Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Dec 29 2008
Obama and Israel
by Ali H. Aslan
Israel's bloody operation into Gaza forced everyone who wanted to
enter the new year with hope despite the economic crisis to face the
painful realities of the world. Eyes are now on president-elect Barack
Obama,who has inspired hope not only in the United States but among
large global masses, including the Islamic world.
There is curiosity about how Obama will manage the first big hot
crisis he will have to face after taking over from President Bush on
20 January.
Before discussing this topic as much as my breath permits, I would
like to remind everyone that the "Middle East problem" has thus far
embarrassed, even disgraced, numerous renowned US presidents. The
latest example is George W. Bush, who is not having such a glorious
finale.
What happened to the peace process Bush initiated in Annapolis in
November 2007? Having long lost hope on this process, the Bush
administration prayed, in words and deeds, that no major breakdowns
would occur or at least the status quo would be maintained until the
new administration took office. Its prayers in deeds included advice
to the Israeli government not to launch any major operations into
Gaza. Last month, the Bush administration enlisted the help of King
Abdullah of Jordan to bring an end to Hamas's rocket attacks, which
could provide (unfortunately it already has) a pretext for an Israeli
operation into Gaza.
Hamas leaders promised King Abdullah that they would stop the rocket
attacks, but the king could not obtain any guarantees from Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister Ehud Barak that no
military operations would be launched. The results are now
obvious. Once again, an attempt to kill off the lice has resulted in
the burning of the quilt in the Middle East. (God knows) the latest
shoes thrown at Bush came from Israel, which he defended like the
apple his eye throughout his eight-year tenure. He will now go down in
history as the president who handed over wrecks not only in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Iran but also the on Arab-Israeli front.
Bill Clinton was one US president who got his mouth burned by the hot
milk of the Middle East. Many people from his administration, chiefly
his wife, have been and are being appointed to influential positions
in the incoming Obama administration. Israel's timing in launching
this extremely provocative move - which may seriously hobble the peace
processes in which Turkey is a participant in some respects - provides
some clues about how it views the new administration that will take
office soon.
The Obama team may have told Israel surreptitiously: "If you have to
attack, do it before we take office so that we will not be in a
difficult position." Israel may have timed its attack to occur in the
last days of the Bush administration so that it would not have to
confront the Obama administration from its first days in
office. Alternately, Israel may have wanted to take advantage of the
vacuum in the transition period because it cannot tell or trust the
posture the Obama administration may take. "All of the above" is
another possibility.
Obama has refused to break with the tradition of not commenting on
foreign policy issues when a president is still in
office. Consequently, we do not know how different his approach is or
will be from the statements of Bush spokespersons who have blamed the
events solely on the Palestinian side. In truth, what Obama has said
on the Israeli-Palestinian issue until now is not that much different
from the policies of the Bush administration.
Addressing a political forum organized by AIPAC [American-Israeli
Political Action Committee], a huge pro-Israel lobbying group, in
Chicago on 2 March 2007, Obama said that the "starting point" of his
peace efforts would be "an open and strong commitment to Israel's
security." He said: "If Israel is attacked, we must stand up for its
right of self-defence." He added: "In the final analysis, we know that
we (that is the United States) must not dictate to Israelis what is
best for them or their security interests." This may be interpreted as
a sign that Israel will be given a free rein during the Obama period
also.
Obama delivered another speech that went down very well with
pro-Israel hawks at the AIPAC conference in Washington on 4 June 2008,
when the election campaign was gathering steam. Dennis Ross, a
Jewish-American who wrote Obama's speech for that day, is today
mentioned as a candidate for the position of Obama's special
representative to Iran. Daniel Kurtzer, another Jewish-American, is
said to be a candidate for the position of Obama's special
representative for the Arab-Israeli problem. Let us also recall that
Rahm Emanuel, an AIPAC favourite, was picked as Obama's White House
chief of staff, a position of maximum proximity to the president.
When Obama first visited Israel in January 2006, he was taken to a
settlement that had been the target of Hezbollah rockets fired from
just inside Lebanon across from Israel's border with that
country. Commenting on that issue last July, he said: "If someone is
firing rockets on my house where my two daughters are sleeping, I
would do everything in my power to stop it. I would expect the
Israelis to do the same."
As is evident, sympathy for Israel runs very high in Washington. It
takes a lot of courage, even for a president, to criticize Israel,
which is very well liked in the United States. In contrast, in Turkish
politics, an important requirement of showing one's bravery is to
criticize Israel - especially recently. Turkish foreign policy has
traditionally been more sympathetic to Palestinians. Consequently, we
must not be surprised that Washington has been cool to Turkey's
mediation efforts in the Middle East - although it has not said so
openly - and that Olmert did not disclose to the Turkish side - which
has successfully led the indirect peace talks between Israel and Syria
until now - his plans about Gaza during his visit to Ankara only last
Monday.
In the meantime, Prime Minister Erdogan has forgotten his role of an
arbiter and upset the Israeli lobby and the [Jewish-American]
community with his unilateral and excessively sharp
statements. Incidentally, this has created a great opportunity for
those who would want to take advantage of the transition period vacuum
in Washington like Israel and pass an Armenian resolution through
Congress in the confusion.
[translated from Turkish]
Dec 29 2008
Obama and Israel
by Ali H. Aslan
Israel's bloody operation into Gaza forced everyone who wanted to
enter the new year with hope despite the economic crisis to face the
painful realities of the world. Eyes are now on president-elect Barack
Obama,who has inspired hope not only in the United States but among
large global masses, including the Islamic world.
There is curiosity about how Obama will manage the first big hot
crisis he will have to face after taking over from President Bush on
20 January.
Before discussing this topic as much as my breath permits, I would
like to remind everyone that the "Middle East problem" has thus far
embarrassed, even disgraced, numerous renowned US presidents. The
latest example is George W. Bush, who is not having such a glorious
finale.
What happened to the peace process Bush initiated in Annapolis in
November 2007? Having long lost hope on this process, the Bush
administration prayed, in words and deeds, that no major breakdowns
would occur or at least the status quo would be maintained until the
new administration took office. Its prayers in deeds included advice
to the Israeli government not to launch any major operations into
Gaza. Last month, the Bush administration enlisted the help of King
Abdullah of Jordan to bring an end to Hamas's rocket attacks, which
could provide (unfortunately it already has) a pretext for an Israeli
operation into Gaza.
Hamas leaders promised King Abdullah that they would stop the rocket
attacks, but the king could not obtain any guarantees from Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister Ehud Barak that no
military operations would be launched. The results are now
obvious. Once again, an attempt to kill off the lice has resulted in
the burning of the quilt in the Middle East. (God knows) the latest
shoes thrown at Bush came from Israel, which he defended like the
apple his eye throughout his eight-year tenure. He will now go down in
history as the president who handed over wrecks not only in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Iran but also the on Arab-Israeli front.
Bill Clinton was one US president who got his mouth burned by the hot
milk of the Middle East. Many people from his administration, chiefly
his wife, have been and are being appointed to influential positions
in the incoming Obama administration. Israel's timing in launching
this extremely provocative move - which may seriously hobble the peace
processes in which Turkey is a participant in some respects - provides
some clues about how it views the new administration that will take
office soon.
The Obama team may have told Israel surreptitiously: "If you have to
attack, do it before we take office so that we will not be in a
difficult position." Israel may have timed its attack to occur in the
last days of the Bush administration so that it would not have to
confront the Obama administration from its first days in
office. Alternately, Israel may have wanted to take advantage of the
vacuum in the transition period because it cannot tell or trust the
posture the Obama administration may take. "All of the above" is
another possibility.
Obama has refused to break with the tradition of not commenting on
foreign policy issues when a president is still in
office. Consequently, we do not know how different his approach is or
will be from the statements of Bush spokespersons who have blamed the
events solely on the Palestinian side. In truth, what Obama has said
on the Israeli-Palestinian issue until now is not that much different
from the policies of the Bush administration.
Addressing a political forum organized by AIPAC [American-Israeli
Political Action Committee], a huge pro-Israel lobbying group, in
Chicago on 2 March 2007, Obama said that the "starting point" of his
peace efforts would be "an open and strong commitment to Israel's
security." He said: "If Israel is attacked, we must stand up for its
right of self-defence." He added: "In the final analysis, we know that
we (that is the United States) must not dictate to Israelis what is
best for them or their security interests." This may be interpreted as
a sign that Israel will be given a free rein during the Obama period
also.
Obama delivered another speech that went down very well with
pro-Israel hawks at the AIPAC conference in Washington on 4 June 2008,
when the election campaign was gathering steam. Dennis Ross, a
Jewish-American who wrote Obama's speech for that day, is today
mentioned as a candidate for the position of Obama's special
representative to Iran. Daniel Kurtzer, another Jewish-American, is
said to be a candidate for the position of Obama's special
representative for the Arab-Israeli problem. Let us also recall that
Rahm Emanuel, an AIPAC favourite, was picked as Obama's White House
chief of staff, a position of maximum proximity to the president.
When Obama first visited Israel in January 2006, he was taken to a
settlement that had been the target of Hezbollah rockets fired from
just inside Lebanon across from Israel's border with that
country. Commenting on that issue last July, he said: "If someone is
firing rockets on my house where my two daughters are sleeping, I
would do everything in my power to stop it. I would expect the
Israelis to do the same."
As is evident, sympathy for Israel runs very high in Washington. It
takes a lot of courage, even for a president, to criticize Israel,
which is very well liked in the United States. In contrast, in Turkish
politics, an important requirement of showing one's bravery is to
criticize Israel - especially recently. Turkish foreign policy has
traditionally been more sympathetic to Palestinians. Consequently, we
must not be surprised that Washington has been cool to Turkey's
mediation efforts in the Middle East - although it has not said so
openly - and that Olmert did not disclose to the Turkish side - which
has successfully led the indirect peace talks between Israel and Syria
until now - his plans about Gaza during his visit to Ankara only last
Monday.
In the meantime, Prime Minister Erdogan has forgotten his role of an
arbiter and upset the Israeli lobby and the [Jewish-American]
community with his unilateral and excessively sharp
statements. Incidentally, this has created a great opportunity for
those who would want to take advantage of the transition period vacuum
in Washington like Israel and pass an Armenian resolution through
Congress in the confusion.
[translated from Turkish]