.

Internally, in Libya, when will the military see this error? Qaddafi has the status as a revolutionary that he constantly flaunts. He fuels it through the creating ties to the past, such as that of Omar Mukhtar, whose life Qaddafi bankrolled into a biopic starring Anthony Quinn. He also showed up to meet Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi wearing a picture of Mukhtar to emphasize the colonial legacy Italy left during its time in Libya and the reparations they received. But now there is no colonialism, but the cult of personality of Qaddafi seems to engender support that Mubarak could not among the Egyptian military. For that reason, it is necessary for military intervention. Italy's status as a former colonizer may require a coalition to get some input from them, but the trial of Berlusconi may discount them from the process, as they are too occupied with domestic politics. But Berlusconi may get involved to serve him some improvement in public opinion and get Italians to rally around the flag and forget about his  indulging in underage prostitution.

The lengths to which Qaddafi has gone to stay in power are deplorable, but he will remain in power unless other countries come to the aid of the protestors. It would serve Obama well in the court of public opinion both at home (rally around the flag, again) and in the international realm to intervene. Hopefully he sees this soon and we can end the oppressive and malevolent rule of Qaddafi once and for all.

This Sounds Like It Could Be a Biiiig Problem

Sometimes, here where everything is seasoned right and you will never pick up the salt shaker, we like to focus on the home front, because what is the point of international politics if it's to prop up a worthless society?

I just read this, and I have to say, this is not good for the future of the United States. If at most three out of five teachers can handle basic questions about evolution and the history of the Earth, there is a major problem. The ones who don't understand are not indulging these children's curiosities, and that is why the Chinese as well as other countries can be seen lapping us over and over again on the sciences track. People will continue to complain about Obama trying to interfere with their lives, but it's for their own good. There's a reason so many people are held back by a glass ceiling in the United States: the education systems in nearly every state is terrible. And so is the restrictions put in place by insurance companies that essentially leave people to die if procedures cost too much.

For how unconstitutional these laws may be to some, maybe it's time for us to let the Constitution evolve. Sure, it was written for 1789, but today is different. For one thing, were the Founding Fathers carrying around machine guns? No. So why should anyone be carrying one around now? I'm fairly certain a shotgun will just as easily kill that deer. And leave less bullets to pull out if you plan to eat it.

John Quincy Adams wanted to buck trends and make laws that were beneficial to the population. Slave owners were extremely pissed off at him after he recognized Haitian independence, because that meant that slaves could run their own country and might jeopardize the use of slaves in the US. Adams bowed to their pressure, but it probably wouldn't have mattered, since the slaves in the US were extremely isolated from one another and struggled to foster any sort of rebellion to the terrible oppression they faced.

Like Obama now, Adams wanted to focus on building American infrastructure, but faced great opposition to his efforts, even from his own party. And despite losing his position in the 1828 election, Adams showed his commitment to his American System by joining the House of Representative 2 years after leaving office and serving almost 17 years for three different Massachusetts districts. He introduced so many bills to abolish slavery that southern Democrats invented a gag rule for him.

While Obama continues his commitment to the political strategy of the great orator Reagan, I think he should consider following in the footsteps of Quincy. The Senate was once a place for elder statesmen to debate whether laws would be beneficial, with party lines not being the frequent issue they are today.

In short, think about what the country needs, not what would be most popular. Because judging by the people we have teaching our children, we're getting dumber everyday.

What is this water falling from the sky?

Some news from outside the Middle East is my focus right now after my return to the States (more on that later). My attention was turned to Myanmar (and like Jay Peterman, "it will always be Burma to me") where Virginia senator Jim Webb, a big part of Obama's ability to take that state, left this week for the remote capital of the country now dominated by a military junta that has created a cult of personality around the armed forces. His purpose? To free a CRAZY AMERICAN, which he did. Yes, John Yettaw may be an American citizen and veteran, but he has made it even harder for democracy advocate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to try to make inroads against the authoritarian Myanmar(an)(ese) military regime, as she has been given an additional 18 months of house arrest for letting in a visitor who swam across a lake and happened to be very ill.
It may seem like things are looking down for the junta, but things seem to be mighty fine. China continues to support them, and they have been partially legitimized by Webb's visit. Sure, the State Department said that nothing changes, but Webb still wants changes, especially with the elections planned for next year.
The elections are where the junta will learn their roll. Aung San Suu Kyi will not be allowed to participate because she was once married to someone born outside of the country. Her National League for Democracy will still be able to participate, but she will have to watch from the sidelines as one of the most unfair constitutions comes into play, where the military can determine whether a coup is necessary (if the government isn't "democratic" enough). The Mon and Wa in the North are already planning to take up arms against the junta if the constitution comes into play since it will disarm the militias protecting these ethnic groups (and running an illegal drug trade on the hilly borders of China). The Burmese military usuall stays in the lowlands near Yangon or the worst-planned capital in the world, Napyitaw. I expect the junta to get some sort of air force with the help of the Chinese before implementing the constitution. If it does come to that, the US needs to seriously consider stepping in to protect these groups, and this will include having to take a firm stance with China on the matter.
In other news, the Israeli government (and Peace Now confirms this) has stopped giving permits to new settlements in the West Bank. This will make it so that permanent settlement will stop, but the IDF will still need to deal with groups like Youth for Israel, which likes to send in young religious Zionists to set up temporary camp on land in the West Bank, but are never too much for the IDF to handle.
Another big development comes with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's visit to Washington this week, where today he and Obama agreed to acquiesce to some demands from the Israeli government for the new Palestinian state. The question is whether other Arab states will also agree to the stipulation that the Palestinian state be demilitarized and the right of return be exchanged for monetary compensation. The next question will be Hamas, who look relatively moderate after dealing with a takeover of a mosque in Tunneltown, Gaza (Rafah) by the fundamentalist Warriors of God. This is still all relative, so I wouldn't bet my life savings on it (I would bet $10, if I can get some 10-1 odds, which makes me wonder, is there somewhere to bet on Middle East peace? Yessir).
And welcome the Swedish to the blood libel-style conspiracy fold. A Swedish paper claims that as part of the recent New York metropolitan area money laundering scheme, the IDF was killing Palestinians and selling their organs. They also have some testimony. This comes on the heels of the Romanian ova-trafficking claims, and don't forget what goes into matzah and hamentashen: that's right, the blood of your child! It's really sort of funny how this whole blood-libel thing works, because it is ALL PLAGIARISM (Even The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was.) So anyways, maybe finding something REAL and TANGIBLE will make things easier for you.

Finally, I'm back in the United States, and I have to say I am very sad, but there are just some things that are way better here (partial list: pickup basketball, DIM SUM, THAI FOOD, PRESENCE OF BURRITOS). But many of the people I met in Israel endeared the land to me and I can't wait to go back, and I am definitely considering making aliyah. This is also the first time I've spent more than a month abroad, and the shock of being back here was most evident in the jet lag, which lasted 4 days. WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL ME ABOUT THAT? Anyways, I'm going to keep up the blogging about the Middle East while I'm here, maybe with some occasional reports from my friend Peanut.
UPDATE: Today was the first time I have seen rain in 2 months. I decided to go umbrella-less in order to get the full effect after having missed it for so long. Still, I'm pretty sure I'll get sick of it by the next time it rains.