And, Always There Is Israel

The most commented upon section of President Obama's "major" address on US policy in the Mideast has been the reference to peace being based upon the pre Six Day War borders with negotiated land swaps to accommodate Israeli "realities on the ground."  The formulation in and of itself is not outrageous--necessarily.

But an evaluation of the pre-1967 border requires an appreciation of the oft repeated Israeli demand for "secure and defensible borders."  It also demands an understanding of the Israeli insistence upon maintaining a residual force along the Jordan river.  Mr Obama's words seem to ignore the first and totally disallow the second.  Rather the president appeared to rely upon the Palestinian state being "demilitarized."

The concept of "demilitarization" may be useful, but only if the mechanism by which this status would be assured over time is defined and agreed to by Israeli and Palestinian alike.  The record of Egyptian actions in the weeks leading up to the Six Day War, in particular the ejection of the UN truce monitoring unit, shows that even international guarantees of "demilitarization" may not prove reliable.

Prior to the Six Day War, the narrow waist of Israel was less than ten miles in width.  High speed aircraft could not turn 180 degrees and stay in Israeli air space.  More to the point today, ten miles is well within the range of the crude home made rockets so loved by Hamas.  The takeaway is simple: The pre-1967 borders would be neither secure nor defensible now and into the future.

This reality requires that a prudent Israeli government continue a military presence in the valley of the Jordan river.  This would be necessary even if some hypothetical future Palestinian government were to be so dedicated to peace that its territory was truly "demilitarized."  Without the forward basing of high mobility, high firepower IDF units, it would be easy for hostile forces to be concentrated in Jordan, in positions well suited for a quick bounce into Israel.

Presumably, someone in Obama's foreign policy and national security "team" had the knowledge necessary to advise the president regarding the defensive importance of an IDF presence along the banks of the Jordan.  If that were the case, Mr Obama deserves a severe down check for having ignored the reality.  If no such counsel was available, then the administration must be down checked for failing to give the president the information he needed.

Even the Netanyahu ministry is not dedicated to keeping the totality of the potential Palestinian territory occupied.  Doing so would be too expensive in resources and global status to maintain in perpetuity.  At the same time, no Israeli ministry, even the most dovish, would sleep soundly absent forward basing in the Jordan valley.  To withdraw completely to the pre-1967 borders would require a level of trust and confidence in both the pacifistic nature of the Palestinian government and its ability to police its territory effectively that does not and cannot exist yet.  Nor will such exist for many years, perhaps generations, to come.

Mr Obama called upon the Netanyahu government to be "bold."  The government of Israel has shown an ability to be "bold" as in the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.  The "international community" including the US promised Israel that this act of bold statesmanship would not result in violence--and, if it did, the "community" would respond with effective aid to Israel.  The record written by blood on the sands of Gaza and Israel alike is one of shabby betrayal by the guarantors of Israeli peace and base hatred on the part of Hamas and other practitioners of violent political Islam.

Considering this history of boldness and its consequences, is there any wonder that Prime Minister Netanyahu  and many others both in and out of government in Israel rejected the Obama formulation as soon as it left his lips?  Undoubtedly, Mr Obama expected this reaction.  He courted it on the eve of Netanyahu's arrival in Washington.  He used it to feather his own political nest without risk.

This cynical ploy was made possible by the simple fact that the Fatah dominated Palestinian Authority cut its own throat by signing the reconciliation agreement with Hamas.  Mr Obama knew and knows that Israel will not negotiate with the two headed hydra as long as Hamas does not embrace the Quartet requirements.  Mr Obama knows as well that the US will not and cannot deal with Hamas even indirectly as long as it remains a "terrorist organization," a status it will not lose unless it does the impossible and surrenders its fundamental identity.

Mr Obama was thus able to present himself as a "friend" of the Palestinian people as well as their myriad of supporters throughout the Arab states.  The inevitable rejection of the Obama formulation by the Israelis could be offloaded on Netanyahu.  From the perspective of the reelection oriented White House, the result would be win-win.  From the ground level view of the Mideast, the appearance would be more of the lose-lose sort.

It is to be expected that Mr Obama and his team will put pressure on the Israelis.  The president made an allusion during his speech to the vulnerable point.  That solar plexus of diplomacy is the Palestinian threat to take the matter to the UN, to demand that the body do for the Palestinians now what it did for the Zionists sixty plus years ago--create a country.  The US has been called upon by Israel to block this move by using its influence on European and other states at the least and its Security Council veto if necessary.  This gives the US a very great degree of leverage on Israel.

However much leverage the Obama administration has or believe it possesses, the amount is not sufficient to induce Israel to place itself in a suicidal position.  This is precisely where the Jewish state would be if it did not have a military presence along the Jordan river.

Any realistic negotiations for a final comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must start with the pre-Six Day War borders.  But it cannot end there.  Not only must there be negotiated real estate swaps to protect the Israeli "settlements" or at least those that are largest and closest to Israeli territory, there must be an effective addressing of Israel's very legitimate security concerns regarding the Jordan valley.  Until such time as both Muslim Arabs and Israelis have had sufficient time and experience to justify the latter's confidence in the will and ability of the former to maintain peace, the Israelis must be allowed to keep a force of sufficient size and capability to deter or defeat any ground attack originating from beyond Palestinian controlled land.

At best Mr Obama was being disingenuous when he called for the complete ending of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank territory.  At worst he was being dishonestly manipulative for personal political reasons.

In either case the tension between rhetoric and reality resident in yesterday's Foggy Bottom oration calls Mr Obama's intellectual honesty into question.  The US is facing a plethora of foreign policy and national security challenges the meeting of which requires the highest possible intellectual and moral courage on the part of the president and his senior advisers.  If his performance yesterday is any guide, Mr Obama has set a very low standard.  Should that low standard continue to prevail with respect to the other matters on the overfilled plate, the republic is in for some very, very bad times.

Perhaps even bad enough for one to have wished Harold Camping had counted the days correctly.