At the end of his news conference the other day, President Obama said:
And I remain committed to being a partner with countries around the world, and in particular hot spots around the world, to see if we can reduce those tensions and ultimately resolve those conflicts. And the Middle East would be a prime example. I think that the need for peace between Israelis and Palestinians and the Arab states remains as critical as ever.
It is a very hard thing to do. And I know that even if we are applying all of our political capital to that issue, the Israeli people through their government, and the Palestinian people through the Palestinian Authority, as well as other Arab states, may say to themselves, we are not prepared to resolve this — these issues — no matter how much pressure the United States brings to bear.
And the truth is, in some of these conflicts the United States can’t impose solutions unless the participants in these conflicts are willing to break out of old patterns of antagonism. I think it was former Secretary of State Jim Baker who said, in the context of Middle East peace, we can’t want it more than they do.
But what we can make sure of is, is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interests of each party to resolve these conflicts but it’s also in the interest of the United States. It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.
So I’m going to keep on at it. But I think on all these issues — nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, Middle East peace — progress is going to be measured not in days, not in weeks. It’s going to take time. And progress will be halting. And sometimes we’ll take one step forward and two steps back, and there will be frustrations. And so it’s not going to run on the typical cable news 24/7 news cycle. But if we’re persistent, and we’ve got the right approach, then over time, I think that we can make progress.
Regarding the conflict he said that a solution will take time, “progress will be halting” and at times reversible. This suggests that the administration has learned it isn’t going to make quick success here. And when a U.S. government understands that a big effort isn’t going to yield results, it naturally reduces the effort being made.
What this suggests is that even in the current U.S.-initiated friction with Israel, the president wants to build an image of relative toughness on Israel, for his foreign Muslim and Arab audience, but has low expectations. In this context, the conflict is seen as an irritation to be swept to the sidelines as much as possible so it doesn’t interfere with other issues such as Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. If this is so, the mini-crisis with Israel is going to fade away in the coming weeks.
On the other hand Helene Cooper and Mark Landler of the New York Times read something much different into the President’s words (via memeorandum):
When Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a “vital national security interest of the United States,” he was highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American interests.
This shift, described by administration officials who did not want to be quoted by name when discussing internal discussions, is driving the White House’s urgency to help broker a Middle East peace deal. It increases the likelihood that Mr. Obama, frustrated by the inability of the Israelis and the Palestinians to come to terms, will offer his own proposed parameters for an eventual Palestinian state.
Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure” — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Mr. Obama’s words reverberated through diplomatic circles in large part because they echoed those of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the military commander overseeing America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent Congressional testimony, the general said that the lack of progress in the Middle East created a hostile environment for the United States. He has denied reports that he was suggesting that soldiers were being put in harm’s way by American support for Israel.
What worries me is that the New York Times report cites unnamed administration officials.
In addition Laura Rozen quotes a statement from a member of the American UN delegation expressing similar sentiments.
Once again I quote Melanie Phillips, showing that the view of the administration is backwards:
And everyone knows that the way to stop the Palestinian problem festering – a problem which festers solely because of the refusal of the Palestinians to abjure for ever their existential war against the state of Israel, or even currently to negotiate with Israel – is not to force the Palestinians thus to abjure their belligerency or to negotiate but to force Israel instead to make it easier for them to attack and destroy it.
Or as David Bernstein asks:
What if, just as many prominent Israelis are more or less satisfied with current status quo, the Palestinian leadership is content for now with the Palestinians having “won” the rule of all of Gaza and 70% or so of the West Bank without giving up their claim to the right of return, or, for that matter, their desire for the ultimate destruction of Israel?
Perhaps someone can point me to a statement by a prominent Palestinian political leader to the effect that if the Palestinians were given all of Gaza and the land equivalent of 100% of the West Bank, they would sign a permanent, final peace treaty recognizing Israel as the Jewish state envisioned by U.N. way back when (so long as it guaranteed Arab minority rights), and giving up both the right of return and any future claims on Israeli land. Or even a political poll that shows anything approaching a majority of Palestinians would support this result (as opposed to the more weasily question of “a peace settlement based on the 1967 broders” with no mention of giving up the right of return).
(In answer to his question about that poll see here.)
Israel Matzav has a similar take.
UPDATE: In an e-mail Barry Rubin writes:
I have no respect left for the great majority of the NY Times reporters, who are simply advocating what they want. Whatever you think of the speech, if you are going to analyze it you have to point out that Obama explicitly spoke about why there should not be an imposed settlement. This is simply total propaganda. I would say it most likely that the Times is now campaigning for an imposed settlement.
Here’s not one sentence (which the Times quotes) but two paragraphs to the contrary from the speech:
“I think that the need for peace between Israelis and Palestinians and the Arab states remains as critical as ever. It is a very hard thing to do. And I know that even if we are applying all of our political capital to that issue, the Israeli people through their government, and the Palestinian people through the Palestinian Authority, as well as other Arab states, may say to themselves, we are not prepared to resolve this–these issues–no matter how much pressure the United States brings to bear.
“And the truth is, in some of these conflicts the United States can’t impose solutions unless the participants in these conflicts are willing to break out of old patterns of antagonism. I think it was former Secretary of State Jim Baker who said, in the context of Middle East peace, we can’t want it more than they do.”
Now you can argue that Obama doesn’t tell the truth but why would he go on and on arguing AGAINST a policy which the Times says he is signalling by one sentence in the speech? This is nonsense.
It seems to require a lot of chutzpah to say that the NY Times has lost the ability to analyze U.S. policy. But anyone who has been reading what it’s been saying over the last few years and especially the last year has a lot of evidence for that assertion.
Knowing how Washington works–and reading the article carefully–it seems that someone in the administration who wants an imposed settlement gave them this spin.
In short, despite the President’s acknowledgement that he can’t impose peace there are elements within his administration that want him to and reporters who are willing to act as megaphones for these officials.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
