Netanyahu's new rogue state is Israel

Hours after the five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (the "P-5") announced an interim deal that pulls Iran back from the threshold of nuclear weapons capacity, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has done more than denounce the agreement. By reasserting Israel's right to attack Iran at its own discretion, even following this international accord, Netanyahu has effectively set Israel as the Middle East's new rogue state - even without actually attacking Iran.

With Iran formally committed to the agreement, Israel is now the nation standing defiantly against world opinion and the international community. None of those countries party to the agreement - including France and the United States - can now abide an Israeli attack. 

Israel is routinely criticized and condemned, with or without justification, for all manner of violations of international law. Yet it enjoys positive relations with dozens of countries and is seamlessly integrated into the global economy, and it has never directly defied the Security Council. Though the Council as an entity has not formalized the agreement, the P-5 and the European Union are all officially signed on. Agree or disagree (as I did elsewhere) with Netanyahu's assessment of the negotiations and the deal, he is now declaring Israel to be above the Security Council.

What I saw, and didn't, at the #SocialGoodSummit

I was lucky enough to get to this year's Social Good Summit, sponsored by -- and also featuring -- some of the world's leading change agents. Overall, this was an incredible opportunity to hear and cross-tweet vision, goals and implementation strategies for moving our planet to where it needs to be. One cannot help but walk away feeling inspired and hopeful that there are thousands of social entrepreneurs creatively seizing opportunities and addressing problems in ways that can be shared and applied by others -- if we can do a better job of connecting. 

Ericsson CEO Hans Vestberg, Fast Company Editor
Robert Safian, and Hope North founder Okello Sam

Malala Yousefzai, Al Gore, Melinda Gates, Richard Branson, Anthony Lake, David Miliband and Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt were among the well-known VIPs, but every speaker was on the mark and worthy of a million Facebook "likes". On the sidelines, I was also able to engage around a table with a top corporate leader and his partner on the ground, who are using mobile technology to bring stability and education to victims of a generation of conflict in Uganda. The lessons were numerous, and the incredible wealth of knowledge and spirit will take weeks to fully absorb.

My caveats lay in a few areas, mostly not the fault of the organizers. I list them here and now in the hope they might benefit next year's planning.

Bibi talks the talk, about talks

The latest Mideast peace effort by Secretary of State John Kerry and some of the Gulf states is encouraging, but there's little new that hasn't been available to Israel and the Palestinians during the past five years. A little reality check never hurts.

A top Palestinian representative has just revealed that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators had a series of talks over two years ago, but no negotiations, until the Israeli side discontinued the talks -- apparently without explanation. These preliminary 'talks about talks' even culminated in a face-to-face between Yasser Abed Rabbo and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The first reaction I'm reading. and which I share, is that this means there's still some hope for an eventual return to kind of negotiations that had once been seen as natural and unremarkable. 

My own second reaction? Abed Rabbo's claim refutes Netanyahu's narrative that there is no one to talk to, that Israel is ready to re-open negotiations but for the unwillingness of the Palestinians to return to the table. 

Last fall, when the Palestinian Authority scored upgraded State Observer status at the United Nations, Netanyahu called the move a violation of the 1993 Oslo Accords which undermines the possibility of a two-state solution. As I wrote at the time:

...the average Israeli would literally laugh at the idea that the Oslo Accords were anything but a failure, so why pretend they still care about preserving or fulfilling Oslo? Arguing that Netanyahu actually wants to negotiate a realistic two-state solution, without preconditions; that Israel eschews unilateral actions; that Israel has no partner for negotiations -- this should be insulting to most people who have an understanding of the issue. Those making such claims come off as either dishonest or naive. And it does not help Israel advance its case to anyone who's not already convinced.

Obama's low-risk, low-yield Israel visit

Any visit by the U.S. President is a big deal, especially to a country like Israel that follows every hiccup in Washington with great interest and anxiety. But from the American side, it will be more show than tell, with little chance of candor or contention. 

President Obama's upcoming visit to Israel will not be launching or leading to any new ventures into Middle East peacemaking. Both he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are still getting their teams in place after each was just re-elected. And there's still plenty of institutional memory in the Obama White House to understand what Hillary Clinton learned from her husband's experience, and from her own as recent Secretary of State: Netanyahu is just not that guy.

Thanks to Netanyahu -- and many Israelis evidently are grateful for this -- Israel's 15 minutes of relevance are now up, at least for this political era. By relevance, I mean, as far as making the Middle East easier for the United States; being considered part of Washington's decision team along with other allies like the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Japan, NATO, et al. Ironically, the closest partnership in the U.S.-Israeli relationship is now between Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and newly confirmed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, whose nomination was almost torpedoed by Netanyahu's true friends in Washington.

Obama tried to move the Israeli and Palestinian sides back to where they were just before Netanyahu, with regular talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, but to no avail. Obama even earned himself lectures from Netanyahu, in his own White House. Rather than looking ridiculous for trying to get a full-fledged Israeli settlement freeze before Netanyahu completed sidelining the Palestinian moderates, Obama instead can focus on Syria and Iran. By his response to those two imminent threats, it's Netanyahu who often looks a little silly -- complaining of U.S. appeasement one day, affirming Washington's and even the UN's strategies the very next day.

The President knows to tell Israelis -- and Netanyahu -- just what they want to hear: Great job, "never again" (Iran, Holocaust), number-one ally anywhere, got your back, Iron Dome, Am Yisrael Chai. Meet some students, collect Presidential medal, and board Air Force One. It appears he won't even have to brave an address to the newly sworn-in, untested and traditionally testy Knesset.

As Obama begins his second and final term, he still has to contend with Afghanistan, Syria and Iran in the Middle East, plus Russia, China and other challenges worldwide. Domestically, he faces his biggest headaches on just about every possible front. With no substantive Watergate-style scandal that needs distracting by Henry Kissinger, there would be little reason to devote precious political capital to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations even if it looked like Israel and the Palestinians were available. And they are not.

A few weeks ago, I waved a yellow flag over the notion that assigning moderate Tzipi Livni to shepherd the peace process was anything more than a cosmetic bluff by Netanyahu. As Justice Minister and head of her own new party, Livni will be in no position to take any meaningful peace initiatives, especially since the ruling Likud Party will be keeping the Foreign Affairs portfolio for itself. This means anything she tries will be subject to interference and veto by Avigdor Lierberman -- likely to return as Foreign Minister -- and the Prime Minister himself. When Lieberman filled in for Netanyahu to deliver Israel's speech to the annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly, he spent much of his time justifying population transfer -- 'nuf said?

Netanyahu will get to impress his hometown crowd, and Obama will have kicked off his second term by silencing many of his critics from within the pro-Israel (and Jewish establishment). If something unforeseen suddenly creates an opening for renewed peace efforts, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry can always answer the call as needed -- as long as they don't think they'll be wasting their time. There's been enough of that already.

The four-state solution and other realities

The greatest irony of the past week has been Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's insistence that the United Nations vote to upgrade Palestine's observer status was a unilateral action that undermines negotiations for a two-state solution. Netanyahu's response to such unilateralism was to announce his own unilateral move that specifically undermines a two-state solution: authorizing settlement construction to connect Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim, which would effectively split the West Bank in half. The four-state solution would be Israel, Gaza, West Bank north, and West Bank south. Now who's undermining whom?

The main takeaway from this should be that the current Israeli government is in no way committed to a two-state solution, or to meaningful negotiations. This should come as no surprise to anyone, including most Israelis of any bandwidth. Every time Netanyahu calls for a return to negotiations, he or his underlings manage to take some unilateral action of their own, usually relating to growing Israel's West Bank settlements or neighborhoods within the ever-expanding definition of "Jerusalem".

Regardless of one's preferred path or destination, several myths deserve to be discontinued:

UNILATERAL ACTIONS

Both Palestinians and Israelis are engaged in unilateral actions. The main differences are that Palestinian unilateralism tends to manifest periodically at the diplomatic level. Israeli unilateralism is evident on the ground and continues every day, via security checkpoints, ongoing construction projects, and restrictions on Palestinian economic activity. Justified or not, these are all unilateral actions, and not the subject of bilateral negotiations or agreement. And like it or not, going to the UN may interfere with the very hypothetical potential for direct negotiations, but it's hard to call anything garnering the support of 138 governments entirely "unilateral". (For better or worse, Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was a completely unilateral decision.)

PRECONDITIONS

There's nothing wrong with having preconditions for negotiations, as long as we are all open about their existence. Both sides have preconditions, and it's a stretch to suggest otherwise. Israel's calls for Abbas to return to the table without preconditions ring hollow when -- in the same breath -- we are told he must first recognize Israel as a "Jewish state". No other entity in the world has had to make such a declaration as a condition for negotiations, full diplomatic relations or even military alliance with Israel, and until the past year this was never even stated vis-a-vis the Palestinians. (Just weeks ago, on Israeli television, Abbas himself ruled out a Palestinian return to pre-1967 Israel.) But it is definitely a precondition, no less than the Palestinian insistence that Israel forswear further settlement growth while negotiations are underway. When Hamas and Fatah seemed close to reconciling their differences last year, Israel revived one of its old preconditions, that any such union must reaffirm the core principles, including renouncing terror and accepting Israel's right to exist (as a Jewish state or not). 

UNDERMINING A TWO-STATE SOLUTION

Netanyahu's response to what he termed the undermining of the two-state solution was to... undermine the two state solution. Expanding or initiating new settlements anywhere but the area known as "E1" area might be seen as a counter-productive but proportional response to the upgrading of Palestinian status at the UN. But by announcing construction that merges the Edumim settlements bloc with Jerusalem -- while cutting off the provisional Palestinian capital of Ramallah and the northern West Bank (Biblical Samaria) from the south (Biblical Judea) -- Netanyahu is expressly writing off any interest in the increasingly anachronistic "two-state solution" involving Israel and a viable Palestinian state.

HAMAS

Hamas terrorism, including the massive missile barrage against Israel's civilian population, must be denounced and punished. But intentionally or not, one effect of Israeli retaliation is to bolster Hamas among Palestinians, at the expense of Abbas. Israel's reaction to the UN vote is a case in point. One of the more valid arguments against the Palestinian status upgrade was the absence of Palestinian consensus over who is the rightful representative -- can Abbas truly claim to represent all Palestinians when he comes to the UN, or when/if he sits down with Netanyahu at the negotiating table? That said, if Israel's right-wing coalition government had any interest in a negotiated agreement, wouldn't it try to find ways of making it easier for Abbas to negotiate, instead of making it harder at every turn? Hamas is a useful excuse, and one that keeps benefiting from each setback.

Personally, I find it much easier, and more effective, to explain Israeli actions as simply a popular decision by a right-wing government, representing a right-shifted population that has lost hope in the prospect of peace; since long before last week, the average Israeli would literally laugh at the idea that the Oslo Accords were anything but a failure, so why pretend they still care about preserving or fulfilling Oslo? Arguing that Netanyahu actually wants to negotiate a realistic two-state solution, without preconditions; that Israel eschews unilateral actions; that Israel has no partner for negotiations -- this should be insulting to most people who have an understanding of the issue. Those making such claims come off as either dishonest or naive. And it does not help Israel advance its case to anyone who's not already convinced.

GOP's Benghazi gambit neither practical nor plausible

Weeks before a Presidential election, a terrible tragedy occurred in Benghazi, Libya: a terrorist attack left four Americans dead, including the U.S. Ambassador. Politics is politics, so have at it. Since Americans went to the polls and re-elected President Obama to a second four-year term, however, treating Benghazi as Watergate 2.0 has become gratuitous.

There is a need to step out of the he-said-she-said moment. The entire premise that Susan Rice (our Ambassador to the United Nations) is under suspicion, or that any nominee to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State should be blocked until we get all the answers, is neither practical nor plausible.

NOT PRACTICAL

What happened in Benghazi was horrible and tragic, and very possibly preventable. But it shouldn't have taken The Daily Show's Jon Stewart to point out the intrinsic hypocrisy -- that Condoleezza Rice sailed through confirmation for Secretary of State despite having knowingly lied about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" while she was National Security Adviser -- and no one in the Bush administration was ever held to account for intelligence gaps in the lead-up to 9/11, when nearly 3,000 people were murdered by Al Qaeda on U.S. soil. The United States continues to face foreign policy challenges around the world, and tying up key Administration assets and distracting public attention does our national interest little good. Any changes we need to make in our security deployments and intelligence vetting will not be facilitated by a process that has been antagonistic since a few hours after the attack. We need a strong and credible Secretary of State. And as has been noted, the fact that many Republicans would be happy to see John Kerry nominated instead of Susan Rice carries the unseemly scent of partisan angling for his Senate seat.

NOT PLAUSIBLE

It makes little sense to argue that elements within the Obama administration would have opportunistically pushed the anti-U.S. protest angle in order to protect the President's anti-terrorism credentials ahead of the Presidential election. Even as a candidate four years ago, Barack Obama was being branded as naive for seeking to engage and win back the Arab and Islamic public. Mitt Romney consistently ridiculed Obama's foreign policy as the "apology tour", and blamed Obama's "appeasement" of radical Muslims even before the State Department had a chance to comment. With all this, if the Obama team were really looking to manipulate the information, it would have been far smarter to chalk up Benghazi to a one-off terrorist attack -- barely a blip amid the overall successful fight against Al-Qaeda. So, when Ambassador Rice went on all the Sunday morning shows and suggested the Consulate attack was connected to a current wave of popular protests across the Middle East, she was implicitly singing Romney's tune.

No one has been nominated yet to be the next Secretary of State, and it's not even clear how soon Secretary Clinton might choose to announce her own departure. The President won re-election with popular backing of his foreign policy performance, despite the early clamor over Benghazi. Republican Senators should settle down, and the Administration should follow the President's lead by not dignifying the attacks with anything beyond normal briefings and the investigation already underway.

Largely thanks to the Obama team's record of national security accomplishments, we again have real work to do, and the world is not waiting.

Condemning Palestinian statehood won't help Israel

The United Nations General Assembly will vote today to accord Palestine upgraded Observer status as a non-member state. Had the U.S. Congress been more supportive of the Oslo process following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, had the international community exerted more pressure on Yasser Arafat, had Shimon Peres called earlier elections to capture the Rabin sympathy vote, had President George W. Bush not insisted on early elections in Gaza that put Hamas legally in charge there, this might have happened ten years ago, and with full membership for Palestine. But that's not what happened.

So today, on the anniversary of the UN's 1947 Palestine Partition plan, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is calling on the UN to recognize Palestine as a state. Some of the normal prerequisites for statehood status remain unfulfilled: There are no permanent, recognized, demarcated borders; the territory is ruled by two different governments; and the terms of the Oslo Accords mandate the Palestinian and Israeli sides to cooperate and agree on final status, including statehood.

But realistically, Oslo has been dead for several years, and certainly since President Bush backed off serious efforts to facilitate progress between the two parties. Realizing this, Ehud Olmert, Israel's Prime Minister at the time, continued his own regular meetings with Abbas and even followed through on Ariel Sharon's planned unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. And today, Olmert himself is backing the Palestinian bid. For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has done little to back up his public calls for Abbas to return to the negotiating table, while expanding Jewish settlements across the West Bank and empowering Hamas while generally ignoring Abbas.

Especially following the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas, and the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire, Abbas needs to proceed with today's vote. He needs to show something to remain relevant, and Israelis who retain any hope for eventual peace should realize that they need Abbas to succeed over Hamas, in the West Bank as well as Gaza.

While today's vote is not a vote against the existence of Israel, it definitely has an element of rejecting Israeli settlement expansion and U.S. neglect of proactive diplomacy. There are no guarantees, and today's vote may be ill-timed. And it will be used by Iran and others to cynically advance their campaign to isolate Israel diplomatically and otherwise. But the Palestinians will get their way today, albeit without the support of Israel or the United States. Given this reality, where do we go from here?

Israel and the United States have already decided to downplay the statehood status. This is more constructive than just cursing the darkness, but far from lighting a match. A year ago, the last time Palestinian statehood was being advanced at the UN, I blogged on how much easier it would be for Netanyahu to just work on peace negotiations with Abbas, both substantively and tactically as a way to undermine or forestall any statehood effort.

Even Netanyahu, and his coalition partners who more openly reject any territorial compromise, can reap some advantage from today's fait accompli. They can begin treating Abbas as the leader of a state -- not with ticker-tape parades through Tel Aviv, but by signing more formal agreements from economic relations to security cooperation and holding him more accountable for results. They can play up his role as the internationally recognized leader rather than giving Hamas more opportunities to escalate tensions and overshadow Abbas.

We can also use this as an opportunity to get more economic development and investment into the West Bank, by calling on European governments voting "yes" on statehood to put their money where their mouths are. Any effort to penalize Abbas for pushing the statehood issue will further erode his credibility and that of the peaceful path (Hamas has shown that terrorism gets better play with Israel). Israel needs a strong, vibrant, secure and prosperous Palestinian neighbor, and this is according to Prime Minister Netanyahu himself.

Jewish organizations should feel free to condemn and criticize today's vote, but afterward they should also be held to account. If we as a community reject unilateral measures, and we claim that today's vote undermines the path of direct negotiations and a two-state solution, what will we be doing in 2013 to achieve that oft-stated goal? Are we willing to back up our own rhetoric with candid advice to Israeli leaders, with our own funds to support Israeli-Palestinian cooperative enterprises, and to promote genuine dialogue and engagement between Jews and Palestinians?

As Jews prepare to celebrate Chanukah, the Festival of Lights, we should consider whether we will continue to curse the darkness, just keep quiet, or start lighting flames to brighten the room we call the Middle East. If we as a community are not up to that task, then silence may be the best answer going forward. Merely paying lip service to a "two-state solution" can no longer help Israel or the Palestinians, and it won't stop Iran from achieving nuclear-blackmail capability.

Netanyahu's 'hurry up and wait' moment

I have a few observations on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech last week to the United Nations General Assembly:

1. Had the Prime Minister delivered the exact same speech to the annual banquet of any major Jewish organization or to the Israeli Knesset... well, maybe he already has. In fact, as usual, the target audience for his UN speech seems to have been Israelis and Jews around the world. The world leaders and diplomats sitting in the GA Hall were really just props, or better, foils so he could be seen "talking truth to power". Brilliant, if no longer original.

2. Netanyahu implicitly ceded the peace process discussion to the Palestinians, whose leader Mahmoud Abbas understandably focused his GA remarks on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. His only reference or rebuttal to the Palestinians was a brief nod to the concept of a negotiated solution and uniting the three great faiths.

3. By eclipsing the peace process with his usual lecture on medieval barbarians and clash of civilizations, and -- lest we forget -- the Holocaust -- Netanyahu allowed no hint that Israel is interested in substantively addressing the Palestinian issue. The message to European governments, and to the Russians and Chinese, is that their interest in regional stability can only be satisfied by helping Israel stop Iran. And Israel makes no promises after that.

4. Netanyahu's speech underscored the sense of many around the world -- including decision-makers whose support Israel and the United States still need -- that a nuclear Iran is an Israeli issue more than a global concern.

5. Forget the cartoon bomb that's generated so much buzz. The real last-minute prop in Netanyahu's speech was his notion of red lines for stopping Iran. It used to be that Iran had to be prevented from reaching "breakout capacity" -- the point at which it could continue to produce a weapon on its own. Then there was the "zone of immunity" -- the point at which Iran could continue its program without vulnerability to an aerial attack. Now the "red lines" connote the point at which Iran has enough highly enriched uranium to produce its first bomb ("90%") -- leaving a window as narrow as a few weeks (according to Netanyahu). Let's forgive the Obama administration for not updating its policy language fast enough to keep up with Netanyahu's moving goalposts and changing labels, but it now appears that all the hype was just that -- Netanyahu's red lines just happen to correspond neatly with longstanding U.S. policy. Or, as Netanyahu's people have phrased it, President Obama now agrees with the Prime Minister. Smooth...

6. One more shifting benchmark is the effectiveness of sanctions, which until last week were being downplayed by Netanyahu as largely ineffective. But after a phone chat with President Obama, and the leaking of his government's own report that international sanctions are actually having a great impact on Iran, his speech encouraged governments to continue pushing the very sanctions and diplomacy that his minions have been ridiculing.

7. The speech built up to a crescendo of apocalyptic doom and urgency, only to finish with no clear steps for implementing his red lines. After months of spiraling rhetoric and reports about the immediacy of the Iranian threat and the likelihood of an Israeli attack -- including widespread speculation as to whether such an attack would be delayed until after Madonna's summer concert -- Netanyahu pushed off any attack until the middle of next year, at the earliest. For those who honestly believe that next summer will already be too late to stop Iran, Netanyahu's speech was a blatant act of betrayal. The rest of us will have to scratch our heads and try to get back to serious business, which includes stopping Iran's nuclear program.

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -- Shakespeare, Macbeth.

Hello, World? Meet Israel, the Victim State.

As world leaders gather in New York for the annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly, the Israeli Government and Jewish organizations have pulled off a great feat: a quasi-official UN event focused on the Jewish refugees from Arab countries, most of whom were expelled from their homes in the immediate aftermath of Israel's 1948 founding. This big diplomatic breakthrough follows on the UN's first-ever official Holocaust commemoration, back in 2005.

Surely, this was a coup for Israel in its diplomatic score-keeping against Iran, the Palestinians and the Arab states, but how does this help the Jewish State on a world stage, as embodied in the UN General Assembly opening?

Israel stands for so many achievements, cultures, aspirations and industry -- and what it chooses to show the world is martyrs and victims? The Holocaust remains unique in terms of its focus, scale, and ingenuity. Unfortunately, our world has since eclipsed the Holocaust's depravity and numbers of dead, but the Holocaust -- while not Israel's most forward-looking message -- rightly demanded inclusion in the UN's pantheon of historic events and founding lessons, appropriately devoid of political overtones.

This latest UN event has trivialized the Middle Eastern victims thanks to its explicit "me too" purpose of matching any Palestinian grievances with Jewish counter-suffering. Anyone following the daily massacres in Syria and elsewhere might be wondering why the suffering of onetime Jewish refugees should rival that of present-day Palestinians, Somalis, Libyans, or Sudanese (some of whom are now facing mob violence, detention and deportation...in Israel). What universal lesson can be applied from this experience: That Jews can also be victims (yet again)?

Israel ranks as a major world player in medicine and science, technology, democracy, humanitarian assistance and development, economics, and so many other fields. Its leaders are routinely consulted by their counterparts across Europe and Asia on a host of pressing issues... or at least they used to be.

It certainly stands as a tribute to the Middle Eastern Jews who endured suffering and dislocation so many years ago, and they have every right to seek maximum exposure and recognition. But Israelis and Jews at large need not have made this our opening pitch, underscoring our collective weakness and shared suffering (a classic anti-Semitic image, by the way) rather than our vision for a better world and a better region.

Like so many other enterprises these days, I get the sense that Israel's government arranged this latest promotion because it was able to do so, not because it was the best way to advance Israel's interests. Or maybe we've all just run out of ideas.

Feel-good lectures at UN undermine Israel's security

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that he will attend the UN General Assembly in New York later this month, specifically to re-warn the world of the dangers posed by a nuclear Iran. Beyond that, he wants to impress on fellow world leaders -- and a global audience -- that Israel intends to use force to stop Iran's nuclear program regardless of current or potential international sanctions.

Ah, where to begin?

WRONG MESSENGER

Israel definitely faces a significant threat if Iran acquires a deliverable nuclear weapon, and the whole Middle East would be plunged into a new regime of fear. But Israel -- and Jewish organizations -- are the absolute worst bearers of these warnings. When the Presidents of the United States, France and Argentina, and the UN Secretary-General, have issued such warnings, this reinforces the notion that Iran is a threat to all nations and not only to the Jewish State. So why reduce this to a "Jewish" issue, which only helps Iran stave off even stronger sanctions? 

WRONG MESSAGE

The fact is, any sanctions are better than no sanctions, and especially the tougher variety that President Obama and former French President Sarkozy were able to convince the Security Council to adopt -- with the grudging assent of Russia and China. Every time Netanyahu dismisses the value of such sanctions, he discourages governments from ENFORCING the current sanctions. And every time he refers to a military strike -- before Iran even acquires an actual weapon -- he undermines the case for any sanctions. And by not giving sanctions a chance, he forfeits any possibility of immunity should Israel actually attack. 

Auschwitz won't stop Iran

2009: Bibi proves the Holocaust was real...

I shouldn't have to say this, but: I take the Holocaust very seriously, and much of my schooling and my career has been devoted to studying and honoring the memory of the Holocaust.

Having said that, and setting aside my concerns with some of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's strategic and diplomatic behavior vis-a-vis Iran, he seems dangerously obsessed with applying Holocaust terminology to contemporary situations.

Sometimes, as I blogged last year, he has used the Holocaust to try and impress world leaders with the overwhelming evidence that the Holocaust is a historical fact, and that therefore Iranian President Ahmadinejad is lying... and that therefore Iran has no right to develop nuclear weapons. Right. The problem is, there are a few logical gaps there, beyond the fact that the United Nations -- where he delivered such a speech -- had already established a firm policy of Holocaust commemoration and condemning Holocaust denial. And Netanyahu played no part in that achievement (as reflected in his speech).

Evidently, the Prime Minister was looking to impress his voters back home, and it worked -- as usual. This is becoming a ritual for him, much like Rudy Giuliani trotting out 9/11 at every opportunity back when he was running for President.

Gaming Iran, Europe, US, and Israel

For the past decade, Israeli and American officials -- and even Europeans -- have offered differing and changing estimates of when Iran might achieve a nuclear weapons capability, or even just when it will cross the threshold of having everything it needs on its own. Has Iran's program been so uneven, that these estimates keep changing? Yes, and no.

It's true, sanctions and other distractions (see under: Stuxnet) may undermine Iran's abilities to proceed, but the fact that different politicians and intelligence officials from different countries can't seem to agree, reflects something more tactical. If Iran is perilously close to a breakthrough -- say, less than one year away -- the Europeans can argue that it's already too late for further sanctions. On the other hand, if Iran is more than two years away, then what's so urgent about sanctions, anyway?? Part of the variation in U.S. and Israeli estimates is geared toward this sweet spot of European urgency.

Washington has an interest in delaying -- or determining -- the timing of a hypothetical Israeli attack against Iran's facilities, so better to say Iran isn't even close. Maybe Iran hasn't even yet decided whether to really go all the way... Of course, it's continuing the program, "just in case".

The Israelis will never be satisfied that any U.S. President is really on their side with this issue, so they need to keep us guessing.

Whatever any government or individual says, it stands to reason that Iran is pursuing its nuclear program as fast as it can. It's suffering mightily -- financially and politically -- so it may as well.

Iran already reaps nuclear benefits

Iran already enjoys a degree of nuclear prestige in its confrontation with Israel and around the Middle East.

How is Israel supposed to respond to the ongoing effort to attack Israeli and Jewish targets, including today's car bombs in New Delhi and Tbilisi? Since Israel needs to hold its fire, pending an all-out assault (as advertised) should Iran attain nuclear weapons status, it will be limited to responding in kind, or via proxy by attacking Hezbollah targets in Iran or elsewhere. And the mysterious assassinations of specific Iranian physicists and engineers will continue as needed.

Israel and the West may have little choice in the matter, given the very real implications of a nuclear Persia, and the difficulties of holding together a rough coalition of Europeans, Russia, and China. But it may be noted that, as part of our strategy against that nuclear contingency, we must limit our responses to threats or attacks that fall below the nuclear threshold.

In this sense, and only in this sense, the fact that Israel is deterred from responding in full force is analogous to the Cold War-era constraints of limited response. To avoid introducing all-out Soviet and/or Chinese intervention, the United States had to limit its own intervention in Korea and Vietnam, as well as Czechoslovakia and East Berlin.

Sanctions definitely bite, but -- by virtue of "almost" having nuclear weapons -- Iran today already has a freer hand to pursue its terrorist and other adventures, fairly secure in the knowledge that the punishment will never exceed what it can bear. The regime in Tehran can definitely taste the regional supremacy and impunity that await its full nuclear membership.

On Syria, Obama & Putin can afford to arm-wrestle

It's campaign season all around the world, and time to start picking fights.

At the United Nations, the U.S. and Russian ambassadors are openly disparaging each other over Syria, probably because they can afford to. The plight of thousands of Syrians is distressing, but neither country has a major stake in military intervention over there, especially as the United States is just catching its breath from the Iraq withdrawal and still trying to figure out an Afghanistan wind-down.

Iran is a different story. Washington truly needs Moscow's support or disinterest in order to impose effective sanctions and other forms of containment to turn back or limit Iran's nuclear defiance of the international community. In Iran, the United States sees fundamental national interests -- balance of power in the Middle East and protection of U.S. assets as well as defense of our borders. We also see a clear and present danger, if Iran achieves nuclear capability. Sure, we're very rah-rah on human rights and democratic agitation in the Islamic Republic, but it's all about stopping Iran from getting The Bomb.

In Syria, though we sincerely want to stop Assad Jr.'s bloody crackdown, we're not about to commit boots on the ground to stopping him. A UN Security Council resolution ordering him to restructure his own government, along with ever tighter sanctions, ought to suffice for now -- as long as we don't really need him to step down. And neither Washington nor Moscow wants to place bets on the political turmoil that would return to Syria after the Assads leave the building -- within line of sight to the Israeli border...

Whether intentionally or not, the "I know you are, but what am I" barbs being traded around the UN help boost Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin. Both men are seeking to repeat their past election victories and continue in leadership; in Putin's case he's sat out the past four years as Prime Minister and now seeks to return as President. Obama has regained much of the international influence we last enjoyed when Bill Clinton was in the White House, but it has come at the cost of appearing to get along with foreigners. As the Republican Presidential contenders compete over whether U.S. foreign policy should be either triumphalist or isolationist, it doesn't help President Obama to be seen as courting Russian cooperation where he doesn't really need it (e.g., Syria). For Putin as well, defying the United States on Syria (including sending his foreign minister to Damascus for an Assad pep rally) shows the Russian people that they still rate in the Middle East, and that he can still be a thorn in the side of the U.S. President.

In the grand scheme of things, nothing that happens in Syria is likely to activate the countdown to Armageddon. The future of the Middle East, and of the world's oil supply, will largely turn on Iran. The Israeli-Palestinian impasse is also impactful, but it remains in a vegetative state and there's little political value in Obama or Putin engaging there right now. Syria is safe ground politically, otherwise everyone would be behaving. And that's too bad for the Syrians.

On Syria, Russia & China are acting logically

I blogged some months back on why the Syrian people should not bank on international intervention to support their fundamental rights. Impressively, much of the international community has rallied to their cause. Not surprisingly, Russia and China have not. Without Russia and China, the United Nations Security Council cannot act decisively, and there are few feasible options absent Security Council authorization.

Russia and China continue weapons sales (cash) and oil deals (cash) with the second-generation Assad regime. For Russia, this is both a relationship inherited from Soviet days and a useful property stake in the Middle East. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia's global influence has been on the defensive. Thanks to Washington's own adventurism in the region during the last decade, Moscow has been able to promote its role as a Big Power protector of the "sovereign rights" of Syria, Iran, and even Libya -- a bulwark against the American bulldozer. How nice for them.

Beyond all the economics and expanding its markets in every region of the world, China has an abiding interest in discrediting any international intervention in domestic affairs. This applies to everything from human rights and the status of Tibet, all the way to Taiwan as a province of One China. The best way to remind the world to "Keep Out" is by drawing a line at any UN efforts to hold dictators to account.

The fact that the Arab League is suddenly falling over itself to demonstrate concern for victims of Arab dictators definitely complicates matters, but both Russia and China are acting in support of their regime interests -- and their national interests -- both with regard to Syria relations and to their respective goals in the region and globally. They certainly have little to gain by allowing Security Council authorization for any steps to rein in the Assad regime, especially in a way that bolsters the U.S. role and affirms U.S. support for the emergence of a new Arab League doctrine.

Israel's self-defeating diplomacy

Israel is falling deeper into an international mess that -- while not of its own making -- could have been of its own fixing. And Israel is the biggest loser, immediately and over the long run.

It's hard to believe I've invested three decades of my studies and career to helping shore up Israel's diplomatic capital, which should be reason for me to be angry with Prime Minister Netanyahu for letting the United Nations and world opinion -- and the separation from the Palestinians -- slip through his fingers. But it's not for me to be angry, since I won't have to live with the consequences as Israelis do. So, lets just say, I am sad for Israel, the Middle East, and Jews around the world.

UNESCO CAVES

Technically, it appears Israel isn't directly "canceling" its membership in UNESCO following the vote to admit Palestine. But with the United States cutting off its funding to UNESCO, as it had threatened to do, Israel understandably has little choice but to follow suit. The difference is that the United States just got re-elected to a full four-year term on the UNESCO Executive Board, during which time it can't be suspended, while Israel enjoys no such protection once it is declared in arrears -- which probably won't be immediate. Since the United States returned to UNESCO membership a few years ago, it has been able to win many battles on Israel's behalf.

Koch plays Israel bluff, but too late

After first scaring the kishkes out of Jewish voters, Ed Koch now says we can relax: Instead of being a threat to Israel, President Obama is now a friend, and worthy of re-election. Sorry, Mr. Mayor, but you're too late.

Plenty of American Jews were already apprehensive about Barack Obama, even some who voted for him in 2008. I have blogged previously about why the President's critics are wrong about his alleged antipathy to Israel, but this post is specifically about Koch's strategy.

Using his own New York and Israel clout, Koch called on Jews to vote against the Jewish, pro-Israel Democrat in a House race as a message to President Obama that his administration's approach to Israel was going to cost him at the polls, this year and next. Koch endorsed the Republican candidate, Bob Turner, and campaigned vigorously for him.

Whatever impact Ed Koch's endorsement -- and whatever impact of Jewish voters who cared -- Bob Turner won by an impressive margin. Koch was happy to take credit. Within days, President Obama was at the United Nations, warning against premature recognition of a Palestinian state, and Koch took credit for that, too. In response to that one speech, which actually fits the pattern of the President's prior support for Israel at the UN, Koch has announced his endorsement of President Obama -- and he'll even campaign on his behalf.

Having confirmed the suspicions of so many Jews, including many who are suspicious of any African American (or so they tell me), there is nothing Koch can do that will win back votes. His shot across the President's bow was so convincing to those ready to be convinced, that all Koch can do now is erode his own credibility by declaring the President suddenly "kosher".

For his part, Obama will play along. He can't afford to be seen rebuffing Koch's support, lest he provide fodder to his more unwavering opponents. When Obama wins re-election, with a convincing majority of the Jewish vote, Koch can take credit for that, too.

Qaddafi was right about Jews

The stark images of Muammar Qaddafi being dragged through the streets of Sirte this past week reminded me of the hour I spent with him during his last visit to New York City a couple of years ago.


As a bonafide "Cold War Brat", this past week was not the first time I saw graphic images of a brutal, delusional dictator meeting the summary justice of his former subjects. Watching Nicolae Ceaucescu's execution 20 years ago on TV brought back memories of my childhood stay in Bucharest, surrounded by banners with his face, on every major street.

When our small delegation visited Qaddafi in his country's UN mission in Manhattan, we were continuing a dialogue on matters Israel and Jewish, which had even included visits to Libya -- though this was my first (and now, last) foray.

The scene was ad hoc and even surreal. The street outside was sealed off, and the entrance to the building was shrouded by scaffolding. In the lobby, behind a makeshift partition, we sat on cheap-looking, oversized sofas, while senior Libyan diplomats were perched on the arms. Halfway through our audience, the President of a major African nation arrived for his own meeting with Qaddafi, and rather than dismissing us, Qaddafi convinced his counterpart to join us, sandwiched meekly for another 25 minutes among a few American Jews.

South Africa chooses interests over principles - again

I do not hold South Africa in lower regard than most other countries, but it bothers me to see such a supposedly righteous country treat a global icon -- and his oppressed people -- with such disdain and hypocrisy.

Post-Apartheid South Africa has consistently staked a claim as (1) the leading edge of Africa's future, and (2) the global champion of human rights. Once again, that perfect image has come up lacking, as the Dalai Lama failed to get a visa to attend the birthday celebration of his fellow Nobel Peace laureate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu -- and the same week that China (with Russia) vetoed sanctions against Syria in the UN Security Council. 

South Africa's military and economic relations with China trump human rights, even those of a persecuted indigenous people like the Tibetans. Ironically, South Africa and the leading African National Congress have been staunch supporters of Palestinian rights for decades -- I know they share Marxist roots, but isn't it convenient that the Palestinian cause is bankrolled by oil money?

Speaking of money, China has been saturating the entire African continent for several years now, so barring the Dalai Lama should come as little surprise. South Africa continues to act like Nelson Mandela was just released from Robben Island, though it is now prone to the same flaws and fallacies plaguing other great and minor powers around the world.

South Africa has made great strides in many fields, despite a legacy of hardship, but there's more: Last month, the United Nations marked the tenth anniversary of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, in the absence of many Western delegations, a nagging reminder that the "Durban" conference brought disgrace to South Africa right before 9/11 eclipsed all else. 

South African President Jacob Zuma has been relatively constructive in his mediation effort in neighboring Zimbabwe, but the pathetic favoritism of his predecessor -- Thabo Mbeki -- toward Zimbabwe's savage dictator Robert Mugabe leaves a permanent stain on South Africa's credibility as a symbol for democracy and human dignity. Mbeki's refusal, as President, to allow accurate information or proven medication to combat HIV/AIDS was a death warrant for hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Who is responsible for romanticizing the post-Apartheid state? Friends in Africa tell me it's the Western media, egged on by the impassioned political drive 25 years ago to free Black South Africans. Either way, it's not helping anyone, including a South African elite that has yet to face reality (as reflected in Mbeki, their compromised standard-bearer). South Africa has a bottom line, and it's not about human rights. It's about what every other country (except Canada, mostly) seeks -- power and prosperity. That's fine. But let's stop pretending otherwise.

Turkey, the crazy old man of Europe

Not so long ago, at Davos, seated beside United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan picked a very personal and undiplomatic argument with Israeli President Shimon Peres before storming off the stage (The video is astounding). Shortly after that, he headlined a hate-filled anti-Israel rally back at home. He also appeared at a rally in Ankara where at some point a giant banner was unfurled depicting Peres bowing before Erdogan.

It didn't help matters that some senior Israeli diplomats who definitely knew better set up Turkey's ambassador for a calculated, unprofessional, televised hazing over some minor pretext for what was still a very valuable account.

In March 2010, Turkey's new Ambassador to the United States was temporarily recalled following a non-binding (but taboo) "Armenian Genocide" resolution that was approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, but never even made it to the full House of Representatives, let alone inform U.S. policy.

The May 2010 Gaza Flotilla incident is well known, if disputed. Despite a United Nations finding that Israel deserves only partial blame for the deaths of nine violent, mostly Turkish blockade runners, Erdogan continues to demand a formal and unambiguous apology from the Israeli government.

Curiously, Erdogan expelled Israel's ambassador only AFTER the UN inquiry issued its report. Now he demands Israel end its embargo of Gaza, even though the UN findings supported Israel's right to enforce the weapons blockade.