Don't Veto The Palestinian State

Palestinian Authority jefe grande Abbas has tossed down the gauntlet to Barack Obama and the rest of his "foreign policy team."  The PA will seek full membership in the UN as a sovereign state Abbas declared in a highly reported speech to his fellow countrymen.

This move seems to be a very severe defeat for both Israel and the Obama administration.  The Netanyahu ministry has done everything short of declaring war on the PA.  The Obama "team" including the president has not been much more restrained, threatening (or promising, if you prefer) to veto the move when it comes before the Security Council for action.

A veto would not be looked at with favor in the Arab states generally as was made palpably clear in a recent op-ed piece in the WaPo by one of those interminable Saudi princes and diplomatic heavyweights.  Participants in outdoor sports favored by the "Arab Street" such as riots and suicide bombings will be much less restrained in their disapprobation.

Advocates of realpolitik have noted that even admission to the UN either as a state or a state observer will change nothing for the better on the ground.  There is much to justify this view.  Likewise there is much to support the dystopian notions that the Palestinians will  use either state observer or state status to cause a world of hurt for Israel in the assorted UN sub-agencies and the International Criminal Court.

The pessimistic interpretations do not, however, merit the US using its veto power in the Security Council.  Doing such would only assure the PA would take its petition to the General Assembly in search of the consolation prize of state observer status, which would give it all the trouble making possibilities along with assuring a very large can would be tied to Uncle Sam's tail.

A far better course of action for the Obama administration to take is that of delay.  The process established for seeking recognition as a state by the UN provides an almost infinite mechanism of creative stalling.  The formal request must first go to the Secretary General.  The Secretary General does not have to handle the matter instantly but can request further information before forwarding the request to the Security Council.  Doing this can take weeks--or months.

The Security Council can also demand more information as well as proof that the proposed Palestinian state meets all the diplomatic requirements for state status.  This means the Council can find itself caught in a set of hearings and debates over the degree to which the Palestinian Authority and the territory under its purported control does in fact constitute a fully functioning state.  Given the deep and growing divide between the West Bank based Palestinian Authority and its rival in the Gaza Strip, Hamas, and the fiction that Palestine constitutes a single entity, this could lead to a number of second thoughts within chanceries seemingly committed to the idea of Palestinian statehood.

A full fledged inquiry and debate within the Security Council could even have the potential to undercut any move in the General Assembly for state observer status.  This is not a nontrivial benefit given the uncertainty and ambiguity extant within the European Union for this gambit.  The US might even enlist the cooperation of Russia in seeking a complete airing of whether or not the Palestinian state really exists by quietly noting that any approval by either the Security Council or the General Assembly would constitute a bad precedent from the Kremlin's point of view considering the current ethnic and religious unrest in the Northern Caucasus.  The name, "Tibet," whispered in certain ears might elicit a reasonably favorable response from Beijing.

The point is the US could lobby effectively for a prolonged inquiry by the Security Council, which would buy that most precious of commodities--time--for bilateral diplomacy to make another run at the moribund "peace process" between Israel and the PA.  Abbas would have his political posterior covered enough to keep him in his tenuous position for some while since he would have delivered on his promises and cannot be held personally responsible for UN protocol.

Sure there would still be some riots, some bombings, some threats of worse from the "Arab Street" and other usual Muslim suspects such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, but what else is to be expected?  The US would be spared the major problems which exercise of the veto would bring.

The Israelis, or at least some of them, would not be thrilled but, again, what else would you expect?  A delay might allow calmer heads (assuming there are any) around Netanyahu to provide sound counsel respecting the recommencement of talks with Abbas and company.  There is even the faint prospect that the Obama administration might find the right magic to convince Netanyahu to wake up to the new and alarming political realities in his neighborhood, realities which cannot be addressed by simple words and the implied threat of Israeli military displeasure.

A delay would benefit all interested parties.  A veto would not.  It looks like a no-brainer.  Of course, being the simplest and safest way to go means it is not acceptable to either the Deep Thinkers or the ideologues who populate too much of the foreign policy world, not only here but everywhere.

All Together Now--Cry For The Poor Palestinians

Way back in the dark ages otherwise known as the Forties, there was a series of affrays in a small portion of the Mideast then called on all the maps as "Palestine" or the "Palestinian Mandated Territory."  The interlocking series of nasty little wars called either the "War of Independence" or "The Catastrophe" was occasioned by a combination of factors.  Some of these factors were indigenous to the region.  Others, far larger in impact on both the people of the region and the world generally, were the result of a specific ideology applied ruthlessly by a particular regime and its allies in other countries.

One result of the affray was the generation of a generation of refugees.  It is critical to understand that the refugees were not simply a mass of ever-so-innocent civilian victims caught between the millstones of events and forces far outside their control.  Nor was there any thought at the time of the affrays and their concomitant refugee streams that the displaced individuals and their descendants would be the pawns of governments and ideological devotees for years, decades, and finally generations.

On occasions, social and political forces have a power which transcends the capacity of any government or group of governments to control.  The months and years immediately following the end of World War II in Europe and the revelations regarding the magnitude of the Nazi campaign of racial extermination now called the "Holocaust" was such an occasion.

The movement to create (or, perhaps more accurately, to recreate) the ancient Jewish homeland in the former territories of the Ottoman Empire known as Palestine had been underway in a series of fits and starts since the late Nineteenth Century.  The confusingly ambiguous bit of British political expediency executed during the worst days of World War I known as the Balfour Declaration provided some seeming basis for the creation of a "Jewish National Homeland" in the Ottoman occupied territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.  A brilliantly worded bit of diplomatic gibberish, the Balfour Declaration appeared to provide either (A) the foundation of a Jewish state or (B) a Jewish homeland inside an Arab state or (C) both.

The Arabs resident in the land more or less affected by the Declaration both cooperated with and bitterly opposed the transfer of land from Arab to Jewish ownership. Some Arabs, primarily absentee landowners, were quite willing to sell their land to Jews.  Other Arabs, primarily lesser landholders and ambitious Muslim clerics, frothed with opposition.  Several times the opposition turned violent particularly when the crowds were lashed by sermons preached by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a man who was so antisemitic as to make Adolph Hitler seem a Hebrewphile in comparison.

The British ran the place as they did the neighboring territory called back then "the Trans-Jordan."  The British government was at best given to vacillation regarding the settlement of Jews in the territory given to their mandate by the League of Nations.  Most of the time both the British Army and Foreign Ministry were dominated by Arabists given to a romantic view of the Arabs.  In practice this meant the relevant officials on the ground in the region as well as back in London tilted British policy to fit the desires, not to say demands, of the Arabs.  Even as the Nurenberg War Crimes Tribunal was hearing the evidence of the mass slaughter of the Jews of Europe as a state policy, the British government and its minions in Palestine consistently favored the Arab position of total opposition to the creation of even a minimalist form of Jewish National Homeland.

The revelations of the Nazi state policy of mass slaughter did have a profound impact on many people both in Europe and the US.  Americans were notably disturbed by the images and testimony of gas chambers and death transports.  While mild and "gentlemanly" antisemitism had been a common currency in the US prior to the end of the war, all such attitudes and behaviors were set aside with rapidity and vigor under the impact of the tales of savage, premeditated murder on a scale previously unthinkable.

The US became a supporter of the more expansive interpretation of the Balfour Declaration.  This support was not highly visible.  It was not one of loud voices in Congress or demonstrations in the street.  This was not the American way in those more innocent days.  Still, the mood of We the People was evident.  There was a sense of collective guilt within much of the American elite.  We had stood silent on the sidelines during the Thirties.  We had refused to believe the first horrifying stories of persecution as they oozed out of Germany and German occupied territory.  During the war, we had done nothing to impede the machinery of slaughter even as our government (like that of the UK) became increasingly aware of its existence.

Guilt required atonement.  The atonement took the form of supporting the creation of a Jewish state in the mandated territory of Palestine.  It can and has been argued that the American guilt feelings had the net result of transferring misery from the Jews of Europe to the Arabs of Palestine.  There may be a shred of truth to this.  But, if so, it is irrelevant.

The US did its dead level best to see the Jewish state brought into existence peacefully with the least possible ill-effects for the already resident Arab population.  We bent much diplomatic influence to this task.  The influence was backed with money.  We invoked the UN.  We tried negotiation.  We urged the Arab governments to step back, work with us in solving a problem which had an impact on the Jews of Europe, the Arab Muslims of the Mideast, and other people and religions far from both the Mideast and Europe.  To us, the problem of the Jewish state was an affair which had meaning and impact for humanity generally.

The crux of the problem, the single reason a diplomatic question became a shooting war rests not with the Jews of Europe seeking a permanent sanctuary nor with the ideology of Zionism.  The responsibility for the wars does not reside with the US or with the European states.  Most assuredly, it does not rest with the pro-Arab men of the British government and military.  No.  None of these can have the tail of fault pinned on their behinds.

All the responsibility for the war and the refugees rests solely with the Arab governments of the day.  Well. to err on the side of accuracy, some of the blame must rest with the Muslim clerics who preached not only holy war against the hated Jews and their infidel supporters but also called upon Arab Muslims to leave their homes, to flee to the protection of the armies of the faithful so as to return in victory behind the conquering tanks of the believers.

Arab tanks were rolling.  Arab artillery was firing.  Arab infantry were shooting.  All even before the new state of Israel proclaimed its existence.  The war was on, declared not by words but by shooting, shelling, and bombing long before any state could recognize the existence of the new state.

The Arab armies moved long before the UN could urge peace.  The Arab armies sought to extinguish the nascent Jewish state before any UN resolution seeking a peaceful ending could be introduced let alone passed and put into effect.  The so-called "Catastrophe" was made by Arabs. Period.  End of discussion.

The same applies in the main to the production of the pitiful columns of refugees and the long, bitter aftermath in the camps.  The important phrase here is, "in the main."  For the Jews do not have clean hands in the matter of forced evacuations.

It is important to remember that to the shame and discredit of Israel then and now, some Jewish militia units, particularly those of the Palmach, engaged in atrocities intended to force Arabs from their ancestral homes, to ethnically cleanse land which would be incorporated in the Jewish state.  Unarmed civilians including old men, women, and children were massacred on a scale not different from that practiced by Serbians against their Muslim fellow citizens.  To the further discredit of the government of Israel, it did its best to cover up the evidence of the atrocities for decades.  It has been only recently that the relevant documents have come to light--due to the efforts of Israeli historians whose dedication to their craft overpowered feelings of patriotism.

However, the primary responsibility resides with Arab governments and Muslim clerics who used all manner of persuasion to convince Arabs to pack up and leave in the full (and false) expectation of a speedy and victorious return.  In the wars of independence, as in the Six Day War nearly twenty years later, the Arab states and Muslim clerics were co-conspirators in crimes against the Arabs of the disputed lands.

However, the Arab states and Muslim cleric were not alone in the commission of the offense.  They were aided and abetted by the UN.  The UN formed an office tasked with the resettlement, relief, and care of the refugees.

Admittedly, the UN sincerely if misguidedly conceived of the operation as short-lived, a temporary humanitarian expedient which would end with the coming of peace.  Unfortunately, the oft-seen process of the temporary becoming permanent worked once again with the UN effort at relief, resettlement, and reintegration of the Palestinian displaced persons.  The ever expanding network of refugee camps in the Gaza Strip, Jordan, and elsewhere took on a life of its own.  A new, always growing bureaucracy of refugee relief workers became a permanent feature of the human terrain of the Mideast.

The reason for this resides not so much with the UN bureaucrats as it does with the Arab states.  To the various governments of the so-called "frontline" states, the refugees and their camps became welcome pawns and tools in the forever war being waged by these states against Israel.  There was no desire on the part of any of these governments to see the Palestinian refugees effectively integrated into their own populations.

At the same time, assorted ambitious political leaders within the refugee population saw their way to power, status, and (dare it be written) wealth rested with keeping the refugees in their degraded and alienated position.  And, in the shadow, there were more than a few clerics of the political Islam tendency who saw advantage in having the rootless refugees available as potential recruits in the overarching holy war against Jews and infidels alike.

An unintended combination of international aid workers, agenda driven clerics, and self-interested states assured the camps and their wretched inhabitants would stay as a major feature of the social and political landscape of the region.  And, so it is today.  And, so it will stay tomorrow absent a severe alteration of the stances of the frontline governments as well as the leadership of the new unity government of Hamas and the Fatah dominated Palestinian Authority.

Arguably, the UN office, now called UNRWA, is the single major player in altering the terrain of camps and refugees.  Considering the existence of the Palestinian Authority, it can be asserted fairly that the camps as well as the UN bureaucracy no longer needs to exist.  Further, it is not inaccurate to argue that the best thing that UNRWA can do on behalf of its wards is to go out of existence.

By ceasing to exist, UNRWA would compel the Palestinian Authority including its Hamas branch to take proper responsibility for the well being of its citizens.  The reality now is that Palestinians are not and should not be wards of a giant and hugely expensive but inefficient welfare bureaucracy.  Rather, they are citizens of a nascent state with a government which exists in all but name.

UNRWA must go.  That is it must go if the UN is serious about being concerned about the best interests of the refugees and their descendants.  The wars which produced the refugees ended more than forty years ago. The youngest of the authentic refugees are in their mid-sixties.  It is long overdue to blow the whistle on UNRWA and tell the refugees and their third generation descendants that they are not going home--that where they live right now is home.

Of course UNRWA will not do the right thing.  The bureaucrats, the international aid workers, are not about to give up their phony jobs.  The chiefs and their chief assistants are not about to say give us no more money, our work here is done.

That is evident in the latest sob story out of UNRWA.  The violins are weeping in the background as the high minded, lofty thinking folks at the agency dry their tears over the very high unemployment in Gaza.  There is no end of gnashing of teeth, beating of breasts, and pulling of hair over the human costs of the unemployment which (stand by to be shocked) is caused solely by the Israeli "blockade" of Gaza.

Of course this interpretation is a mass of pooh-pooh.  The real deal is that Gaza under Hamas has no economic reason to exist.  Beyond that, it has been the policies and actions of Hamas which have made the Israeli "blockade" necessary.  As long as UNRWA exists to take up the slack, to feed, to house, to educate, to medicate, to apologize for, and generally tend to the so-called refugees, there will be no effective pressure on either Hamas or the Palestinian Authority to act like a responsible government and create the conditions and context necessary to assure that Palestine has an economic reason to exist as well as the ability to attract investment capital and create employment.

Down in the religious and political mire of the Arab states, deep under the cover of the "Arab Spring," each and every government continues to cynically exploit the "refugees" as part of their forever war against the Jews and their infidel supporters.  Commensual with the cynics of mosque and chancery are the self-serving and self-preserving international bureaucrats and aid workers of UNRWA.  This unlikely but lethal troika keeps its collective boot firmly on the neck of the Palestinian "refugees."

Pity the poor Palestinians.  Not for their unemployment.  Not for their alleged poverty.  Not for their purported longing for long lost olive groves and stone huts.  Pity them for their delusions.  Pity them for having been manipulated, propagandized, used, and exploited by cynics in the mosque, cynics in the chanceries of all the Arab states, and cynics at Turtle Bay.  Pity the Palestinians most of all for having died in their spirit, for having thrown away their own autonomy in order to become an army of automatons ordered, directed, and controlled by people who have nothing but contempt for them.

Pity the Palestinians, hollow shells of one time humanity, sacrificed on the alters of ambition.  Look at them in their mobs, their multitudes of misery, and remind yourself that once they were human.

Becoming A State Isn't Enough To Bring Peace

There is no doubt that the Palestinian Authority (PA) can usher a state called "Palestine" into existence.  There is nothing magical nor even particularly difficult about achieving the status of "state."  Even the longest standing, most broadly accepted basic definition of statehood, The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which dates back to 1933, establishes rather minimal requirements for state status.

The Montevideo Convention provides only four prerequisites.  (1) A permanent population, (2) A defined territory, (3) A government, and (4) The capacity to enter into relations with other states.  In practice these requirements have been further reduced.  As a practical matter, a state can be said to exist when other states say it does.

Even when territorial limits are hazy, poorly defined or still in the process of being determined, an established state has the sovereign right to declare another entity has achieved the same status.  This is also the case when a government is not fully formed, fledged, or functioning.  All that is necessary is that other states recognize the new kid on the block.  The recognition need not be universal.  Nor does the new state need the recognition of any or all of the Great Powers to come into full, legal form.

History is full of examples of states being recognized long before they had achieved either defined borders or a fully functional government.  (Recall that the US falls into this category.)  History is also replete with examples of states and governments which were widely but not universally recognized or lacked recognition and acceptance by one or more of the contemporary Great Powers.  (The US non-recognition of the Bolshevik regime in Russia or that of Mao in China did not make these two states sudden nonentities.)

A state need not be contiguous (pace Constitutional law professor and president Barack Obama) to be both recognized and viable.  At its creation Pakistan consisted of two parts separated by more than a thousand kilometers of India.  It was both recognized and (until the fruits of Punjabi racism and Islamabad's inefficiency matured) viable.  Pakistan existed with its two disparate components because enough other states said it did.

To make it simple but without undue simplification: States come into existence when enough other states recognize its existence and enter into relations with it.  That's all, folks.  There is no need for UN action.  While the General Assembly upon recommendation of the Security Council can extend membership to a new state, this is not required for the state to exist as both independent and sovereign.

All of this brings us back to Palestine.  An increasing number of countries ranging from Brazil to Russia have extended some form of diplomatic recognition to the territory of Palestine as governed by the PA.  As this tide gains force, it can be expected that most of the current membership of the UN will do likewise regardless of the well-intended but quite irrelevant counsel of President Obama.

By the old standards of diplomacy, this should mean that Palestine would come into existence as an independent and sovereign state.  But, the old norms do not apply.  There are two constraints which taken together render the old way inapplicable in this case.  One of these is the Oslo Accords, which formed an agreement between Fatah and Israel.  The PA is not mentioned.  It couldn't be--it did not exist at the time.  Nor was Hamas referenced.  Only Fatah and Israel.

The sundry agreements which fall under the appellation of the frosty Norwegian capital sharply limit the ability of the PA to exercise jurisdiction over territory and persons alike.  The Oslo agreements served to place the Palestinian territory under an ongoing form of Israeli suzerainty.  To a major extent, the effect of the Oslo agreements was to put a diplomatic and political gloss on an underlying brute fact.

The brute fact was (and is) the Israeli occupation.  Even if the territorial extent of full Israeli occupation has been reduced over the years, it still exists as the rock upon which the independence and sovereignty of the PA must founder.

The combination of the Oslo agreement and the fact of ongoing Israeli occupation renders the past experience with the process by which states come into existence nugatory.  This dreary reality is well understood and publicly accepted by PA officials.  They know that even if every country on the face of the globe extends diplomatic recognition, this will not change realities on the ground--as long as the US does not do the same.

Israel's stance in comparison is not central.  There are precedents of states and governments receiving full diplomatic recognition even though they were under full or partial military occupation.  Indeed, that was a key principle underlying the political integrity of governments-in-exile during World War II.  It can be argued that by failing to end its long condemned occupation, Israel has created a Palestinian version of a government-in-exile which has a legitimate claim on the international community for aid in regaining its (temporarily) lost land.

The PA (particularly if Hamas is left out of the picture somehow) has a good case for UN intervention based on both the government-in-exile precedents and international law generally.  Assuming the UN General Assembly took some sort of action equivalent to extending full membership to the PA controlled Palestine, so as to duck any US veto in the Security Council, would it really matter with respect to the larger and more important question--peace?

The short answer is no.  An independent Palestine would still have to deal directly with Israel regarding all the critical matters such as borders, land swaps, an Israeli military presence in the Jordan valley, the status of Jerusalem, and the return of Arab refugees.  These matters would be no less contentious and vexing should Palestine become an independent state than they are right now.

The best which could be asserted about potential benefits to the PA is it would have some additional diplomatic leverage.  As an independent state Palestine could be more effective in opposing additional growth in the Israeli "settlements."  As an independent state Palestine could sign on to the Statute of Rome giving it the right to seek prosecution of purported Israeli war criminals before the International Criminal Court.  This threat would have great leverage in and of itself.

A well coordinated use of mass mobilization of Palestinians in a move on the Israeli Wall and checkpoints along with diplomacy could bring about the desired UN action without US support.  Indeed, it is hard to see how the combination of non-violent mass action and diplomacy could be openly opposed by the Obama administration given the coming of the next election.

The reconciliation between the PA and Hamas has shored up the political base of Abbas.  Now if he and his fellows can show a modicum of smarts in orchestrating global opinion and the photogenic appeal of a series of totally non-violent marches on the Great Wall of (specious) Security behind which Israel cowers, he can pull off the coup of the decade--and mousetrap the Obama "team."

The record of the Palestinians in the theater of global politics and the realities of international diplomacy has more often than not been one of dismal incompetence and self-inflicted defeats.  But, sometimes all it takes is one successful attempt at swinging for the fence.  This time Abbas may do it with the result that Palestine will come into existence.

But, this may well not lead to peace.  And, one cannot expect the Palestinians to make it two-for-two.  That would take Elohim and Allah working in perfect harmony.  Anyone want to make a bet?

The Fatal Appeal Of Negotiations

Currently the US is doing the same old, same old.  As it has been for a mort of frustrating years, the incumbant administration along with its counterparts present and past have been plugging away, singing the same tired song: Negotiations conquer all.  There are three critical sets of negotiations either sort of underway,  hoped to be underway soon, or prayed to be commenced sometime, anytime.

The first of these, the one which is more or less underway, is the US sponsored direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the stated goal of a comprehensive peace agreement within the next year (or so.)  The hoped to be started soon, say on 6 December, is the next round of talking at each other with the contestants being the P5+1 group on one side of the table and the Iranians on the other.  The third, the one policy makers hope and pray may take sometime soon is the Six Power Talks involving North Korea.

Three categories of similarity link the three totems to the appeal of negotiation.  All have been and are being pushed by the US.  In all three cases strong sets of pressure and inducements have been employed--or, in the case of inducements, promised--over an extended period of time.  Finally, all are replays of earlier failures.

What makes it any different this time around?  Why should any rational person argue that one more diplomatic engagement will accomplish what all the previous ones have failed to do?

The conventional wisdom offered by proponents of give-diplomacy-a-chance has two main parts.  The first is some variant of the contention that talking is better than fighting.  The second is this time,  unlike all the previous ventures, the context has changed: The sanctions have bit hard or the Israelis recognize the time is right and the PA knows it must produce peace or face Hamas sponsored regime change.

A number of high ranking members of the trust-us-we-are-statesmen crowd have assured the American public that the latest round of sanctions which include far more restrictive measures imposed by the US and the European Union have severely undercut the Iranian economy while the pro-democracy forces have refused to knuckle under to the repressive capacities of the Tehran regime.  Objective evidence including that from official Iranian sources does indicate the sanctions, particularly those affecting Western private investment in the oil sector, have made the already bad economic situation worse.  And, there is no doubt but the pro-democracy, Green movement continues to annoy the regime.

Both amount to a "so what?" in the the actions of the Iranian government.  The Iranians well understand that the contest between itself and the P5+1 generally and the US in particular is one of political wills.  They are betting that they possess the greater political will just as they have demonstrated in all the past diplomatic soirees.  If the Iranians and the P5+1 actually sit down somewhere (the venue has not yet been agreed upon) on 6 December, the Iranians will be willing to talk about Iran's role in matters of global import, about the need for revision of the UN Security Council, about the solving of mythic global warming, about almost any and everything other than the ongoing enrichment of uranium.  The US and the others of the P5+1 want to talk about fissioning atoms only.

The Iranians have already demonstrated their ability to teach Andre Gromyko and others of the legendary Iron Pants Brigade of Soviet negotiators a thing or two about how to stall, bob, and weave, and otherwise buy time and wear out the other side's political will.  Also, as the government and its supporters are members in good standing of the Shia sect of Islam, they take great pride in the capacity of the Iranian nation to suffer, to absorb pain in the service of belief.

The net effect of the sanctions has been to engage effectively the Shia commitment of pain for belief while simultaneously boosting the Iranian sense of nationalism.  That is a powerful combination, a combination guaranteed to promote political will.

In comparison the P5+1 lacks any genuine semblance of a coherent political will.  Two of the group have shown both will and ability at skirting or flatly avoiding the imposition of the most biting of the sanctions.  Two others have excellent records until very, very recently of looking the other way as private concerns violate the sanction regime.  And, at least four of the countries have a much higher priority in solving domestic economic concerns.  Overall this means the firmness of will on one side of the table is far less than on the other.

Takeaway: The results of any upcoming "negotiations" can be summarized by a line in a Herman's Hermits tune from the Sixties, "Second verse, same as the first."

The Israeli-Palestinian talks are still on hiatus.  What else can be expected?  The PA has been relying on the Obama administration to do the heavy lifting for them.  Despite its best efforts in pressure, inducements, and hortatory talk, Team Obama has not and will never be able to produce what the PA wants and thinks it must have.

The PA wants a lot.  It wants Israel back to the 1948 Green Line.  It wants East Jerusalem.  It wants either a
"right of return" or financial compensation for those who fled the land which became Israel during the wars of independence.  Most of all it wants a two state solution as an intermediary stop on the road to a one state solution which sees the end of Israel as constituted currently.

The Israeli government is not unaware of the PA's goals both short and long term.  No Israeli government will grant the PA a free pass to those goals.  No conceivable--which is to say, politically acceptable to the American electorate--amount of American pressures and inducements will work to get the PA what it wants.

This is not to imply the government of Israel is much more flexible than its PA interlocutor.  The Israelis may be willing to exchange some undeveloped semi-desert real estate on an acre for acre basis for the land on which the "settlements" exist, but they are not about to relinquish the Old City of Jerusalem which has been incorporated legally into the State of Israel regardless of any UN or US position to the contrary.

Nor is the Israeli government (this one or any other) willing to see a hostile state come into existence on its borders, even the more expansive ones defined by the line of settlements.  Thus the insistence of an Israeli armed presence in a security zone in the Jordan Valley.  It is doubtful that the government of Israel would accept a UN force there, given the record of that organization.

It is a certainty that the Israelis will not agree to any Arab "right of return."  Financial compensation might be possible--particularly if the US pays it.

The political will of the Israelis regarding a peace agreement is made explicit in a law pending before the Knesset.  This law, which is expected to pass easily, requires a super-majority (80 out of 120 members) in the Knesset to approve any agreement containing a territorial transfer.  The alternative to the super-majority will be a national referendum.  (Can we say, "Ice cube in a blast furnace?")

In short, it is hard to see what might exist to justify any continuation of the "peace talks."  Perhaps the US should abandon the effort and cut its political and diplomatic losses.

"But, wait, Geek," you protest.  "What about the Arab League/Saudi Arabian promise of diplomatic recognition and other goodies, like overflight rights?"

Yeah, right.  And, Hitler's Germany diplomatically recognized Poland even as the panzers crossed the common border.  What a concept, twenty or so Arab League members open embassies in Tel Aviv or wherever.  That will be a new challenge for Israeli security: Keeping tabs on legions of subversives and espionage agents.  And, overflights?  EL Al has done quite well without them--and imagine the restrictions for national security and air safety as well as protecting Mecca from "Jewish pollution" which would come as a part of the deal.

Finally there is the negotiation round we keep hoping for.  The one with North Korea.  In a fine exhibit of just how much the sanction regime has hurt the country the Hermits have not only started construction of a one megawatt, thermal, light water reactor equally useful for producing either electricity or plutonium but invited an American expert to tour their new uranium enrichment plant.  Built in a mere eighteen months the new plant definitely impressed the visiting American.

The North Koreans understand political will.  The twin nuclear developments show this.  So does history.  The seemingly endless talks which finally (due to Soviet action and Ike's nuclear threat) yielded the armistice were nothing but a joint Chinese-North Korean effort at outlasting the Americans in the interlocking processes of talking about peace while fighting a war.

The North Koreans are not going to abandon their nuclear effort without gaining something very, very important in return.  Promises of fuel, food, or even "safe" nuclear reactors will not cut it with the Hermits of Pyongyang.  We already know that from the events following the 1994 quasi-agreement brokered by the Clinton administration.

As long as Pyongyang has the tacit backing of Beijing (which will  be a day or two longer than forever), the Hermits see no percentage in settling for less than reunification of the two Koreas.  The reunification must be under terms and conditions of Pyongyang's liking if not dictation.  Acceptance of such by Seoul of a Pyongyang dictate is less likely than Nancy Pelosi showing a wrinkle.

So, reality asks the trenchant question, "What is there to negotiate about?"

The answer to that question is self-evident.

Perhaps the unwillingness of Americans to accept the self-evident and highly negative answers to this and similar questions demonstrates just why we are so addicted to diplomatic negotiations even when there is very little or no chance of such resulting in a good outcome.  We really are that strange and seemingly mythical creature--a peaceloving people.  Indeed we love peace so much we will keep on talking until the moment the first bullet (or missile) is fired at us.

A great strength, a great national value is also the major weakness our enemies can and do use against us.  Just comes with the territory, the territory of the unique American mind.

Be Careful What You Wish For--Particularly From The UN

The Palestinian Authority has been making noises about going to the UN General Assembly and demanding that body create an independent Palestine with the borders extant before the Six Day War of 1967.  This move may seem appropriate given that it is widely believed the UN General Assembly created an independent Israel with Resolution 181on 29 November 1947,  What the UN did once, it is argued, the UN can do again.

There is only one problem with this contention.  It is wrong.  The General Assembly did not create Israel with Resolution 181.

The resolution accepted the recommendations of the UN Special Committee On Palestine (UNSCOP) including a partition of the old British Mandate of Palestine into two states: one Arab, the other Jewish.  Overlooking the actual population differential in the Mandate which favored the Arabs by better than two to one or the land ownership pattern which showed Arabs owned over three quarters of the land with Jews holding less than ten percent, the UNSCOP report assigned fifty-five percent of the total area to the proposed Jewish state.  The Resolution kicked the details of creating the two states to the Security Council.

The UNSCOP report and the General Assembly action did violate the long standing and often invoked principle of self-determination which had been a hallmark of US policy put forth by Woodrow Wilson as part of the armistice and peace treaty ending World War I.  This troubled a number of observers both overseas and in the US but was overshadowed by the horrors of Nazi policy which had become a staple of the news during the preceding year.

The debate over the UNSCOP report and Resolution 181 did not focus on self-determination so much as it did the legality under the UN Charter of the Security Council or General Assembly creating countries by fiat.  The Soviet Union protested that action such as that proposed for Palestine violated the Charter.  This posture was adopted by Syria as well.  Other countries saw matters the same way.  Many of the ten abstentions and thirteen negative votes were predicated upon the concern that the resolution as well as any consequent Security Council actions would violate the charter, would confer upon the UN the undesirable status of "world government."

The US position as stated rather forcibly by Ambassador Warren Austin was that the Charter did not empower the Security Council to use force to implement a political settlement--even one instituted by the Security Council.  In point of fact the American position was an accurate reading of the Charter.  The coincidence that the US interpretation paralleled the view of the Arab Higher Council (as the several Arab states called their coordinating body) was unintended.  The US had no political ax to grind in the Palestinian question.  That would come later.

The Security Council was apprised repeatedly that any attempt to impose a partition on Palestine would result in a "breech of the peace."  There is a large dose of irony in this: The Security Council had as its primary task the prevention of breeches of the international peace, but in any attempt to partition Palestine, it would be causing the breech.  Delegations from Latin America, Europe, and the Arab Higher Council all warned that violence would be inevitable.

Given the warnings it would have been prudential to say the least if the Security Council moved first to create an international peace keeping force before even considering a change in the status of Palestine.  An alternative which was urged by several states was a referral of the matter to the International Court.  Neither of these courses of action were followed.  Instead the Security Council kicked the can down the road on 5 March 1948.

By this time Resolution 181 had been rendered nugatory by the realities on the ground.  War had broken out. The UN shifted its emphasis from create-a-state to find-a-truce.  The US supported armistice efforts provided they were "without prejudice" to the claims of either Jews or Arabs.  This was the most realistic position even though it almost guaranteed the war would continue until at least one if not both sides reached exhaustion.  Then, and only then, could the process of creating states be undertaken.

And, that is how it played out.  The ill-advised, emotionally driven acts of UNSCOP, and the General Assembly joined with the week-kneed position of the Security Council and the sheer ineptitude of the Arabs to hand over the Palestine Question to the gods of war.  When the shooting finally stopped at the end of the second round of fighting, the new state of Israel had even more land than provided by the generous UNSCOP plan, and the Arabs had nothing.

Ever since then the Arab states as well as the Palestinians have tried to reverse the verdict rendered on the battlefield.  Finally, after years of self-defeating war, terrorism, and diplomacy now worthy of the name, the PA has hit on a new paradigm.  The new approach relies upon delegitimizing Israel in the eyes, not of the world, not even of the majority of the world's people, but of the elites of Western Europe and the US.  In this context, the PA hoped that the new American president would carry the heavy freight of pressuring Israel into accepting a settlement far less than the best.

The American gambit has not paid off yet.  As a result the PA has brought the new arrow from the quiver.  The new arrow has a multi-bladed point, but each blade depends upon an international organization for its lethal sharpness.

One blade consists of the International Criminal Court where the PA is seeking de jure recognition as a state, ostensibly so that it might prefer war crimes charges against Israeli officials and military personnel but substantially so that it might claim to be a sovereign state already in existence.  This would power up its demands for UN recognition of statehood.

Another, even sharper blade, is the UN General Assembly itself.  The PA may well seek an new version of Resolution 181 which creates Palestine qua Palestine.  The UN Charter has not changed since 1947 but the passage of Resolution 181 provides that commodity most highly treasured by lawyers--precedent.  The PA can (and no doubt will) argue that the act in 1947 both justifies and demands correction with the issuance of an updated version.  The PA will have the support of the Arab/Muslim majority states, most of the so-called non-aligned movement and some others.  In aggregate more than enough to secure passage.

The PA will do whatever it can to assure any create-a-Palestine motion stays away from the Security Council.  Not only will the US (probably but not certainly given the Obama predilections) oppose any such measure but so also will Russia and (perhaps) China.  Neither of these states could feel comfortable with the idea that the UN can go around creating states in the interest of preserving international peace given the unrest and separatist movements which exist within their borders.

In the real world, any UN action will not be accepted by Israel.  As was the case back in 1947 when the Arabs were the party of "no," a deal needs two parties at a minimum.  In 1947 or 2011 there cannot be an agreement unless both Jew and Arab say, "yes."  One can safely bet one's booty on the proposition that Israel will not accept a UN diktat.

A PA gambit involving the UN General Assembly is not difficult for Israel to counter.  All that is needed is the political will to move the IDF into the "settlements" and coterminous areas and, with hands on hips say to the PA and its Arab/Muslim supporters  in an imitation of George W. Bush, "Bring it on!"

Far harder to counter effectively is the international demonization of Israel, the campaign of deligitimazation which has worked so splendidly in recent years.  Israeli defiance of the "will of the international community" will boost the efforts of the demonizers by orders of magnitude.  It would enhance the appeal of the peddlers of violent political Islam greatly.  More bombs will detonate.  More people in and outside Israel will die as a consequence.

It doesn't take a Nostradamus to predict that any increase in the lethal operations of groups practicing violent political Islam will bring a push back from the civilized states.  The political and opinion leaders of these states will have no genuine choice when the bombs go off killing their own citizens.  Not even the boasting Iranians can or will deter the inevitable response of the West to an increase in terrorist operations.  That, Jack, is a fact.

The UN muffed the play back in 1947.  It exceeded its brief.  Its reach far exceeded its grasp either as provided in the Charter or as existed in the political will of its membership.  Nothing has changed subsequently.  The UN has an excessive view of its mission and its capacity to undertake its sole genuine mission--preserving international peace.

The irony of 1947 would be repeated--on steroids--should the UN seek to impose a solution upon the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  As was the case in 1947, the body created to preserve and protect peace would, once again, be the cause of war.  This time around the war would bode well to be far more extensive and far more bloody than those of sixty-two years ago.

The takeaway for the PA and its supporters is simple: Be careful what you wish for--you just might get it.

There Are Some Loose Screws In The Israeli Government

The Geek often has a favorable view of Israel in comparison to its Arab neighbors, particularly those paragons of intransigence in the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Killers running Gaza.  There are occasions, however, when the Geek becomes convinced that the political leadership of Israel has lost all grip on reality.

This is one of those times.  Before continuing, the Geek has to express frustration.  Frustration with the utterly asinine acts of the Netanyahu administration as well as other, lesser elements of the government.  Frustration at the implications of their actions which necessitate comment at the expense of considering other, lesser known and fascinating subjects such as the continued downward trajectory in the North Caucasus or the slow motion disintegration of Tajikistan under the weight of armed political Islam.

Or the stupidity of the Royal Navy's high command which is reportedly willing to cut its "fleet" to as few as a dozen surface combatants so that the new aircraft carriers might be afforded.  This sort of decision making boggles the mind, particularly considering that Argentina is feeling its oats once more over the Falkland Islands.

And so to Israel.  The most shocking of the self-destructive acts of the Netanyahu crew is the new loyalty bill which would require all new, non-Jewish citizens to swear loyalty to "the Jewish and democratic state of Israel."  This measure has been a pet of the ultra-ultra right Yisrael Beiteinu party--the party headed by the Israeli version of Joe Biden, ForMin Avigador Lieberman.

Adoption of this measure by the Knesset would destroy the final vestige of the liberal, democratic, and socialist vision of Israel which gained the country so much sympathy and support among the goyim of the US a half century and more ago.  The Israel of those days was seen widely by Americans as being an outpost of the best of European or Western culture, values, norms, and institutions taking root in the hostile soil of authoritarian, often feudal, and occasionally communist Mideast.  In a real sense many of We the People saw the Israelis as being "just like us," open, tolerant, expressive, even boisterous.  Being "like us" it was easy to support the embattled country even when American national interests would have been better served by doing otherwise.

Loyalty oaths are a feature of both authoritarian regimes and societies under stress from forces abroad and hidden in the domestic population.  In the US during the Fifties and Sixties, during the era of the Great Anti-Communist Crusade, loyalty oaths for public employees and others were all the rage.  (Even the Geek as a fifteen year old swimming instructor in a Saturday morning program at the local high school had to sign a loyalty oath before he could get his paycheck, minuscule as it was.)

Israel is under stress to say the least.  The stress has an internal dimension given that a fifth of the population is non-Jewish, primarily Muslim Arabs.  It has not helped that the PA and its Arab supporters have refused to acknowledge officially a fact that is all too self-evident in reality--Israel was established to be and exists as a Jewish state.  Even though a congress of three Jews might provide at least five differing definitions of what the term "Jewish state" means, the foundational reality remains that Israel is precisely what it was founded to be--a nation-state for Jews.

Admittedly the Israelis have made attempts to render their land free of all non-Jews.  The Wars of Independence were ethically scarred by the forced removal of Arab populations--both Muslim and Christian. True, the major responsibility for the ethnic cleansing rests with the Arab states whose leaders promised the temporarily displaced locals would come back home in triumph riding Arab tanks.  That does not relieve the Israelis of that far gone day from their culpability which extended to murder.

So too were Arabs displaced forcibly during and in the immediate aftermath of the Six Day War.  Israelis got a bad case of the "victory disease," showing its worst symptoms in their treatment of the occupied territory and its residents.  Muscular expansionism, a sort of Old Testament based "manifest destiny" ruled the public mood with results which fester to the present.  To put it not unkindly but accurately, it was the attitude exhibited by the Israeli public which started the corrosive process of myth destruction which has also continued to the present with the deligitimatization campaign so odiously evident in the West generally.

The climate of stress and concomitant fear helps explain the strong need by the nationalists in government and public alike to embrace the loyalty oath.  Be that as it may, the global impact of the oath will be negative.  It will reinforce the notion which has taken a pernicious hold on many in Europe and the US that Israel is a "racist" society and polity.  It will strengthen the hand of those who argue "Israel equals Apartheid."  It will also make the Arabs both inside and without Israel more irredentist.  It will feed the needs of the extremes on both sides.

There have been some other recent actions by lesser components of the government which serve to potentate the evil effects of the oath bill.  In one the Israeli Defense Ministry has blocked the construction of an ambitious middle class oriented planned community on land which has been granted to the PA.  At issue is a stretch of two miles needed to build an access road for the town.  Two miles is in question.  The Defense Ministry with the full-throated support of "settlers" in a nearby new Israeli town has dragged its feet to the point the entire project is threatened.

This is stupidity on the level of pointing a pistol at ones own gonads--and pulling the trigger.  The PA needs a vibrant middle class and the economic consequences of having one in order to have even a faint chance of stability over time.  It needs sound stakeholders to counter the ever advancing potency of the advocates of violent political Islam.  Israel should be bending backwards to facilitate the construction of this new Arab town and not dragging up sham issues (like sewage and trash handling plans) in order to slow, perhaps stop it.  Even the "settlers" should have brains enough to realize that an increased prosperity along with the inherently more conservative mood of those who "have arrived" is their best protection against terror attacks, the drive by shootings they allege will occur if the road and town are built.

Then there is the matter of breaching the wall around the Old City of Jerusalem.  Reportedly the municipal council (Israeli of course) has floated a plan to build a new gate in the old wall so as to provide entrance to a parking lot and multi-purpose building near the Western Wall.  It has been 112 years since the wall was last breached so that Kaiser Willem II could ride in style into the Old City.  The new breach has outraged Palestinian opinion and given the PA another excuse (as if it needed one more) to postpone, stall, or stop the on-and-off talks.

Even though the Western Wall will remain under Israeli control in any final settlement, there is no reason to bring up even a remote possibility of taking down more bricks in the wall.  The Old City is a running sore of animosity as has been demonstrated when even a tunnel near the West Wall resulted in riots and killing just over a decade ago.  One has to wonder if the Jerusalem municipal council was off its collective meds at the time of making this decision or simply indifferent to reality.

The Israelis may be convinced that the threat of the UN Security Council creating a Palestinian state is unlikely to happen, but recent statements by the French ForMin bring that conviction into question.  Similarly the Israeli government is certain the PA will make no request of the Security Council to short circuit the negotiation process.  It is true that a similar proposal by the then foreign affairs chief of the European Union gained no traction either in Europe or in Washington, but a lot has happened since then--none of it to the advantage of Israel.

The opinion molding elites of Western Europe and the US have not become any more tolerant of Israeli practices or more doubting of the sin-free nature of the PA.  The current administration has not only invested all too much diplomatic capital in the present talks, it has been given an ultimatum by the Arab League.  The previous unforced errors of Mr Obama--most notably the demand for a total halt to settlement construction of an open ended nature--have provided the PA with the belief the US will do the heavy lifting on its behalf.  The Arab League ultimatum--the US has one month, no more, to get the talks back on track or something unspecified but horrid will happen--greatly increases the pressure on Obama to put pressure on Israel.

The oath bill and the lesser damaging measures show the Israeli push back on the pressures to date.  This implies that there is little more in the way of coercion available to the administration.  At the same time the inducements offered in the alleged Obama letter have no value as they are inherently non-credible given the administration's previous refusal to honor commitments made in a letter from George W. Bush.

The oath bill and the rest have hardened the PA and its supporters in demanding that the US cut the knot and bring Palestine into existence.  The questioned measures have also given fuel to the let-the-Security-Council-do-it movement currently orchestrated by the French ForMin.  Finally, they have demonstrated the limits of American coercion.

The oath bill in particular demonstrates the political will of the nationalistic right in Israel.  Even when the self-destructive potential of the bill is so evident, the force of nationalism under attack--even from presumed and previous allies--cannot be denied.  Reasoned considerations of national interest, stability, and international repute are no match for the forces of fear.

Our Way Or There Ain't No Way

That is the negotiating stance of the Palestinian Authority (PA.)  The PA capo, Mahmoud Abbas, has made that abundantly clear.  The centerpiece of the PA's current exercise in brinkmanship is the expiration of the temporary freeze on new construction in the Israeli "settlements."  Abbas has stated categorically that if a single brick is laid or a single shovel of dirt moved, the talks are off.  O-F-F.

The "settlers" are lined up, ready and willing, eager for the clock to run out.  Bulldozers and builders are fired up, good for go.  Feet are pawing the ground as fiery rhetoric fills the air over disputed land.

Facing a political crisis of major magnitude, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for "calm and restraint" on the part of the "settlers" as well as their supporters throughout Israel.  The latter are predominantly members of Netanyahu's Likud Party or its rightwing coalition partners.  Israelis of the Right have never been noted for their propensity for calmness and restraint.

On the other side of the hill, Abbas is seeking an "urgent" meeting of the Arab League so that a coordinated approach can be formulated assuming the moratorium will not be extended.  This call came as the PA sent conflicting messages about its own stance on continuing the talks with Israel.  A spokesman for the PA president averred that the PA would not pull out of the ongoing talks but warned that key members of the Fatah dominated group might do so.  What that vague language might mean in the real world is unclear but at least one group, the Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), has announced it was suspending its participation in the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) as the PA was known in bygone days.

Further muddying the already turbid waters of Mideast diplomacy, the PA has suggested that Israel might release some seven thousand terrorists (Israeli view) or political prisoners (according to the PA) presently languishing in the custody of the Israel Prison Service.  According to the PA, such a release would constitute a "good will gesture" serving to facilitate the peace talks.

Golly, is the mass release to serve as a surrogate for a continuation of the freeze?  Or is this good will gesture to be in addition to the extension of the moratorium?  Either way, the reintroduction of this ancient ploy will serve as a platform justifying further foot dragging by the rejectionists of the PA.

Abbas is probably sitting back with his hands folded across his Buddha-like belly, a suitably inscrutable smile on his face as he waits for the US to do the heavy lifting on his behalf.  The Obama administration is apparently giving itself a rupture as it strains to do just that.  Various spokespersons, including those of the exalted rank of presidential intimate such as David Axelrod, have made it clear that the administration owns the problem and is using all means at its disposal to do Abbas' bidding.

While the PA is making non-negotiable demands, it has shown a total unwillingness to consider compromises.  There is a compromise available which would allow the speedy ending of the current impasse. The compromise would permit construction to resume at those "settlements" which will be on the Israeli side of the final border while prohibiting any in areas which will revert to PA rule.

To date Abbas has refused this approach.  The PA insists that the final border, including all necessary land swaps, be achieved first.  This is an unnecessary stipulation.  The pattern of settlement is clear.  Agreement was reached some time back on which blocks would go to Israel and which would remain in Palestine along with what land would be granted by Israel in compensation for the acreage occupied by the "settlements" incorporated into Israel.  No skill at precognition was or is required to see, literally, the lay of the land.

The "borders first" requirement of the PA is simply one more exercise in obscurantist delay.  Refusing the quite obvious and eminently logical compromise serves no useful purpose other than placating the slavering red meat eaters of the Palestinian extreme.  The contention that this placatory stance is necessary to Abbas' political survival is arguable.

Perhaps as a reward for the intense American efforts on his behalf, Abbas has given some hint that there is some chance the talks will not be cancelled instantly in the event the freeze is not extended.  Abbas has alluded to the necessity or at least the desirability of consulting with all stakeholders in the complicated PA structure as well as determining the will of the Arab League states.  This is not much but it does provide a basis for holding some cautious optimism.

Then there is Netanyahu.  He has very real political problems in play.  His coalition is not all that tightly knit.  His foreign minister represents a large strain of opinion which sees the slightest compromise on territory as an act of near treason.  There is no support on the Right of Israeli politics for giving in to PA pressures, even when those pressures are applied by the US.

Nor does the behavior of the assorted extremists within the PA and its constituent factions give any assistance to Netanyahu.  It is all well and good for Abbas to assert as he did yesterday that the Palestinian people will not respond with violence should the talks collapse.  It is another matter when a pregnant Israeli is shot while driving on a highway near an Arab village in the West Bank.

earthmoving equipment and wreaking havoc somewhere in Israel.

Israelis have not been allowed to forget at any time since they evacuated the Gaza Strip that the threat of violent death is a constant companion.  No country in modern history has been forced to live so long under such a high and pervasive level of fear.  No sane Israeli would be given to place much reliance on either the words or the capacities of Abbas when it comes to matters of violent politics.

Nor can any Israeli ignore for a microsecond the primary reason he lives under a constant threat.  It is because he is Jewish.  The Jewish basis of Israel is the basis of the fear, loathing, and hatred which colors all aspects of Arab-Israeli relations, at least at the collective, the state level.

It is for this reason as well as the historical reality of the Holocaust which propels the Netanyahu requirement that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state.  This is another issue on which Mr Abbas and the PA refuse to compromise.  Their refusal is not trivial.

The PA president and his supporters such as Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak have claimed that the international recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would compromise the rights of non-Jews residing in Israel.  Abbas has gone so far as to assert--contrary to fact--that the only reason Netanyahu has made his demand is as a preparatory move to the forced removal of all Arabs from Israel.

Some twenty percent of Israel's population is Arab in ancestry and language.  It is a matter of easily available fact that these people have the same civil and political rights as their Jewish compatriots.  This is not to imply that Arabs do not suffer discrimination and prejudice, they do.  But it demonstrates that Israel is not cranking up some sort of genocide machine which will be running full blast the instant the PA formally recognizes that Israel is a Jewish state.

It is of more than passing interest that public opinion poll after public opinion poll has shown a marked reluctance of Israeli Arabs to move to the PA administered territory.  It is equally worthy of note to acknowledge that the Arabs of Israel enjoy not simply a better standard of material existence than those resident in other countries, but they also possess political and civil rights which surpass by orders of magnitude those of other Arabs in other states.

These contextual matters demonstrate that the tender concern evidenced by Abbas and other Arab leaders for the present and future condition of Israeli Arabs is misplaced.  The real deal is that Abbas and company hope that by refusing to grant this quite reasonable Israeli condition they will be able to derail the talks without taking any direct responsibility.

It would behoove the American (and European Union) efforts to bolster and facilitate the talks if the Israeli position on the "Jewish state question" would receive full-throated support.  The identification of Israel as the Jewish state is historically justified.  The need for a Jewish state was recognized universally in the wake of World War II.  All non-biased observers agreed in those far gone days that the existence of a "Jewish state" would have gone far to prevent the Holocaust by providing both a refuge and a protector to the Jews threatened by Nazi policies.

It is not unreasonable nor counter-factual to contend that Jews in much of the world are under a threat as great today as was the case seventy-five years ago.  The existence of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state is essential.  The Obama administration must acknowledge this in the context of the current talks.

Coercive diplomacy is OK.  It can be quite useful.  But, as in the matter of the Israeli-PA talks, the coercion must be evenhanded.  If it is appropriate to pressure Israel to limit the "settlement" construction, it is also proper to pressure the PA to accept the compromise outlined above.  And, it is both apposite and necessary to lean on the PA to accept that Israel is a Jewish state, the Jewish state.  This recognition must be clear, unambiguous and formal.  Anything less is an ethical and realpolitik malfeasance.

Most of all, Mr Abbas must be brought to realize that negotiation is a two way street.  It must be all of "our" ways or nothing good will result.

The Hilary Clinton Learning Curve

Ten days or so back the ever supportive NYT spouted off on the presumed "steep learning curve" exhibited by the Nice Smiley Young Man From Chicago. The Geek posted his assessment of this. His view was not complimentary.

Now it is the turn of Secretary of State Clinton. The hot wash is far more positive.

The central indication that Ms Clinton has learned a lot over the past year came buried in her speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington today. Surprisingly or not, the WaPo picked up her nuanced change in focus in today's remarks compared to those delivered to the same audience a year back.

Last year Ms Clinton delivered herself of what had to be a piece of Obama approved blather regarding the need to alter the global political dynamic from a "multi-polar world" to a "multi-partnered" one. This exercise in the rhetoric of pure balderdash overlooked a couple of ground truths.

The first was simply that the world of a year ago was not "multi-polar" although it was well on the way to becoming one due to the presidential emphasis on "outreach," apology, and self-inflicted diminishment of the US as the primary global actor. It was clear in speech after speech as well as policy after policy that Mr Obama was ideologically committed to decreasing the influence of the US in all areas of world politics while exalting the UN above all others. On Obama's watch there was to be no "American exceptionalism" and, thus, no robust American leadership. He sought to do the impossible--unilaterally resign American Great Power status.

The second ground truth absent from Ms Clinton's declaration of the World According To Barack was the fact that partnership in international affairs is based upon the coincidence of national interest. "Partnership" is a matter of subjectively defined national self-interest and is defined by specific contexts.

The events of the past year have proven that the Obama intent of resigning American Great Power status has been countered effectively by the demands and expectations of other countries. Ms Clinton's statement today demonstrates that she understands this whether or not the Clueless Man In the Oval recognizes it or not.

Equally evident is Ms Clinton having awakened to the fact that partnership is both contextual and based upon coinciding national or strategic interest. Her redefinition also acknowledges that "partnership" arises from American leadership, from a clear understanding on the part of other governments as to the nature and character of both American national interests and what the US intends to do to achieve goals arising from those interests.

While still genuflecting before the totem of no-more-American-unilateralism, it is plain from both the body of Ms Clinton's remarks and the Q&A session that she appreciates the power of implicit unilateralism in gaining and sustaining multilateral consensus on coinciding national interests. The specter of unilateralism in the background has the effect of focusing other governments on the search for effective multilateral means to achieve policy goals which may arise from American national interests but mesh with their own. To this extent the Crazy American Thesis as practiced by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush has great effectiveness in assuring future administrations achieve cooperation which might not otherwise be forthcoming.

The secretary employed the gaining of a new round of sanctions from the UN Security Council and the follow on of even tougher moves by the EU as well as the US and other countries as a prime achievement of the Obama administration as well as a paradigm for future actions. Of course, she might have noted with equal or greater justice the use of the UNSC by George H.W. Bush as the key move in generating the unprecedented coalition which fought the Gulf War. (Or to err on the side of historical accuracy the employment of the same venue by George W. Bush in gaining support for his Great Adventure In Regime Change in Iraq.)

Ms Clinton might even have mentioned the simple fact that We the People have never been particularly comfortable with unilateral action, greatly preferring a multilateral approach. As far back as Harry Truman, the US has routinely sought (and often achieved) the presence of the baby blue fig leaf of UN authorization to cover the genitalia of American policy. The use of multilateral diplomacy is not new with the Obama administration or the Clinton stewardship at Foggy Bottom. It is business as usual.

While her speech was notable in the absence of specific policy considerations, Ms Clinton did touch on three key issues slopping over her diplomatic plate. The current direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority topped the list.

Ms Clinton was guardedly optimistic on the course of the talks. She did gloss over both the contextual matters which threaten to sink the ship before it really gets underway and the estranged relationship between agreement on a framework for settlement and the actual implementation. These holes are understandable as no one wants to focus on the downsides before there are any upsides worthy of mention.

The secretary was not any more comprehensive regarding Iran. The sanctions are hurting Iran to be sure, but to what avail? That question was neither directly asked nor even indirectly answered. Perhaps if she had been pushed by one of the foreign policy mavens present, Ms Clinton would have agreed with retired dictator Fidel Castro, who opined there was no chance the mullahs would abandon their search for the bomb.

It was a bit of a surprise that she zeroed in on the upcoming referendum in Sudan. After characterizing the situation as a "time bomb," she did say the US was expanding its diplomatic efforts with both North and South Sudan as well as other African countries. Left unsaid was another unpleasant truth. If the vote does not go the way both parties want--which is a self-evident result--the disenchanted loser will crank up the still-on-hold war.

Of course, raising that highly inconvenient truth would have demanded a then-what-will-we-do?follow up. It's often best, or at least more politic to leave sleeping realities keep on snoring.

To her credit, Ms Clinton did link the American budget deficit to foreign affairs. The real deal is that an overly broke, overly frugal US will be severely handicapped in playing the Game of Nations.

Foreign policy on the cheap can have its upsides. For example the cost factor was key in deciding to wage war in Yemen and Pakistan with a very low footprint, using Special Forces assets for training and supporting locals as well as Predators rather than louder, more expensive manned aircraft. In these wars of the fringes the needs of economy mesh perfectly with diplomatic considerations and the nature of the local human terrain.

Overall however, diplomacy is impaired greatly by the perception globally that the American economy is on the semi-permanent skids and the government's bloated expenditures are funded to large extent by foreign government investors. If nothing else, diplomacy is impaired by a perception that the best days of the American way of economic life are behind us. The appeal of the American economy and the way of life it has supported have been high on the list of "soft power" features.

Reading the atmospherics gives the impression that not only has the Secretary of State moved firmly out of the shadows of Hillary-who? cast by the presumed foreign policy expert of the administration, Joe Biden, but that she has done so with the approval of the president. It may be that the Clueless One in the Oval has finally faced up to the fact that the enemies of the US are not going to roll over because Barack Obama is in the White House or that our allies are encouraged in their relationship because he can talk real pretty.

If true this is to the good of the nation. Ms Clinton has shown both a steep learning curve and an impressive degree of recent maturity. In any event it would seem that the president has enough to do what with blowing the economy, shooting the health care and education systems in the head, maiming American efforts in space and technology, and generally undermining American self-confidence. Leaving foreign relations to someone else is a very good idea.

Will Hilary Win Her Bones?

Hilary Clinton is a person with great determination, resilience and, never to be underestimated, a capacity for steep learning curves. She will need all of these and more as she takes on the most intractable problem in international politics these past thirty years--trapping the seemingly mythical beast known as Mideast Peace.

An important caveat is needed here. Even if the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority come to an agreement, that is only the first step of constructing a comprehensive Mideast peace.

If the president has decided to leave the negotiations, the making of deals which are both acceptable to parties long estranged by the forces of blood and ambition and enforcible over time to others in his administration and will limit his participation both on and off camera to ceremonial occasions, Ms Clinton has a slight chance of succeeding where so many of her predecessors have failed, some miserably. Admittedly the "if" is a very big "if."

Ms Clinton has established a mixed record as Secretary of State. Her stewardship at Foggy Bottom is seen with a liberal degree of cynical hope in Israel. The cynicism results from her role in executing the Obama dictated program of coercion. The hope springs from the realization that Ms Clinton has invested a great deal in the "peace process" and doesn't want it to go bust as if it were one more Whitewater but writ much larger.

Having faithfully complied with Mr Obama's blundering of reaching out to the unreachable while stomping on a government long noted for stomping back, it is to be hoped (and reasonably expected) that the Secretary of State will be allowed to play a free hand in her personal diplomacy over the next days, and, perhaps, weeks or even months as the direct bilateral talks lurch along. The Nice Young Man From Chicago should realize by now that as a statesman he is a fine tuba player.

The Israeli government knows that Ms Clinton had no realistic alternative to carrying the president's water in the past months. The prime movers in Jerusalem, most importantly PM Netanyhu, will cut her an appropriate amount of slack, will see her as offering genuine good offices as a facilitator and mediator. If not undercut by the Arabists in her own department, the role of woman-in-the-middle suits her well given her political and diplomatic skills.

As Secretary of State she has performed well, better than might have been expected twenty months ago. While she has been on the wrong side of some issues--Honduras, the Falkland Islands dispute, the decision to rejoin the UN Human Rights Cabal (to say nothing of the Universal Periodic Review)--other policy actions, most importantly the calling of China out despite Beijing's huffing and puffing over the disputed islands in the South China Sea, have been impressive.

The context in which she will be operating while being woman-in-the-middle has several favorable features. Iran looms largest in the fears of Israel with the security threats posed by a Palestinian state on the West Bank trailing as a distant second. Indeed the potential Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons has so sobered the Arab states to the degree that they can throw significant weight behind a treaty between the PA and Israel which does not meet the ambitious level of the Arab League proposal (aka the Abdullah Plan.)

The real game changer in the Mideast over the past two years has been Iran. More specifically, it has been the combination of Iran's quest for the "Mahdi Bomb" coupled with the all too obvious Iranian backing of regime change throughout the region.

Ms Clinton will be able to take advantage of the fears generated by Tehran's way too lofty ambitions. She will also be able to leverage the increasingly anti-Israel sentiments and behaviors of Europe into a useful tool to assure a degree of realism in the government of Israel.

The Palestinian Authority, most particularly the Fatah dominated government of Mahmoud Abbas, needs the support and assistance of the West led by the US if it is going to survive let alone prosper. A viable state on the West Bank needs, no, requires, investment by and trade with the West as well as direct assistance. Abbas understands this and his understanding is no doubt shared by the non-zany senior leadership of the PA. This gives Ms Clinton a potent way of gaining genuine PA cooperation.

The context also includes several important and very negative features. Some are sufficient kill-the-peace conversations before the month is over.

Topping the list is the continuation of the moratorium on "settlement" construction. The ten month halt will end on 26 September. This means the balloon can go up on the 27th.

The PA has made the settlement freeze the Absolute Line In The Sand. When Abbas and his cohorts say "no" on this matter they mean "NO." No expansions. No "natural increases." Not a single brick, a single plank, a single drop of concrete. Or else the PA is out of the talks. End of discussion.

The Netanyahu government imposed the total stoppage under great pressure from Washington and has resented every second the stop work order has been in effect. This resentment has been shared by a large and growing segment of the Israeli population generally. With the exception of the most pro-peace elements of society, the majority of Israelis have supported construction to meet the needs of natural increases.

No one in Israel has resented the halt more than Avigdor Lieberman, who is foreign minister and capo of the Yisrael Beitenu party. The YB is both very right wing and crucial to the continuation of the Netanyahu government. Leiberman has stated without any ambiguity that his party will pull out of the governing coalition if the moratorium is extended. YB is the second largest party in the Knesset following Netanyahu's Likud party, so the threat is both real and credible.

Even if the political crisis over settlement construction is avoided, Lieberman will remain a very tall speed bump in the "peace process." To put it bluntly--as Lieberman always does--the ForMin does not believe there is any possibility of a genuine peace agreement arising this year or even in the current generation. This world view has a pronounced tendency to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Another deal breaker is the requirement by Israel that any final (or interim) agreement explicitly characterize Israel as a "Jewish State." Netanyahu along with the majority of Israelis support this requirement without reservation. The Arabs oppose it. Whenever asked about this refusal, Abbas weasel words around something fierce. His non-answer answers are carefully crafted to deny the reality that Israel is--and was established as--a Jewish state.

The position of the PA is echoed (without any resort to the rhetoric of weasels) by Arab states generally. The Egyptian ForMin Aboul Gheit took the standard line for rejecting the proposition that Israel should be termed a "Jewish state." Gheit averred deep concern for the status of Arab citizens of Israel implying that they would be deprived of human and civil rights should Israel be considered a Jewish state. The touchingly tender regard for Arab civil and human rights expressed by Gheit and his peers throughout the region ignores completely that Arabs are and have been citizens of Israel for generations. Arabs have the same rights as Jews in Israel including the right to elect members of the Knesset.

The irony of Arab Muslim states which proudly define themselves as "Islamic" suddenly being frightened by the notion of a Jewish as opposed to secular Israel is easily explained. It is the hope (or expectation) that Arabs will win the "breeding war" between themselves and the Jewish population of Israel at some date in the future. The possibility of ending the "Zionist entity" in this way would, they fear, be ended should Israel be defined as a specifically "Jewish state."

These basic contextual matters must be addressed before the myriad of "details." Some of these "details" rise almost to the level of contextual. Among these is the question of what would constitute sufficient guarantees that the Palestinian state would not become the Gaza Strip on steroids? Certainly any guarantees must be more than those of the paper sort as the horrible experience of post-withdrawal Gaza has made clear.

Ms Clinton has a record of believing the UN is real. She would incline to turn the matter of credible guarantees, particularly those backed by a force on the ground, to the UN. She could (and probably will) point to UNIFIL as an example of efficient and effective UN peacekeeping.

The Israelis would see the matter in a completely different light. Their experience with the UN has been less than positive. More importantly, the growth of anti-Israel sentiments (which they fear with reason would not be lessened by any agreement between Israel and the PA) render the UN a less and less legitimate body.

The PA or at least its president reputedly insinuated that any US or other foreign force stationed on its soil could not include any Jewish troops. Perhaps President Abbas really does believe that an American, or British or whatever other soldier who happened to be Jewish would cheerfully betray his obligation to his country to somehow further some presumably dark Israeli design. Or, perhaps he is simply being more or less honestly antisemitic.

The religious/cultural prejudice shoe can fit on the Israeli foot. How comfortable would the government or citizens of Israel be if a peacekeeping force on the border with the PA territory included troops from Pakistan, Iran, or any member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference? Would this be mere "Islamophobia" or a legitimate apprehension based on the nature and character of both faith and culture?

The list of contextual and near contextual quality conundrums facing Hilary Clinton could be lengthened but that isn't necessary to establish the degree of difficulty facing her. Neither is the multi-page roster of lesser political or merely technical problems.

Our Secretary of State is taking on a diplomatic challenge before which even Talleyrand, Metternich, or Bismarck would have quailed. Even if she succeeds where so many others have either failed or failed to try, the irony remains. It is nothing but ironical that the signing of an agreement between the PA and Israel will not mean peace in the Mideast or even, necessarily the beginnings of comprehensive peace, but only the ending of one, politically irritating skirmish.

Israel & Palestine And Hamas & Iran

Expectations concerning the direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority reputedly range from low to non-existent. The main reasons given for a pessimism are (1) the Israeli government will not make sufficient concessions and (2) even if all the concessions sought by the PA are given by Israel, they won't be enough as the PA wants a "one state solution."

In addition it can be and has been argued repeatedly that Benjamin Netanyahu is not given to making dramatic give aways. Or, even if the PM was given to a move such as, say, abandoning East Jerusalem to the PA, his right wing coalition partners would pull the plug on his government.

Observers focusing on the PA have noted recurrently that Abbas' government is relatively weak and under constant threat by the gun and Koran wielding folks of Hamas. The reach of the Hamas terror oriented killers was demonstrated vividly with the murder of four Israeli civilians in territory under PA control.

While there is no reason to have a sudden attack of optimism, the pessimistic assessments of the probable outcome of the direct talks do overlook a key consideration or two. The first is that Israel and the PA are faced by a common set of enemies--Iran and Hamas. The second is that the possibility of Iran gaining nuclear weapons constitutes a threat far, far greater than any which might accompany the two state solution, even one which grotesquely favors the PA.

The potential of Iran having its very own "Mahdi Bomb" within the next year or two focused minds in both Israel and the US with a wonderful power. The palpable failure of Mr Obama's much loved outreach program went hand in hand with the equally self-evident inability of the "international community" to halt the spinning centrifuges.

This set of interlocking failures has served to limit the cone of options available to either or both the US and Israel to two: Accommodate themselves to a new global reality; employ force either with or without continued covert interference with the nuclear program and assistance to the political opposition within Iran.

While no one could describe the stance taken by Mr Obama toward Israel and PM Netanyahu in recent weeks as smacking of a love fest, it is a great distance from the flatly hostile attitude exhibited by the Nice Young Man From Chicago a few months back. It is not unsafe to assume that senior members of his administration have finally broken through his hard shell so he can hear and act on the truth regarding Israel and its view of the Iranian bomb.

Somebody (the Geek's money is on Secretaries Clinton and Gates) convinced Mr Obama that Israel cannot for very good reason rely upon the UN or even the US for security in the face of an Iranian existential threat. The president must have been convinced as well of the ground truth that Israel will strike on its own at a time of its choosing with or without US approval or even understanding when the Iranian menace stands ready to attack.

Since the US is Israel's primary source of advanced weapons systems, it is necessary and effective for Israel to maintain high quality relations with the US--as long as doing so does not open Israel to an enhanced probability of becoming "one with Nineveh and Tyre." This dynamic the president must have understood finally gave the US high quality leverage to employ on Israel in support of a primary US policy goal.

Obama wants (desperately needs, is more like it) to bring a peace settlement between Israel and the PA even if this is not synonymous with the oft referenced "comprehensive Mideast peace." Achieving this goal requires Israel marching to American music, and, as both Israelis and their American interlocutors well know, this can be very unpleasant for the marchers. Only the Israeli need for American support--and action--in the event force must be employed to stop the Iranian bomb makers can serve to make the music easier for Israelis to listen to.

In short conditions were ripe for a trade. The US would agree to take all necessary measures to stop the Iranian bomb. Israel would agree to make major concessions in a genuine search for a peace with the PA.

The PA at this point should be dancing in the streets. Events seem to have given the Abbas' coterie the whip hand. That would be true were it not for Hamas.

Hamas and the PA are locked in an existential struggle. Only one will be the sure enough, bona fide, genuine government of Palestine. The increasing totality of the struggle for ultimate power has gone too far to allow compromise. Even if Hamas suddenly dropped its demands for supremacy, ended its increasingly passionate embrace of Islamist purity and political Islam, there is no chance that Israel or the US or even the majority of the EU would go along with the apparent changing of the tiger's stripes.

The PA needs the understanding, support, and assistance of Israel, the US and the EU if it is to survive the challenge being offered by Hamas and its sponsor, Iran. The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but he is my vital supporter. Or, so a majority of PA supporters would agree.

This governing imperative implies that the PA will not seek the maximum concessions from Israel--at least not for real or for long. No one in the PA is really comfortable with the two state solution; most or all would prefer a one state approach--one state where Jews would be a minority from the start-up. This attitude is even more pronounced within the ranks of Hamas.

Abbas and others at the peak of the PA have long learned the limits of ideological extremism. All have found out the hard way--by experience--that being extreme may make for great TV but pays off very little when the klieg lights are switched off.

Being born again pragmatists of a sort, Abbas and the rest want to come away with a state, with their jobs intact, and with a reasonable prospect for a long life. Coming to terms with Israel in a way acceptable to the Israelis is the way to go. If necessary (and it will be), the US can sweeten the deal and soften any adverse impact with the cushioning of choice in much of the world--cash.

Right now the "correlation of forces" (to use that maximum fine old Soviet term) favors "let's make a deal." The interlocking bogymen of Iran and Hamas add the necessary fear. The needs of President Obama open the floodgates of American largess. The Israelis need a green light (and, in the best case, a cooperative US attack) to abate the Iranian menace--or at least delay it until internal events can result in regime change. The PA needs a future without Hamas bomb throwers.

Maybe a soupcon of optimism is not completely unjustified. Well, maybe, but don't bet the ranch.

ADMIN NOTE: The Geek invites, welcomes and will post all on topic comments. Spam commentary has resulted in defensive measures being put in place. The Geek apologizes for any consequent frustration.