Chess, Not Checkers
Opening: Make Hilary Secretary of State (that is, remove the leader of the opposition from New York). Show the Arab and Muslim world--a place where honor matters--an abiding respect. Embrace the Arab League peace initiative of 2002 and frame the Israel-Palestine conflict in regional terms. Set out the long range goal of a Palestinian state, albeit in vague terms, but along with the insistence that settlements cease--code for some variation on the 1967 border. Draw Egypt and Jordan into the mix, implying their participation as forces on the ground. Open a diplomatic channel with, and through, Syria.
Middlegame: Cultivate the Palestinian Authority's new government, providing training to its police forces, while providing the promise of new investments to its business class. Use channel to Syria to bring Hamas into negotiations with the PA. Encourage rejection of Islamist radicalism in Palestine by implying American pragmatism; leave the Iranian regime to discredit itself and, in the process, the democratic pretensions of Hamas and Hezbollah. Challenge Israeli government on settlements' "natural growth" to establish future position on a 1967ish border. Work with Quartet to establish a consolidated front of world opinion and great power fiat; imply complete diplomatic isolation of groups in Israel/Palestine that defy the "peace process."
Attack: Broker a deal, with Egyptian participation, for the return of Gilad Shalit, in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners and the opening of the Gaza crossings. Visit Russia. Visit Damascus. Prepare the ground to isolate Iran diplomatically. Welcome the creation of a joint Palestinian negotiation team, led by the PA, but including Hamas officials; accept the principle that any deal will be put to a referendum; accept that all groups that agree to abide by a referendum can enter into a dialogue with Washington. Call for renewed, bilateral negotiations between Israel and the PA presided over by George Mitchell.
Endgame. Present American formulations (Clinton parameters, etc,) to resolve the problems of Jerusalem, refugees, and borders; make these public as the negotiations proceed. Announce that the result of the negotiations will be presented to a regional peace conference, including the Saudis and the Syrians. Meanwhile, the latter establish low level diplomatic and commercial contact with Israel under American auspices. In advance of the conference, announce a Syrian-Israeli peace deal based on a demilitarized Golan, returned to Syria, but open to Israeli tourism and including Israeli commercial interests. Rally Europe and the Quartet to Marshall Plan scale investment package for the Palestinians. Provide for a three year plan to isolate the settlers who must be repatriated and compensated. Announce inclusion of Israel in NATO, and sign Israel to nuclear non-proliferation agreement. Prepare speech for Oslo prize ceremony.
Why are J Street and IPF run entirely by yids? Why are there no Arab officers - not even a token Arab?
Why does Stratfor have such a low opinion of the Obama strategy? George Friedman feels that Obama's aim is to push Israel into a corner in order to gain traction in the Muslim world. Obama believes in the two state solution but if it doesn't work, if the Palestinians use their new state as a launching pad for attacks against Israel, too bad. George Friedman doesn't see how a two state solution can work.
I see the neocon/peacenik fight as a fight between two groups of Jews each manipulating U.S. Middle East policy for its own ends. The former sees Israel as the hope of the Jews. The latter sees Israel as threatening the wealth and position of Diaspora Jews, particularly those who reside in the United States.
I'm sure there are honest advocates on both sides but I have a great deal of trouble with those Jews who would make Israel the modern equivalent of pre-war Czeckeslovakia. I see them as descendents of pre-war German anti-Zionist Jews. Awful.
July 4, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
george friedman's stratfor middle-east analysis and his views on obama are, understandably, slanted. his views are colored by his family's holocaust past.
July 5, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The last time we talked about George Friedman you cited his analysis as the best you'd read...until I pointed out that his conclusion was not in accord with your position.
Your claim that his views are "slanted" is nonsense. His family history is similar to Soros'. Almost every Ashkenazi Jew has Holocaust victims or survivors in his background including M.J.Rosenberg. Instead of trying to "smear" Friedman I suggest you find flaws in his analysis...if you can.
July 5, 2009 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
the analysis that i cited stated that he thought that obama had checkmated netanyahu with the settlement issue. i think it was an objective analysis whereas when he states, as you say, that the arabs want a state which in the end will be used to attack israel or that a two state will not work, that is a tainted view, in my opinion, colored by his past.
obama has picked the settlement issue to gradually box in israel, as friedman has stated. i also agree with the following analysis that obama has not gone far enough. obama has yet to declare on the international stage that the settlements are illegal. see the A Road Map to Nowhere
here is a balanced analysis by david zelnick coming up with the best case scenarios for the conflict. excellent!
July 5, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You like his analysis but you don't like his conclusion. That's a position which is impossible to defend.
July 5, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
of course i like his analysis but not his conclusion. his analysis refers to the now. his conclusion refers to the trajectory of the now into the future. the future is open.
July 5, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope.
In the analysis you cited Friedman points out that Obama does not consider Palestinian beliefs or desires or willingness to commit. He makes no demands on them while insisting that Israel stop all settlement building, as a first step towards forcing them to retreat behind the '67 borders.
It's possible that somewhere along the way Obama will make such demands but Friedman doesn't think so. Obama is committed to a two-state solution which is not workeable if the Palestinians won't realistically commit to it. So he won't ask them to because his motivation is leverage with the Arab world, not real peace between Arab and Jew.
In a separate analysis Friedman gives his reasons for believing a two-state solution can't work. I suggest you reread it.
July 5, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
A solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a prerequisite to solving every other middle eastern conflict we are involved in, also.
All of this while going through a similar preparation to build up the pro Universal health care forces and either weaken or neutralize the anti Universal health care forces to get a bill passed on his timetable.
Oh, and deal with the economic collapse.
Chess indeed! Obama has one Hell of an inner circle working for him, and he is as great a strategic manager as I have suspected after his nomination/election run. Success in any one of those projects would make the reputation of a President.
July 4, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the latter sees israel as threatening the wealth and the position of Diaspora Jews"
Very original theory! As ordinary noticed, "J Street and IPF" are indeed quite Jewish. Yet, "anti-Israel", so there is a question "why". The usual (ordinary) explanation is that they are leftists, and The Left has a secret (or not so secret) plan for a world-wide equivalent of Umma, a.k.a. "One world government", which will give proper outlet to their wickedness: increasing taxes, cutting carbon emission, homosexual agenda, teaching evolution etc. And nationalism movements stand in the way of "One world government".
A more serious observation would be that if you look at the public statements of those American Jews that could be examples of "wealth and position", then the tend to stick to "never criticise Israel" if not outright "Likudnik" position. If you check the richest American Jews, Soros is kind of left, the rest -- not. If you check the members of US Senate, perhaps Feingold is dovish, the rest -- not.
But if you check the opinions of Jewish bloggers, the proportions are reversed. One can view having a well-read blog, or a slot in a well-read website as the chief indicator of "wealth and position", but this is wrong, at least in the "wealth" department. In terms of position, how many hits per day does, say, Mayor Bloomberg get? Or Senator Lieberman? Or Sheldon Adelson? But in terms of wealth, or position measured with more traditional (obsolete?) indicator...
And what is this Czechoslovakia analogy? Judea and Samaria as Sudetenland?
July 4, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cut the crap.
The honest Left seeks to transcend tribal organization and its associated hatreds, feuds, and prejudices. A noble goal but still very much a utopian work in progress. The dishonest Left uses this goal to disguise very selfish motives.
Dishonest Lefties associated with the peace movement are the most fearful, not necessarily the wealthiest. But they're wealthy enough. Look through the list of officers and major contributors to IPF and J Street and you'll see what I mean. Start with Sonnenfeldt and his MUUS and Tigre 21. I don't know how many of these are sincerely committed to peace, how many are protecting their wealth and position.
But these are organizations committed to peace through dialogue with Arabs which have no Arab members. Makes you wonder...or at least it should.
July 5, 2009 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
But these are organizations committed to peace through dialogue with Arabs which have no Arab members. Makes you wonder...or at least it should.
good point. the same can be asked of american arab organizations that promote peace in the middle-east israel-palestine conflict. do they have jews on their board? in israel, there are peace organizations that include both arabs and jews. bravo!
tribalism is an outmoded evolutionary strategy that insured the survival of the individual. but now tribalism has become a threat to individual survival. it is not utopia to transcend tribalism. it is evolution. humanity is gradually shedding this past relic.
evolution is a slow moving train. don't stand on its way.
July 5, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the same way, Rosenberg never hesitates to call people racists and says he would never allow his family to fight in "stupid wars"...but he lives in a wealthy, all-Jewish neighborhood surrounded by a wealthy all-white neighborhood protected by a virtual dedicated army.
Liars and hypocrites all.
July 5, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
That nails you as a true believer, a religious zealot, an heir to "scientific" communism.
July 5, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
it does not require any kind of believer or zealot mentality. all you need to look at is current trends and extrapolate from that. simple example, you can see how much of the tribalism in europe has been transcended, still not fully there but the ball has started rolling. the same will happen in the middle east, just not in our lifetime, of course.
July 5, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the rebuttal to BluePearl:
There's a difference between predicting the short- and medium-term and expressing a view of the long-term trend in history. And an heir to the Enlightenment with a long-term view shouldn't be regarded as a successor to a particular very wrong-headed element in the general tradition of the Enlightenment.
July 5, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
@piotr
Is the Gay agenda, a Zionist NeoCon one?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNqEt0ciN9w
July 6, 2009 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bernard: You always include remote Zionist control as part of this "solution."
You write: "In advance of the conference, announce a Syrian-Israeli peace deal based on a demilitarized Golan, returned to Syria, but open to Israeli tourism and including Israeli commercial interests."
That sounds like Zionists get to stay in Golan, and attach so many conditions to Syrian "control" that it's not control at all.
I think the Syrians should agree to your scenario so long as Israel demilitarizes the Galilee.
July 6, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Typical - You write a blog on the 4th of July and it's about Israel.
July 6, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The weather has not been what it should be, so it may be worth congratulating both B. Avishai (right here) and J. Sleeper (who has been picking on poor Mr. Biden in the thread next door) for allowing the Silly Season to go forwards as usual, all meteorology to the contrary notwithstanding.
Honorable mention has been earned by a number of peanut-gallery peanuts as well. Who is not always in the market, rain or shine, for yet another self-dottiness about nobly-goaled Utoobians gone to seed? Or how about _das Allgemeinprinzip der Aufklärung_?
’Tis all educational and instructive, begorrah! Thus assisted, one comes to understand why lofty-minded rightists have always struggled to keep foreign and invasion policy out of the hands of ignorant masses like us.
Happy days.
July 8, 2009 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink