By Arthur Piccolo
News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Fri. May 27, 2011: No it’s not what everyone else says.
Here is a lesson in diplomacy for President Obama. Yes the idea that even an obscure commentator can offer President Obama useful advice is the issue call it a problem if you like. That our President may not be more than “average.” Not the superior intellect of his public image.
Let me use the Charlie Rose Show to explain. As a convenient readily available tool. His Tuesday, May 24th show this week. No Obama did not appear as much as Charlie Rose lusts after Obama for his show. He never does. That is not the point. I think this was the 100th or is it more Charlie Rose Shows about the Israeli-Palestine situation??? Every time I think I should watch standing on my head. Maybe these shows would make more sense. Maybe not.
It is always the same flow with the most immediate atmospherics thrown in to give it the appearance of being timely. This time of course, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s’ Washington visit and his encounter with President Obama.
On Charlie Rose it is always supposedly a “serious” discussion about this conflict and its resolution but never is. It is always shadow boxing around the REAL issues. And frequent guests like the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens always plays his part as a guest to “perfection.” Which in this bizarre shadow play is imperfect indeed.
NOT once have I ever heard a discussion of POWER as the underlying dynamic is what is happening more to the point never happening. These discussions always treat the superficialities as the true basis of the lack of progress and the various negotiating or more preciously non-negotiating positions of various participants. NEVER does anyone ever voice a position that the current status is a very comfortable long term situation among many Israeli decision makers. That they have no real problem with the status quo as it has existed for decades and may for decades more.
That Israel as a nation is doing very well in the real world all the bluster aside and has no real need for a settlement. That the rhetoric is very different than the reality. There should be nothing wrong with voicing such a position. There is a logic to it but no one ever does. Certainly not Brett Stephens nor anyone else.
Israel does not want to be seen in that light. Not really interested in settling the conflict.
It is not what the powerful want to hear. It does not comport with their self-image. Certainly not to admit all this talk about serious negotiations or the determined need for a settlement is nonsense.
WHY? Because it does not align with the imagery Israel prefers to project. Again that may be understandable for certain Israeli decision makers and opinion leaders but why is it taboo as a matter of discussion on programs like Charlie Rose. Why should guests on Charlie Rose be fearful of voicing such a logical point for discussion? You tell me.
Why should it be taboo for Charlie Rose’s guests or anyone else including President Obama to say, “I don’t believe the Israelis have any incentive to negotiate a permanent solution with the Palestinians not now not ever except under perfect ideal conditions that appeal to Israel but which never will to the Palestinians.”
In fact that all this never ending talk about solutions and renewed negotiations whatever the source should be viewed as the charade it is. None of it is ultimately about the peace process it is about the parties trying to stake out a preferred image for themselves in world opinion and among their voters.”
For its size and population, Israel is the most successful and powerful nation on Earth. Again for its size and population, Israel has more distinguished successful individuals and institutions in virtually all fields. It is a leader in science, technology, banking and the arts, Israeli expatriates and descendants of Israelis are
successful throughout the world, and even more so if you simply include all those with relatives near or distant in Israel. Israel has one of the best militaries and most impressively equipped in the world and it has either the 3rd or 4thh largest nuclear arsenal on Earth. Israel is a dynamic, strong, rich, influential nation.
The Palestinians by contrast are a “joke” on the world stage. Their population is largely uneducated and many destitute. To call it a welfare state would be generous. Switzerland would have to be considered a major world power in comparison. Palestinians don’t even have a single airport nor anything that would qualify as a
contemporary infrastructure. They have no real health care system. Their media is primitive.
Why go on. Palestine is a mess. What threat to Israel? Israel has far more of a threat from a plaque of locusts. Or bed bugs. Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders constantly refer to the “existential” threats to Israel. I contend it is a euphemism with no clear cut meaning. It means whatever you want it to. So it will not be challenged. As opposed to Netanyahu and others saying something as absurd as the Palestinians who are destitute and having no military, just some rogue terrorists, have the capability to destroy Israel. But if that is the impression he leaves well fine. It fits the misleading narrative very well.
Not only can’t Palestinians destroy Israel. As Israel has already proven even a “united” Arab Middle East aligned against them – which will not happen again – could not destroy Israel. As happened in the 1967 war Israel decimated its Arab foes and emerged stronger than ever and with vast new territory. And this.
If somehow Israel just as for the U.S. or any other nation with a large nuclear stockpile – if any such country were ever about to be destroyed by any enemy that nation be it the U.S. or Israel would rain down a nuclear reign of terror on that enemy that would annihilate it not the U.S. or Israel.
In the case of Israel if ever in some fantasy scenario Israel was so threatened it has the nuclear weapon capacity to destroy every single other Middle East nation. Every last one of them if required. And none of them have even just one nuclear weapon to hurl at Israel. Thank God. But even more as is official U.S. policy our
nation will never allow any such hypothetical conflict ever to get to the point that Israel will be under such threat. The U.S. by treaty will come to the defense of Israel not that they need it.
So why should Israel negotiate a peace deal with the Palestinians? What is in it for them? Israel holds all the cards including the access to and from the Palestine Territories. For Israel to get a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians they would have to give up far more than they feel they should or would.
In return for what? An end to isolated rocket attacks or the infrequent suicide bomber that are absolutely no threat to Israel even if tragically occasionally there are Jewish deaths as a result. And which no peace treaty can ever completely eliminate.
So where does this leave President Obama? No where man. If he believes fairness and a more peaceful world will be served by an end to the Israel-Palestine conflict then his actions since becoming President are useless with or without him formalizing a peace proposal on the same well worn terms as all the others.
If President Obama has a Clue he must make it his priority to get Hamas to renounce its impossible threat to destroy Israel. But of course he would have to be one very brave determined President to do so. Because it is taboo to even look at Hamas let alone negotiate with them. Without Hamas there can never be a peace treaty between Israel and half of the Palestinians not that the other half of the Palestinians would ever go along with such a scheme anyway. Think about it.
The U.S. and many other major countries negotiate with the Mad Man in North Korea all the time again and again no matter what his latest crime. We negotiate whether publicly or privately with all kinds of despot and henchmen and murders and lunatics. We also have get this have no problem negotiating with the Taliban in
Afghanistan who are murdering American soldiers. That’s right the Taliban. The ONLY group absolutely off limits is Hamas. Isn’t that interesting. They are amateurs compared to some of the others on the list of most reviled. Yet only Hamas is off limits.
Yes rather than the charade, President Obama is a participant in – like the guests on Charlie Rose, like Bret Stephens, Obama would need to focus his attention on paying attention to Hamas and using both carrots and sticks and world pressure to get Hamas to agree to the legitimacy of Israel yes even specifically as a Jewish State since that is a new bar that has been raised.
That would be leadership on President Obama’s part. If he was successful then there would finally be the kind of pressure that would make avoiding a real and fair peace treaty very difficult. But rather Israel has used its power to prevent anyone approaching Hamas on any grounds including aides to the President of the United States. Without literally being labeled a terrorist themselves for doing so.
That is where Obama needed to call Netanyahu’s bluff on this matter not on some nonexistent disagreement about the 1967 borders. It isn’t going to happen. President Obama does not have the courage to do so. Obama remains a weak President even with bin Laden dead on his orders. And Israel has no interest – they have already won.
Too bad Netanyahu and others are deluding themselves. This will go on forever. Then again they keep proving it can. And President Obama lets them.
Arthur Piccolo is a professional writer and commentator and often writes about Latin America for New Americas.
