Overreacting to an overreaction

So the Obama administration has decided to make a big deal out of the announcement, during VP Joe Biden's visit, that Israel is planning 1,600 new housing unites for Israelis on the West Bank -- close to Jerusalem and as I understand it an addition or expansion of an existing settlement, not a new settlement. There's little doubt that someone in the Israeli government -- it looks as if Netanyahu is still denying personal advance knowledge of the announcement -- did intend to embarrass Biden. For various reasons the Israeli government is not especially pleased with Obama or his administration. Israel is mainly concerned about Iran right now, and in no mood -- and probably no position -- to negotiate with the Palestinians, whether through an intermediary or toherwise. When Obama called on Israel a year or so ago to halt West Bank settlements it was a blunder -- a president sholdn't make such a request unless he has already negotiated acceptance behind the scenes. Oops. Israel wasn't ready for that, though it softened its utter resistance after a while. Somebody was ready to put some egg on the American face.

The mistake is compounded by making such a big deal of it. The U.S. is in the position it has been in through much of the last 30 years or so -- wanting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and a two-state settlement more than either of the parties involved want it right now. If Obama were smarter he would say nothing and start cutting off aid -- informing the Israelis but not making a public announcement. But after lookiing "soft" after letting the firm demand to stop settlements wither and die, he has to look "tough" now. Or so the constricted logic of too much of what passes for diplomacy goes.

The US-Israeli-Palestinian Kabuki

I didn't blog nor did I write last week when Israeli prime minister Netanyahu came to Washington last week, but maybe with Mahmoud Abbas, the "approved" Palestinian leader in town today a word of explanation might be in order.

If the Israelis and Palestinians ever do get sick of the confrontation game and work out a way to live together peacefully in the same neighborhood, they might prove to be remarkably compatible partners. After all these years they know one another so well that if they were inclined they could get along quite well. As it is, what they know is how to push one another's buttons. Whenever some ambitious U.S. president tries to secure what he conceives of as a place in history by pushing them to negotiate, they each demand something they know good and well the other won't accept. Both do it and blame one another when it dfoesn't work out.

The U.S. plays make-believe as well. It is officially committed to a two-state solution, but that is about as likely as elephants flying. Even besides the fact that there are two Palestinian entities (with Hamas, to worse of the two, having arguably a better claim on legitimacy), the geography of the region would make any Palestinian state almost completely reliant on Israel, and no Palestinian entity could guarantee various elements wouldn't lob missiles into Israel. Israel is almost as fractured politically as the Palestinian entity. Besides, the "moderate" Arab states, whatever lip service they might pay, have no interest in seeing a Palestinian state. I have been observing and writing about Israel-Palestine for going on 30 years and while the players and some of the peripheral issues may change, the fundamental issues don't. Yet the U.S. has a certain interest in keeping the political theater going, maintaining the fiction that it's working on peace, which it expects to break out any time as soon as a few loose ends can be cleared up.

It's more than a bit tiresome. I thought Obama was being fairly shrewd appointing the peripatetic George Mitchell as special envoy so he could create the appearance of action. I'm surprised he agreed to meet with Netanyahu and Abbas. I hope it's just part of the game of pretending to care and he doesn't start getting the idea that maybe his unique qualities can accomplish what Reaagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush failed to do.

Israel: rightward ho!

Here's the Register's analysis of the election in Israel. As so often happens in a parliamentary system with multiple parties, no party has enough votes to form a government on its own, so they have to put together coalitions that usually carry the seeds of their own eventual instability within them. This time, with the war in Gaza and rockets still occasionally finding their way into Israel proper, it's not surprising that the electorate took a rightward turn. Despite twists and turns, I still suspect that Bibi Netanyahu will eventually form the government and be prime minister, but the process could take a while -- though not so long as the interminable U.S. transition period.

The most important thing to understand, I think, is that whatever chances existed for a "peace process" might have existed a couple of years ago, there's no chance now. Yet our diplomats keep talking about resurrecting the two-state solution and Obama has appointed poor old George Mitchell as special envoy. Although being a special envoy isn't such a bad gig. Of course appointing a special envoy is what presidents do when they suspect a situation is hopeless and don't plan to devote any of their own time or personal political capital to a situation.

Middle East without Uncle Sam

Here's a link to my latest piece for Antiwar.com. It notes the fact that some baby steps toward peace between Israel and her neighbors are underway -- and that the U.S., described by so manmy as the essential "honest broker" in the Middle East (though most in the Middle East consider the U.S. to be Israel's lap dog, not always justly, but that's the perception) had little or nothing to do with any of them. Imagine a Middle East without U.S. presence and influence. People would have to resolve their own problems! With U.S. influence seriously on the wane thanks to the stupid war in Iraq, they're starting to do so.

Do-it-yourself Mideast peace?

Israel just signed a cease-fire with Hamas and is negotiating with Syria. It's also negotiating with Hezbollah seeking the return of the two soldiers whose capture set off the ill-advised (on Israel's part) 2006 war with Hezbollah. What's going on. This Register editorial suggests that it has a great deal to do with the weakened position the U.S. occupies in the Middle East thanks to the Iraq war. So the parties are doing their own negotiating. Any truce between Israel and a group still devoted to its destruction is fragile, but it's something. Maybe if the U.S. resists the impulse to guide and micromanage things will get even better.

Lebanese pot boiling

As I posted today on the Register blog, "Eye on the Empire," there are so many potential conflicts brewing in Lebanon that you need a scorecard. There's the upcoming presidential replacement vote in parliament -- they'll try again on Monday but a resolution is unlikely and without a resolution civil war is likely. Then there's Hezbollah holding maneuvers and saying it fully expects war with Israel soon -- and Israel holding maneuvers close to the Lebanese border and reportedly sending jets on reconaissance missions over southern Lebanese cities. And Syria meddling in the election process and the U.S. warning Syria not to. And the possibility that the UN "peacekeeping" force may be reduced in size, which could unleash various militias. Serious trouble is probably brewing, and there's almost nothing the U.S. can do about it.

Eye on the Empire

Here's a link to the "Eye on theEmpire" blog I do for the Register. Commented today on Musharraf, developments in Burma, and how the Israeli airstrike on Syria (still denied by some in Syria) may be dividing the administration.