Tuesday
Oct062009
Israel-Palestine: The US Mistake on the Goldstone Report
Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 11:58
LATEST Palestine: Pressure on Abbas to Resign in Goldstone Report Furour
Israel-Palestine: More Clashes in Jerusalem
Israel-Palestine Inside Line: Hamas & Syria Criticise Abbas; Israel VP Cancels Britain Trip Over “War Crimes” Fears
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
As EA's Ali Yenidunya updates on the latest fall-out from the deferred UN vote on the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War, Marc Lynch, in his blog for Foreign Policy, raises questions about the Obama Administration's decision to block the report:
I'm still trying to figure out the thinking behind the Obama administration's rapid moves to block the Goldstone report on the Gaza war. Without even getting into the moral issues involved or the accuracy of the report, the most likely tactical considerations behind the administration's decision seem short-sighted. Its move likely responded to the intense public and private Israeli campaign against the report, and probably aimed at winning back some positive relations with the Israelis and maintaining momentum on the peace process.
But if the administration's hope was that killing the report would make the issue quietly go away while winning some political capital with the Israelis, it is likely to be disappointed. Quite the contrary: the report is becoming a major political issue in the Arab world, badly damaging the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority, while Obama seems to be getting little credit from Israeli public opinion or the Israeli government.
Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are already paying a heavy price for succumbing to reported American pressure to drop the report. It isn't just Hamas criticism, though there's plenty of that. This has rapidly become a leading issue in the Palestinian and Arab media, and is shaping up into a profound setback for the already weak PA leadership. Virtually every sector of Palestinian opinion -- from Hamas to Fatah, from Gaza to the West Bank -- has united in harsh criticism of the move. Even Mohammed Dahlan -- Dahlan! -- is positioning himself in opposition, showing where he thinks the political points are to be scored. The Economics Minister in Fayyad's government Bassem al-Khoury reportedly submitted his resignation in protest. Given his key role in pushing the so-called "economic peace" that Israeli and American officials are so keen upon, perhaps that will get more attention than the massive, broad-based criticism across the rest of Palestinian society.
There seems to be little question that Abbas's decision to go along with American pressure will have a significant impact on the popularity and legitimacy of the PA. He is already backpedaling in the face of the intense public backlash, announcing the formation of a committee to look into the "circumstances surrounding the issue" (gee, wonder what he'll find when he investigates his own decision?), but it's probably too late. Whatever gains made by Fatah after its Bethlehem conference and by Fayyad with the announcement of his agenda for a Palestinian state are likely to be washed away in this deluge. The credibility of the Hamas narrative about the PA's collaboration with Israel and unrepresentative nature will be strongly enhanced. And it will not help Salam Fayyad establish authority that he has been fingered by some sources as the person directly responsible for the decision.
Why was the PA leadership put in this untenable situation? The Obama team has consistently identified building Palestinian Authority legitimacy and capacity as a key part of its strategy. Did nobody consider the impact that such an important symbolic issue as the perceived suppression of the Goldstone report would have on this supposedly crucial dimension of the strategy?
At the wider Arab level, the American stance on the Goldstone report has galvanized doubts about the credibility of Obama's outreach to the Muslim world and claims to genuine change. The skeptics who demanded deeds to match words are having a field day. As much as the inability to prevail in the battle over the settlements hurt Obama's credibility with the Arab world, at least he got some credit for trying, for prioritizing the issue and paying some costs to keep at it. But the Goldstone report decision looks to most of the Arab public as a straightforward capitulation to Israel and abdication of any claims to the moral high ground. It will further undermine the Cairo promises, which look ever more distant.
Meanwhile, I have searched in vain for signs that the Israeli public or hawkish commentariat have given the Obama administration any credit for its efforts. Israeli commentators seem to have simply taken the American protection for granted, or grudgingly acknowledged it in passing, without revising their views of Obama. The scornful, dismissive tone of the hawks towards Obama continues, while doves largely ignore it or disagree. If there's been a concerted effort to leverage the decision to improve his standing with the Israeli leadership or public, I haven't seen it.
I can understand the decision to sacrifice the Goldstone inquiry into the Gaza war to tactical or strategic considerations, whether or not I agree with the call. It wouldn't be the first time. But I would hope that such a decision would have seriously anticipated the implications for the legitimacy and efficacy of the Palestinian Authority, for Obama's credibility among Arab and Muslim audiences, or for how to leverage it into real gains with the Israeli public.
Israel-Palestine: More Clashes in Jerusalem
Israel-Palestine Inside Line: Hamas & Syria Criticise Abbas; Israel VP Cancels Britain Trip Over “War Crimes” Fears
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
As EA's Ali Yenidunya updates on the latest fall-out from the deferred UN vote on the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War, Marc Lynch, in his blog for Foreign Policy, raises questions about the Obama Administration's decision to block the report:I'm still trying to figure out the thinking behind the Obama administration's rapid moves to block the Goldstone report on the Gaza war. Without even getting into the moral issues involved or the accuracy of the report, the most likely tactical considerations behind the administration's decision seem short-sighted. Its move likely responded to the intense public and private Israeli campaign against the report, and probably aimed at winning back some positive relations with the Israelis and maintaining momentum on the peace process.
But if the administration's hope was that killing the report would make the issue quietly go away while winning some political capital with the Israelis, it is likely to be disappointed. Quite the contrary: the report is becoming a major political issue in the Arab world, badly damaging the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority, while Obama seems to be getting little credit from Israeli public opinion or the Israeli government.
Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are already paying a heavy price for succumbing to reported American pressure to drop the report. It isn't just Hamas criticism, though there's plenty of that. This has rapidly become a leading issue in the Palestinian and Arab media, and is shaping up into a profound setback for the already weak PA leadership. Virtually every sector of Palestinian opinion -- from Hamas to Fatah, from Gaza to the West Bank -- has united in harsh criticism of the move. Even Mohammed Dahlan -- Dahlan! -- is positioning himself in opposition, showing where he thinks the political points are to be scored. The Economics Minister in Fayyad's government Bassem al-Khoury reportedly submitted his resignation in protest. Given his key role in pushing the so-called "economic peace" that Israeli and American officials are so keen upon, perhaps that will get more attention than the massive, broad-based criticism across the rest of Palestinian society.
There seems to be little question that Abbas's decision to go along with American pressure will have a significant impact on the popularity and legitimacy of the PA. He is already backpedaling in the face of the intense public backlash, announcing the formation of a committee to look into the "circumstances surrounding the issue" (gee, wonder what he'll find when he investigates his own decision?), but it's probably too late. Whatever gains made by Fatah after its Bethlehem conference and by Fayyad with the announcement of his agenda for a Palestinian state are likely to be washed away in this deluge. The credibility of the Hamas narrative about the PA's collaboration with Israel and unrepresentative nature will be strongly enhanced. And it will not help Salam Fayyad establish authority that he has been fingered by some sources as the person directly responsible for the decision.
Why was the PA leadership put in this untenable situation? The Obama team has consistently identified building Palestinian Authority legitimacy and capacity as a key part of its strategy. Did nobody consider the impact that such an important symbolic issue as the perceived suppression of the Goldstone report would have on this supposedly crucial dimension of the strategy?
At the wider Arab level, the American stance on the Goldstone report has galvanized doubts about the credibility of Obama's outreach to the Muslim world and claims to genuine change. The skeptics who demanded deeds to match words are having a field day. As much as the inability to prevail in the battle over the settlements hurt Obama's credibility with the Arab world, at least he got some credit for trying, for prioritizing the issue and paying some costs to keep at it. But the Goldstone report decision looks to most of the Arab public as a straightforward capitulation to Israel and abdication of any claims to the moral high ground. It will further undermine the Cairo promises, which look ever more distant.
Meanwhile, I have searched in vain for signs that the Israeli public or hawkish commentariat have given the Obama administration any credit for its efforts. Israeli commentators seem to have simply taken the American protection for granted, or grudgingly acknowledged it in passing, without revising their views of Obama. The scornful, dismissive tone of the hawks towards Obama continues, while doves largely ignore it or disagree. If there's been a concerted effort to leverage the decision to improve his standing with the Israeli leadership or public, I haven't seen it.
I can understand the decision to sacrifice the Goldstone inquiry into the Gaza war to tactical or strategic considerations, whether or not I agree with the call. It wouldn't be the first time. But I would hope that such a decision would have seriously anticipated the implications for the legitimacy and efficacy of the Palestinian Authority, for Obama's credibility among Arab and Muslim audiences, or for how to leverage it into real gains with the Israeli public.
Reader Comments (10)
On this point I abdicate my role as the house "Obama apologist" and join with the author in asking: WTF?????
I was thrilled with the strong initial statements by President Obama and Secretary Clinton on settlement freezes. This position even had the backing of many Jewish Americans and pro-Israel Congress-folk who have been questioning the Israeli govt's treatment of Palestinians. It's not like the President was bluffing with no cards to play. Our 2 govts are bound up with each other in many arenas: political, military, economic... there are any number of levers to pull.
Much like the health care initiative on the home front, President Obama made a powerful case for his position, but then grew silent as negotiations began. The hands-off approach may have it's merits but it also gives the opposition time to entrench. The Israeli govt, pro-Israeli US lobbies and GOP operatives such as Frank Luntz have combined to push back on the settlement freeze. When Netanyahu flagrantly announced settlement expansions, Obama and Clinton made only the mildest of protests. I expected a full court press in the subsequent round of negotiations, but apparently the admin kept its many guns holstered. Luntz never even needed to unleash his public relations campaign.
And now this... blowing the chance to shift the moral ground, the very underpinnings of the entire peace process. What better opportunity could arise? The Goldman Report is focused on specific instances of abuse. Unlike some past UN resolutions, it's not a grab-bag of generalized grievances. The Report is an official verification of atrocities. It has worldwide UN backing. There is no better time, no clearer reason to make a real change in American relations with all the countries in the entire region.
I reiterate: WTF?????????
(Where's Ali?)
"The Report is an official verification of atrocities."
It is, many times, a simple echo of what the hamasmen said... without evidence.
It is not a report, it is a parody and, most serious, it is a disgrace.
Amy,
Ali is very much alive and well, having just helped me with afternoon seminar. I suspect you'll hear from him quite soon....
S.
Let me start off by saying a two state solution and recognition of Israel as a sovereign nation is needed to end the violence on both sides of the borders, however, it is clear to me that it is undeniable that the levels of action and reaction between the Israeli and Palestinian "forces" in no way are comparable with each other.
Netanyahu does not appear to have heard of the golden rule. While he stands in front of the UN General Assembly and demands respect and reconginition from the world to Israel, he continues to promote the absolute degredation of the Palestinian people. Yes there are talks in the media and Israel is pointing to improved economic conditions in the West Bank. Yes this is a good thing but another smoke screen to move focus from the realities of the Palestianians, specifically in Gaza.
Reports now say that poverty levels in Gaza have tripled since the Israel blockades began (reported on EA yesterday). To the points above, how can Obama ignore this while at the same time extending a hand to the Muslim world? Does he not understand the citizen level politics involved with this? That regardless of Shia or Shiite that all Muslims rally around the Palestinian issue? Does he not understand that, as pointed out above, he is losing all ground he had gained with his speech in Cairo?
The Majlis website has been posting excerpts from the report with commentary. See posting yesterday at this link - http://www.themajlis.org/series/blogging-goldstone. The report is disturbing at the least.
The fact that this report is being pushed under the rug could undermine all recent gains in this process. Abbas has clearly lost a great deal of credibility all the while Hamas is speaking out loudly against this report. So in the end, this is simply helping the more "radical" opposition to the peace effort....can we be surprised? And can we wonder why the Arab world sees the US as not "pro-peace" but really "pro-Israel? The issue of the settlement freeze is just another "carrot and stick" coming from Netanyahu with an ever extending stick. He has no intention of stopping the settlement progress. This is very clear by both his rhetoric and his actions.
So yes Amy..WTF? (Also thank you for your comment yesterday!).
I am sorry for being late folks. I have just read your comments. Well, thank you Prof. for taking Lynch's questions here. To be honest with you, I do share the same opinion that the Obama Administration has missed a great opportunity to let the Netanyahu Government see and feel the stick above. Washigtonnot only has given a negative impression after the Cairo speech to the Muslim world and the impression of being taken as granted to Israelis but also contributed to the biggest obstacle in front of a real peace process: The continuing and deepening division between Hamas and Fatah.
Here we have Fatah and Abbas as the scapegoat who paid the cost of this political choice. I do not belive that the decision of Washington to urge Abbas to defer the vote was a part of a pre-organized and wider politiacl goal. The PA, with no bargaining and sanction power, was/is stuck between the demands of Hamas and Israel. At the end of the day, when it came to the voting at UNHRC, it was more than just a voting for Israelis since it could bring a great pressure of the international community and questions over its 'legitimacy' in the occupied lands. Plus, we should not ignore the fact that it has been gradually pumped by the Israeli media that the international community has been trying deliberately to undermine the State of Israel. (Remember Netanyahu's words when he continuously called the social institutions portraying UN as the ground of anti-Zionist attempts)
In other words, Washington missed a great chance and strengthened the 'legitimacy' of the resistance of the Israeli public...
Great point about the divide between Hamas and Fatah. Can it be said fairly, that by Netanyahu pushing for the delay a decision on the Goldstone report he has underminded his own intent, by this I mean has he given Hamas a very large soapbox to stand on (weakness of the Fatah party and Abbas in confronting Israel and working for the freedom of the Palestinian people) and pushed back a rather conciliatory Fatah party from influence, which is heavily influenced by the Obama administration, and helped to promote a confrontational Hamas party as the "party of the people"?
Also add in the blocking of the al-Asqa mosque by Israeli forces and calls for for confrontation by the PA...are we watching a time bomb ready to explode?
No one can claim that Israeli side is merely craving a powerful PA crowned with the representativeness of the whole Palestinian population by eliminating its rival Hamas before the political conjuncture is set "suitable" to Israeli pre-conditions. However, it does not mean that Israel has no benefit in strengthening the PA through private investment and confirmations for the flow of aid. These are just the two main institutions. Beyond that, as I have mentioned, the international pressure and its possible "destructive" effects were more important for Israel despite the fact that its move did not consolidated the position of the PA vis-a-vis its rival Hamas. So, deliberately or not, the deferral did not take Israel's position to a so far point but did take that of the peace process for the time being.
As for the demonstrations and speculations about a third Intifada, I think it is early to talk about it since no one has played all cards yet... There is still a pressure on both sides but what these provocatiosn and demonstrations may mean is that the background for another uprising is not 'impossible' in case of the explicit failure of talks... Actually this message is the only political argument of Abbas which needs others to play their cards at first...
Truth or is it disinformation?
Sorry I missed the discussion today. Just saw this Al Jazeera report when I got home. Is Shahab news agency Iranian? I tried to find more about Shahab, but didn't get far. The sources are unnamed. If it's true then I retract the second half of my comment above. It seems too horrible and absurd to be true.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/10/2009106184126258933.html" rel="nofollow">Video led to PA stance on Goldstone
And there's more
Hi Amy,
What a shocker if true!
RE Shahab - they're Tehran-based, see reference and link to them in this forum post from last year: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=135043
Unfortunately the link to Shahab here and on other sites says server not found.
The post itself is quite interesting, but has nothing to do with delaying the vote on the Goldman: "Report, 35 Billion Missing From Iranian Coffers".
@ Amy and Catherine
Thank you very much for the report and links... If you get any further piece and let us know, we will be so happy...