November 25, 2008

How will the Obama/Clinton team try to achieve a Middle East peace?

Dear Friend of FLAME:

While 77% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama and while most pro-Zionists are heartened to see Hilary Clinton step forward as Obama's Secretary of State, this administration will clearly open a new chapter in Israeli-U.S. relations. In general, Obama and Clinton, supported by chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, seem likely to follow a less ideologically oriented foreign policy than the Bush administration. The new kids are pragmatists. They will surely not give Israel carte blanche for expanding settlements or tolerate dithering in peace negotiations, as Bush's neo-con foreign policy advisers have over the last eight years.

Remember that as unlikely as the prospects for peace seem---especially given the hopeless enmity between Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank---both the U.S. and Israel fervently desire peace . . . or at least the right peace. The question is, how aggressive will the Obama White House be in pursuing a peace process given all the other domestic and international priorities? If Obama and Clinton do become active, what terms will they be considering and what demands are they likely to make on Israel?

Another set of questions arises on the Israeli side of the equation, of course, depending on whether Kadima's Tzipi Livni or Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu become prime minister in upcoming elections. We can expect Livni to be more conciliatory and Netanyahu to be more resistant to U.S.-guided peace overtures.

On her side, Clinton laid out a set of principles on a Middle East peace one year ago, in the November-December 2007 issue of Foreign Policy magazine:

"Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel's right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states. U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis. Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region."

Obama's likely starting position on a peace process is outlined in a recent London Sunday Times article, reprinted below. If this analysis is true, Israel will surely continue to need the vocal support of its friends in the U.S. As you'll see, Obama seems sympathetic to the "retro" proposal the Saudis made in 2002, which would roll back Israel's borders to pre-1967 lines, give back the Golan Heights to Syria and allow millions of Palestinian "refugees" (actually relatives of refugees) to resettle in Israel. It's hard to imagine a peace worth sacrificing all that for . . . or such a peace under which Israel could be safe. Unless, of course, you trust the Arab nations (let alone the Palestinians), who have consistently proven themselves unworthy of such confidence.

Whether Obama and Clinton begin Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts now or later, it behooves Israel's supporters to preemptively publicize the dangers of trying to negotiate peace with Islamic terrorists like Hamas and terror sponsors like Syria, let alone the rest of the Arab world. Review the analysis below, then join us in strongly urging the new administration to chart a slow, cautious course.

Sincerely,

Jim Sinkinson,
Director, FLAME

P.S.

The Times article below alludes to the so-called "Saudi peace initiative" of 2002.  This proposal essentially involves Israel giving up huge amounts of land gained in wars initiated by its Arab neighbors in exchange for Arab recognition of Israel.  This seems a high price to pay for recognition of the strongest, most successful nation in the Middle East.  To make sure Americans clearly understand the issues and stakes surrounding the Saudi proposal, FLAME has published an outspoken and revealing position paper on the subject: "The Saudi "Peace Initiative: Is it meant to lead to peace or to Israel's destruction?" This explanation has been published nationwide in dozens of publications, and has reached tens of millions of Americans.  I encourage you to review it, so you can speak knowledgeably on the subject.  Most of all, if you agree that this kind of public relations effort on Israel's behalf is critical, I urge you to support us. Remember: FLAME's powerful ability to influence public opinion comes from individuals like you, one by one. I hope you'll consider giving a donation now, as you're able---with $500, $250, $100, or even $18. (Remember, your donation to FLAME is tax deductible.) To donate online, just go to http://www.factsandlogic.org/make_a_donation.html. Thanks for continuing to help us keep the flame alive: Am Yisrael Chai! (Israel Lives!)

Barack Obama links Israel peace plan to 1967 borders deal
By Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv and Sarah Baxter, Sunday Times [UK], November 13

Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America's president-elect.

Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party.

The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.

On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be "crazy" for Israel to refuse a deal that could "give them peace with the Muslim world", according to a senior Obama adviser.

The Arab peace plan received a boost last week when President Shimon Peres, a Nobel peace laureate and leading Israeli dove, commended the initiative at a Saudi-sponsored United Nations conference in New York.

Peres was loudly applauded for telling King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who was behind the original initiative: "I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people."

A bipartisan group of senior foreign policy advisers urged Obama to give the Arab plan top priority immediately after his election victory. They included Lee Hamilton, the former co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat former national security adviser. Brzezinski will give an address tomorrow at Chatham House, the international relations think tank, in London.

Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, joined in the appeal. He said last week that the Middle East was the most troublesome area in the world and that an early start to the Palestinian peace process was "a way to psychologically change the mood of the region".

Advisers believe the diplomatic climate favours a deal as Arab League countries are under pressure from radical Islamic movements and a potentially nuclear Iran. Polls show that Palestinians and Israelis are in a mood to compromise.

The advisers have told Obama he should lose no time in pursuing the policy in the first six to 12 months in office while he enjoys maximum goodwill.

Obama is also looking to break a diplomatic deadlock over Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons technology. A possible way forward, suggested last spring by Dennis Ross, a senior Obama adviser and former Middle East envoy, would be to persuade Russia to join in tough economic sanctions against Iran by offering to modify the US plan for a "missile shield" in eastern Europe.

President Dmitry Medvedev signalled that Russia could cancel a tit-for-tat deployment of missiles close to the Polish border if America gave up its proposed missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Ross argued in a paper on How to Talk to Iran that "if the Iranian threat goes away, so does the principal need to deploy these [antimissile] forces. [Vladimir] Putin [the Russian prime minister] has made this such a symbolic issue that this trade-off could be portrayed as a great victory for him".

Ross and Daniel Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel, accompanied Obama on a visit to Israel last July. They also travelled to Ramallah, where Obama questioned Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, about the prospects for the Arab plan.

According to a Washington source Obama told Abbas: "The Israelis would be crazy not to accept this initiative. It would give them peace with the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco."

Kurtzer submitted a paper to Obama on the question before this month's presidential elections. He argued that trying to reach bilateral peace agreements between Israel and individual countries in the Middle East, was a recipe for failure as the record of Bill Clinton and George W Bush showed. In contrast, the broader Arab plan "had a lot of appeal". A leading Democratic expert on the Middle East said: "There's not a lot of meat on the bones yet, but it offers recognition of Israel across the Arab world."

Livni, the leader of Kadima, which favours the plan, is the front-runner in Israeli elections due in February. Her rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Likud, is adamantly against withdrawing to borders that predate the Six Day war in 1967.

Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, last week expressed his support for Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank Golan and east Jerusalem.