Scattered Work

Remember Those Israeli Settlements?

While we wait to see if Iranian demonstrations turn into full-on civil war or revolution, Marc Lynch investigates the Israeli response to Obama’s settlement ultimatum:

That Israel has quietly made significant changes to the checkpoints in the last few weeks — after ignoring six years worth of Road Map commitments, snubbing Tony Blair and the Quartet’s persistent demands, dismissing the recommendations of the World Bank and other international development agencies, and greatly expanding them even while negotiating during the Annapolis process — suggests that Obama’s tough love approach has actually been the only one able to achieve real results.

But we’re also reaching a crucial moment where the administration must really stand up to Netanyahu or risk seeing its Israel policy fall to pieces. The Israeli prime minister has authorized new settlement construction north of Ramallah. Back to Lynch:

Rightly or wrongly, Obama has made the settlement issue a test of his credibility, and if he backs down then all the progress he has made will wash away instantly.  That makes this a pivotal moment, whether or not an Obama administration focused on Iran wants it to be one. Most Palestinians, with their well-earned skepticism of American policy, expect Obama to back down. Most Israelis probably do as well.  And that would be tragic….

While Obama’s political opponents berate him over his response to Iran, the first real test of his foreign policy leadership is taking place on the West Bank and almost no one seems to be taking notice.

Tags: Barack Obama, Israel, West Bank

Talking to the Muslim World

As I mentioned yesterday, Kevin Drum thinks Obama should try to encourage more substantive discourse in the press by granting access to really smart, penetrating journalists — regardless of the size of their viewership / readership. Now we hear that the president has granted his first full interview since taking office to Al Arabiya. And it was an interesting, substantive interview. What we learned more than anything from this interview, is that Obama isn’t coming to the table with some interesting new solutions to the problem. He’s basically endorsing some sort of vague two-state solution. But his approach to the process is in line with the Democracy in America post I quoted yesterday.

One other thing struck me about this interview. Obama emphasizes cooperation, rather than just tolerance. He talks about a Palestinian state whose citizens have freedom of movement, sure, but he also talks about  economic engagement. This was a key point in a smart analysis of the situation posted on TPM recently:

They should speak positively about President Sarkozy’s idea of a Mediterranean Union, with Israel and Turkey acting as anchors. Clinton should offer to help organize a start to a regional water carrier to bring Turkish water to Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Israel. There should be talk of an [sic] common market between Israel, Palestine and Jordan. Jones should speak about a bilateral defense pact with Israel and an American naval base in Haifa. The U.S. must get away from the idea that peace means “We give them land, and then maybe they’ll leave us alone.”

Obama has not yet endorsed the initial point of this post, the idea that the Clinton parameters are non-negotiable as far as America is concerned. But I think this goes back to the notion that his approach is more important than his solutions. Coming to the table, from the beginning, with non-negotiable parameters sets the wrong tone. In his interview with Al Arabiya the president drives home the point that as Americans, we aren’t going to fully understand the complexity of the situation. And so first we listen. But we also set our eyes not just on tolerance, peace defined as lack of aggression, but on a vital economic and cultural exchange in the region.

Tags: Barack Obama, Gaza, Israel, the media, West Bank