Israel Matzav: Obama isn't Sadat and Israel isn't making peace with America

Obama isn't Sadat and Israel isn't making peace with America

In Sunday's Washington Post, there is a call for President Obama to make 'a bold Mideast trip.' The call is made by what appears to be (but is not as we shall see later) an odd couple: Zbigniew Brzezinski and Stephen Solarz.

More than three decades ago, Israeli statesman Moshe Dayan, speaking about an Egyptian town that controlled Israel's only outlet to the Red Sea, declared that he would rather have Sharm el-Sheikh without peace than peace without Sharm el-Sheikh. Had his views prevailed, Israel and Egypt would still be in a state of war. Today, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, with his pronouncements about the eternal and undivided capital of Israel, is conveying an updated version of Dayan's credo -- that he would rather have all of Jerusalem without peace than peace without all of Jerusalem.

The comparison is outrageous. Sharm el-Sheikh may have had strategic importance, but there was no Jewish connection to it. Jerusalem is our capital - the city that has been the focus of our prayers for 3,000 years. To compare Sharm el-Sheikh to Jerusalem is outrageous, especially for a Jew (which Solarz is).

This is unfortunate, because a comprehensive peace agreement is in the interest of all parties. It is in the U.S. national interest because the occupation of the West Bank and the enforced isolation of the Gaza Strip increases Muslim resentment toward the United States, making it harder for the Obama administration to pursue its diplomatic and military objectives in the region.

The attempt to link Iran to the 'Palestinians' is outrageous. Iran isn't just an Israeli issue, and in fact, many Arab countries may be so disgusted with America's lack of leadership on the issue that they prefer that Israel attack Iran.

Peace is in the interest of Israel; its own defense minister, Ehud Barak, recently said that the absence of a two-state solution is the greatest threat to Israel's future, greater even than an Iranian bomb.

I don't agree with Barak, but if you ask Barak, I would bet that he will tell you that a 'Palestinian state' that reaches the 1949 armistice line would be an even greater danger to Israel than the lack of a 'two-state solution.'

And an agreement is in the interest of the Palestinians, who deserve to live in peace and with the dignity of statehood.

Funny, the 'Palestinians' don't seem to see it that way either. They turned down an offer that was far more generous than anything to which the Netanyahu government is likely to agree.

However, a routine unveiling of a U.S. peace proposal, as is reportedly under consideration, will not suffice. Only a bold and dramatic gesture in a historically significant setting can generate the political and psychological momentum needed for a major breakthrough. Anwar Sadat's courageous journey to Jerusalem three decades ago accomplished just that, paving the way for the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt.

Similarly, President Obama should travel to the Knesset in Jerusalem and the Palestinian Legislative Council in Ramallah to call upon both sides to negotiate a final status agreement based on a specific framework for peace. He should do so in the company of Arab leaders and members of the Quartet, the diplomatic grouping of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations that is involved in the peace process. A subsequent speech by Obama in Jerusalem's Old City, addressed to all the people in the region and evocative of his Cairo speech to the Muslim world in June 2009, could be the culminating event in this journey for peace.

The difference between Sadat and Obama is obvious: Sadat was the party with whom we were supposed to make peace. He came and said he wanted to make peace, and then he never made another statement calling for Israel's destruction. Obama is not Sadat. We're not (supposed to be) making peace with Obama. We're supposed to be making peace with Abu Mazen. Would Abu Mazen come to Israel and make an unconditional statement like Sadat made before the Knesset ('no more war, no more bloodshed')? No. Even if Abu Mazen made such a statement, could he force it on his people? No. Would Abu Mazen be willing to pay with his life for making such a statement as Sadat did? No.

The basic outlines of a durable and comprehensive peace plan that Obama could propose are known to all:

Yes, they are 'known to all.' And over the years, Israel has made offer after offer to the 'Palestinians' (which I would not remake) that conceded each and every one of these points (and even did so without the call for US or NATO troops on the 'border' - something I don't believe any American or Israeli wants). And those offers were turned down (by Arafat) or ignored (by Abu Mazen). When do we stop making the same offer over and over again? When do we take 'no' for an answer?

For the Israelis, who are skeptical about the willingness of the Palestinians and Arabs to make peace with them, such a bold initiative by Obama would provide a dramatic demonstration of the prospects for real peace, making it easier for Israel's political leadership to make the necessary compromises.

No, it wouldn't. It would show that Obama is willing to get on a plane and come to Israel. Admittedly, that would be a major step for him, because he would not find adoring crowds here. Most likely, there would be massive demonstrations against him (and yes, I would attend them too). But again, it's not America with which Israel is being asked to make peace. Gestures from Obama are meaningless.

For the Palestinians, it would provide political cover to accept a resolution precluding the return of any appreciable number of refugees to Israel.

Why wasn't Bill Clinton enough cover for that?

For the Arabs, it would legitimize their own diplomatic initiative, embodied in the peace plan put forward by the Arab League eight years ago.

The 'Saudi initiative' includes the exercise of a 'right of return' for all the 'refugees.' What makes you think that the Arab countries will go along with a plan that doesn't include that? What have you done to ensure that Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq won't just push their 'refugees' over the border?

Finally, for Obama himself, such a move would be a diplomatic and political triumph. Bringing Arab leaders and the Quartet with him to Jerusalem and Ramallah to endorse his plan would be seen as a powerful example of leadership in coping with the protracted conflict. Since it is inconceivable that the Israeli government would refuse Obama's offer to bring Arab leaders and the Quartet to its capital, most of the American friends of Israel could be expected to welcome the move as well.

What makes you think the Arabs would agree to come here? And what will those Arab leaders say when a million or more Israelis come out to protest their presence even if our government doesn't have the spine to tell Obama to leave his entourage at home?

Accordingly, the administration must convey to the parties that if the offer is rejected by either or both, the United States will seek the U.N. Security Council's endorsement of this framework for peace, thus generating worldwide pressure on the recalcitrant party.

What if it's both parties?

Fortunately, public opinion polls in Israel have indicated that while most Israelis would like to keep a united Jerusalem, they would rather have peace without all of Jerusalem than a united Jerusalem without peace.

I've never seen polls like that. When did J Street start doing polls here?

Now you all know who Brzezinski is. Stephen Solarz, a former U.S. congressman from New York, is a member of the board of the International Crisis Group. If the name International Crisis Group sounds familiar, it should. The Conflicts Group is part of the International Crisis Group.

Brzezinski is a member of the International Crisis Group, as is Samantha Power. The Chairman Emeritus is George Mitchell and the next Chairlady is Louise Arbour. You can find out more about the group and its funding here. But guess who is really behind it (Hat Tip: Daled Amos):

The International Crisis Group was set up in 1995, and describes itself as an "independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation," which works "through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and resolve deadly conflict." Taking issue with this misleading self-description, Diana Johnstone described the Crisis Group as a "high-level think tank supported by financier George Soros... [devised] primarily to provide policy guidance to governments involved in the NATO-led reshaping of the Balkans."

...

Another key figure working within the International Crisis Group, as part of its Executive Committee, is George Soros. Soros is the behind the scenes financier of numerous "human rights" groups. These groups help to serve a crucial purpose for the elite by confusing the global polity's understanding of the roots of human rights abuses. Most notably they achieve this through the output of the elitist Human Rights Watch. This organization is held in high regard by notables like Abramowitz and Henry Kissinger. Further, Abramowitz has stated that Soros is "the only man in the U.S. who has his own foreign policy -- and can implement it," while Kissinger, whose own democratic track record is somewhat cloudy, "respect[s] and admire[s]" Soros's philanthropic work. (2) Clearly, awareness of the extent of political power that Soros (and his foundations) wields internationally is demonstrated and understood by those he influences; what is concerning about this is that it appears there is little criticism of this anti-democratic influence, and no attempt to prevent the use of financial power to exert influence over and control the direction of humanitarian endeavours has been initiated by world leaders who purport to be the guardians of democracy. Instead of being challenged and criticized for manipulating the democratic process via his funding activities, Soros is actively courted by American Democrats.

In addition to Soros and Abramowitz, three other elite characters played instrumental roles in the creation of the Crisis Group. The first is Stephen Solarz, who serves on the advisory board of the AIPAC-associated think tank the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Solarz is a former board member of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED); his wife, Nina Solarz, runs the Fund for Peace -- a group whose work is intimately related to that of the Endowment. The second person is the American special envoy to the Middle East for the Obama administration, George Mitchell, who in 1988 coauthored a book titled Men of Zeal (with William Cohen), which provided the cover story for illegal mechanisations of the Iran-Contra affair. The last critical Crisis Forum founder is long-time democracy manipulator, Mark Malloch Brown, who recently became the "vice president of the Quantum Fund, a hedge fund run by his billionaire friend George Soros." (3)

Read the whole thing. (And you thought AIPAC was owned by the Likud, didn't you?).

By the way, I did not cite the entire Washington Post article. You can read the whole thing here.

UPDATE 10:55 AM

Daled Amos points out that Obama is mentioned thirteen times in the article and 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen is mentioned zero times. Hmmm.

Israel Matzav: Obama isn't Sadat and Israel isn't making peace with America