President Obama's Jerusalem speech – A speech we can work with

I have to admit, I had my concerns prior to President Barak Obama speech of March 23^rd 2013 in Jerusalem. Ben Rhods interview to the Israeli press was really frightening; even now I shiver slightly when I think of it. But after listening and reading President Obamabrilliantly planed speech, I am allowing myself a wider degree of optimism. The reason is simple, President Obama did everything he could to encourage the possibility of peace. And that puts the peace process in a far better place.

When it comes to advancing a peace process first thing, create a desirable image of peace. Describing Israel's success in the civilian eras of agriculture and high-tech, with the opportunities for social and economic prosperity, serve that purpose. Second, acknowledge the risks involved, it adds credibility, making the idea of peace look less like a dream and more down – to – earth; especially when acknowledging that there are threats to peace at the other side. Threats such as: terrorism, hatred produced by years of propaganda and incitement, and the very idea of rejecting Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

"Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with anyone who is dedicated to its destruction." A line of truth aimed at non-other than the hard core left. For years Israelis have been hearing "you don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies." Israel implemented that logic with the Mubarak regime. For a while it worked. Egypt wanted the Sinai back and that was more important to them than the objection to Israel's existence. But the objection remind, manifesting in the form of incitement encouraged by the Mubarak regime and by opposition forces. As a result, all segments of Egyptian society are now hostile to Israel. And that is undermining the peace treaty. Today, minimal diplomatic exchangesare viewed as scandalous. There is a very simple universal truth behind this situation. Problems do not go away just because we ignore them. For decades critics of the settlements policy did just that. Constantly ignoring the incitement against Israel's right to exist; incitement that prevails throughout the Arab world, and does not stop with Israel. As a result they lost their credibility in the eyes of the Israeli public, and rightfully so.

Third step: security, security, security. Security means that the lives of each and every member of the audience and every Israeli out there are important.

But before all of that President Obama had to create a platform of trust in order to connect between him and the Israeli public. Reaffirming Israel's history, identity, connection to the land and the right of the Jews for self-determination, all did that. Humor and charisma helped too, a lot. To the annalists this trust is about getting the Israeli public to pressure the Israeli leadership. But trust is required for something far more important than this myopia. Trust is what keeps a peace process moving. Getting the leaders to act is only secondary to creating a trust between Israelis and Palestinians. The media, not surprisingly, ignored that, Obama did not, and that is for his credit. The story about Palestinian youth that want to get a lone just like Israelis do meant to do just that. Give Israelis a human face of the enemy. Was it naive as the right wing claim? Absolutely! One does not have to be a right wing to know that. Yet, it is essential, because peace is about getting each side to see the other as human beings! Whatever our political convictions may be, only those of us that are trying to find humanity in the other side want peace.

What was lost by all the annalists and commentators, left and right, is that all the merits of Israel listed by the president simply describe Jews as human being. As people that all they want is "the ability to make their own decisions and to get an education, get a good job; to worship God in their own way; to get married; to raise a family." And like all nations have the right for self-determination.

Not surprisingly a single voice of outrage came from the Arab world. As far as that outrage was concerned, getting Israeli Jews to see Palestinian as human being is insignificant. It is more important to deny that from Jews. The logic behind that outrage is very simple. If you deny one group the right to be human beings, the right to exist, why would you want them to acknowledge the humanity of your own group?

And yes, this proves the naivety in the president's request. Loudly!

But don't let that loudness hush what comes next:

 

       "One of the great ironies of what’s happening in the broader region is that so much of what people are yearning for -- education, entrepreneurship, the ability to start a business without paying a bribe, the ability to connect to the global economy -- those are things that can be found here in Israel. This should be a hub for thriving regional trade, and an engine for opportunity."

There is a message here to the Arab world. A message to that outrage, "You need Israel." Only those familiar with the frustrations involved when trying to improve the standard of living in the Arab world will know that. And there is nothing naïve about that. For obvious reasons Israelis are not familiar with this experience. This is criticism of the Arab world and it is long overdue. It is a call for the Arab world to make an outreach to Israel. And that is new.

Peace requires an effort by both sides. That effort requires a will. Will cannot be imposed, but it can be encouraged. That is the role of the international community. The job of the USA is to make sure the international community remains in that role and not become another battlefield between the two sides. When the USA gives reasons for both sides to want peace, security for Israel, and prosperity for the Arab World, it does both things. Encourages the formation of a will in both sides and maintains the integrity of the international community. Standing beside Israel blocks attempts to score points against Israel in that battlefield. Therefore, the framework in which a peace process can take place is there. But a framework is barely a corner stone. The Israeli applause to the president speech showed that on the Israeli side the will exist. If there is a will on the Arab side, the outrage that came from there hides it well.

This summation does not sound very optimistic, but before that there wasn't even a framework. And in a process that has been a major source of frustrations, even the possibility of hope is a progress worthy of our blessing. The only cloud is the apology to Erdogan. Being a possessor of fascist characteristics he will only use it for his advantage and not for the benefit of the region. The way he and his foreign minister, Davutoglu, have been bragging about this suggests they are planning another Mavi Marmara. And that will only increase the tensions that already exist.

Obama's visit to Israel, a disaster to come?

By the time this will be posted on my blog president Barak Obama will be in Israel, or just about to. His long awaited, not so long awaited, necessary, not necessary visit will finally take place.

If you follow all the discussions in media, from MSNBC to Fox, the visit is not about advancing the peace process. It is about winning over the Israeli public. As Jeffrey Goldberg puts it: "Crack the Israeli code".

Why is that important?

Popularity never hearts in politics, and without the backing of a popular figure the peace process cannot gain popular support. So it is about the peace process. It is just that other US presidents did not need to do that. They always enjoyed a strong popularity among the Israeli public; especially George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Obama on the other hand has the lowest popularity figures any serving US president ever had. Therefore, if he wants to push the peace process forwards, he need to increase his popularity among Israelis.

It is a separated discussion as to why his popularity so low. The more urgent question is, is it doable?

Yes, it is doable. Israelis like liking American presidents.

That does not mean it is going to happen. Judging from the remarks Deputy National Ssecurity advisor Ben Rhods gave to the Israeli press corps, optimism has little to hold on to.

All the damage is in this quote:

Presidant Brack Obama (right), and Deputy National Ssecurity advisor Ben Rhods (left).

"The US believes that Israel must show it is serious about its peace efforts. It must convince the general Arab public, if nothing more to maintain Israel's peace treaty with Egypt."

This statement is wrong on several levels. First it is patronizing. Friendly atmosphere cannot start with telling people they must behave themselves. Even if the patronizing is correct. The problem with this patronization is that it is neither. It is not correct it and it is not incorrect. Each side has its own ideas as to what is serious about peace and what is not serious about peace. In a peace process the peace broker is not suppose to give the two parties another reason to bicker.

And it gets worse, because the way Ben Rhods phrased his advice he already took a side in a dispute that has not happened yet!

He took the side of Egypt. This alienates Israelis because from their point of view they have already made a series of territorial concessions, with security risks attached. Some may not consider these concessions serious since the settlements continue to expand. Right or wrong this is precisely the kind of a debate a peace broker hopes to avoid.

But in peace making debates like this are nothing more than headaches. Now, these headaches are not fun, to say the least. Ask James Baker III; ask Madeleine Albright; ask Henry Kissinger. But broken peace accords are worse.

Right now Egypt is ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a popular political party that opposed the peace process vehemently. It is reality and American pressure that prevents them from breaking it. Since Ben Rhods took Egypt's side, he gave them a way out of the peace accords. With each side having its own ideas as to what 'serious about peace' is, all the Egyptian leadership has to do is to use Ben Rhods remarks as a go ahead is to constantly claim Israel is not serious about peace, back it up with mass street demonstration, which they can arrange easily. Until finally they have an excuse to break the Camp David Peace Accords. Needless to say, the Camp David Peace Accords are one the most important achievements of American foreign policy. Something both Democratic and Republican administrations worked hard to achieve and maintain.

None of these had happened yet, thankfully. All that is needed is for the most powerful man on earth to express this logic publicly. The impression from the discussions in the Israeli media is that is not going to happen. Let hope these impressions are correct since Ben Rhods is the one writing the president's speeches for president Barak Obama visit to Israel.

Arab Spring anyone?

So far, since this so-called Arab Spring had begun only about one person it can be said that his life has changed from winter to spring.

Gilad Shalit at Nokia sport’s stadium in Tel-Aviv 

As for the Arab Spring itself – more and more it looks like a fall. Not a fall in the sense of autumn, but in a sense of fall, decline and collapse. The deterioration of the Arab states that so tragically categorized them in the 20^th century, simply intensified. And now entire societies are disintegrating.

Syria 2016 – An approximate map

An eyesore and a headache to come – soon

Syria is disintegrating. No news in that statement.

Like a clay vase cracking, we hear the cracks, but cannot see them, yet. Not all of them anyways. But just like Yemen, soon the body will collapse. Unlike Yemen there will be those that will pick up the pieces and try to hold the Syrian vase together.      

These are international and regional forces that are already been drawn into a mess no one is able to control or contain.

The above map is an assessment how Syria will look in the future, probably in the year 2016.

The main participants will be Iran and Turkey. Iran is heavily invested in Syria, and Turkey cannot afford an unstable border.

The Iranians have allies in and around Syria:

The currently ruling Alawites, with a center of power in the Nusariah mountains in the northwest near the Mediterranean.

Hezbollah - the terror organization that rules southern Lebanon.

And the Shia governed Iraq, on Syria’s long eastern border.

They are all useful as proxies that will hold onto Iranian interests in that country and in the region. And may even be able to expand Iranian influence within Syria.

Turkey may have eyes towards regional hegemony or leadership, but in broken clay Syria it will settle for her immediate security concerns. Concerns limited to the northern part of the country. In civilian communities it will be the protector and backer of political forces friendly to Ankara. Closer to the border and near the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq, it will deploy its military. This is for the obvious reasons of preventing attacks and infiltrations from the Kurdish PKK, Al – Qaeada, and other Islamist terror groups.

This division will be the outcome of a brief but brutal Shia vs. Sunni war within Syria. A conflict that may have already begun and over time will resemble a similar conflict that took place in Iraq after the American invasion.

In this division Turkey is already the de facto leader of the Sunni Arab dominated Syrian opposition. This is because this opposition has no unified leadership. And it needs Turkey to represents their interest in front of the outside world and settle their internal disputes.

But Turkey will not be able to rule its portion of Syria along. It will need the Arab League support as a seal of approval. And the Arab League will need presence on the ground to show that there is content, Arab content, to its statements and resolutions. Therefore they will be in charge on the majority of the Sunni Arab section of Syria. Most of it is the area between Damascus and Aleppo. The official control will be that of the Syrian state. But it will be a fragile control, a mostly nominal one. And the representatives of the Arab League will be constantly trying to strengthen it in order to keep it out of reach of Islamist terror organizations and criminal elements. These organizations are already there. Taking their share of Syria. The areas they’ll hold on to will most likely be the buffer zones between everybody else.

It is true that there is no one that is more ill suited to do this than the Arab League. But there is no one else. NATO is out of the question. Russia and China will never agree to it. Neither will the Arab world that sees NATO as ally of Israel. And NATO itself had enough in Afghanistan and Libya. The UN is less unlikely, but at the same time not very likely. Syria under the UN supervision is no longer a Syria that confronts Israel. Keeping the image, and position, of Syria as a major Arab opponent of Israel, on Israel’s border, will be the main reason for the Arab league to step in.

Russia is invested in Syria far longer than Iran. When Syria is in chaos they will need presence on the ground to secure their investment. There is also Russia’s agelong interest in keeping the waterways of the Black Sea open. Which always required presences in the Mediterranean. Both concerns will require at minimum, presence along the Syrian coastline. Not all of it, just in a portion that secures a port for a battleship or two. The West will have to agree because it’s either that or pirates.

The United State has its own concerns. Protecting the oil rich Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq, and safeguarding the stability of the Kingdom of Jordan. Both are long time allies of the United States of America. Both are under threat from Sunni extremists and Iranian expansionism. The open question is how and how far will the United States go to protect them. Kurdistan is a part of Iraq and the United States had left Iraq. But did America abandon the Kurds in the process?

And how much will they leave for the Saudis when it comes to protecting Jordan from fundamentalists’ infiltrations from southern Syria?

Lebanon is already caught in a vise between Sunni extremists and Iranian expansionism. Traditionally it is a French zone of interest. The braek up of Syria will offer France new possibilities to protect those interests, as well as new threats. If France gets the co-operation of the EU its involvement can be more effective. Both France and the EU are not great fans of large-scale interventions. This means a mostly civilian presence in a small portion of Syria near the part of Lebanon that is not under Iranian influence. The need to provide security for that presence will increase its military aspect. But the success of the EU involvement will be determined by what will happen in Lebanon.

China will also be involved. Wherever Russia will be so will China. This will be a continuation of the co-operation they have today over the Syrian crisis.

The big unknowns are in the southwestern part of Syria. It contains the Israeli border, the Druze enclave of the Hauran (Horan) Mountains, and the bulk of the Syrian army, stationed in the Golan Heights. Israel will be in a tough dilemma. On one hand Israel does not want to be drawn into a sectarian conflict that will be worse than what she had experienced in Lebanon in the 1980’s. On the other hand allowing the Syrian border to be under Iranian control is unacceptable. Israel already has a border with Iran. (Through Hezbollah Iran already controls Lebanon’s border with Israel). To prevent that Israel may go to war. This will be a war to prevent a war under worse conditions. It is obvious that the United States and the EU do not want to see this border become volatile. And not just out of concern for the security of Israel. It is possible that Russia and China share similar interests in maintaining regional stability, though not necessarily at the same level of urgency. Since Iran needs their protection over the nuclear issue, they may pressure Iran out of that area. Since the UN is already there, (see UNDOF), its role may expand until a more agreeable and effective arrangement is reached.

There is virtually no information about the Druze minority in Syria. Even though the turmoil begun on their doorstep, in Daraa. Like most of the non-Sunni Arab minorities, they are a part of the regime’s ring of support. How that support manifests in the current crisis is unknown. As do the views and mindset of the people that make up the Druze of Mt. Hauran. Not to mention those of other minorities. This makes prediction impossible. But as the situation remains unsolvable, Syria’s minorities may opt to migrate, abandon Syria completely. The Druze may have an extra encouragement to do due to Syria’s growing water crisis.

The most dangerous unknown is the Syrian army in the Golan Heights, which is the bulk of its armed forces. Where its loyalty lies in this internal conflict? What is the situation of its current weaponry and ammunition? Again, no information is available to make predictions. It is possible that the soldiers and commanders hate the regime. But their commitment to the struggle against Israel overrides their emotions.

By 2016 those questions and others will be answered. Till then the approximate map will have to settle for question marks.

The final note is a note of hope. Damascus and Aleppo are Syria’s only hope for a better future in the long run, beyond 2016, beyond 2020. These two ancient cities were always centers of international trade. If they’ll be given effective protection and administration, they can reclaim that function. If abandoned, and allowed to became Mogadishus, Syria will be replaced by smaller political entities, mirroring the 2016 situation. In this scenario Syria will be a swamp of endless localized conflicts, and a safe heaven for terrorist and criminals. A destabilizing territory, regionally and internationally.

p.s. This map can be the reality in 2014.