The Obama-Netanyahu Showdown

[bemildred]

---

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the veteran strategist and hardliner -- who was Jimmy Carter's national security adviser -- told a conference yesterday that in the history of US peacemaking in the Middle East, the United States has never once spelled out its own vision for what a two-state solution would look like. That, said Brzezinski, is exactly what President Obama needs to do. And fast.

Brzezinski was speaking at a conference on US-Saudi relations sponsored by the New America Foundation and Saudi Arabia's Committee on International Trade. Brzezinksi, who advised Obama early in the presidential campaign, was exiled from Obamaland after his less-than-devout support for Israel made him a liability.

"The United States has to spell out the minimum parameters of peace," said Zbig. Perhaps in deference to the conference's Saudi sponsors, Brzezinski said that there is an "urgent need for a US-Saudi alliance for peace in the Middle East." Others speakers on a star-studded opening panel were Chuck Hagel, the former Republican senator from Nebraska and Prince Turki al-Faisal, who served for decades as the head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence service.

Turki, who also served as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, warned Obama to preempt Netanyahu, who intends to tell the president that there can't be progress in the Israel-Palestine conflict until the United States solves the problem of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons to Israel's satisfaction. Obama, said Turki, should tell the Israeli leader: "Mr. Netanyahu, you have to listen to me first." Rita Hauser, the veteran conservative strategist on the panel, agreed: "Netanyahu has to learn very quickly that the president means business."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20090428/cm_thenation/1096430729

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. Netanyahu has one massive advantage:

He has massive support both in his government and in the electorate for his rejection of making concessions to the Palestinians in the cause of peace - right now, most Israelis' definition of a far-left dove is Ehud Barak, reducing the rate at which settlements expand is considered a massive concession, and anyone who supports removing even some of them is considered little better than a traitor (or just a traitor plain and simple).

Obama has to contend with extremely strong "pro-Israel" (which is to say, anti-concessions) contingents both in the Senate and Congress and among voters, which may tie his hands.

[Fozzledick]

2. How can anyone take Brzezinski seriously after the way he messed up Afghanistan?

This is the genius who had the brilliant idea to arm and fund the Taliban and send them into Afghanistan to destabilize the Soviet-backed government just to make trouble for the Soviet Union.
So Afghanistan is still unstable and the troubles are now ours.

[bemildred]

3. Well, yeah, he wouldn't be my pick.

Sort of a junior Kissinger. But he could be a useful tool. Obama could use him to threaten Netanyahu with.

[Fozzledick]

4. How about putting him in a steel cage match with Lieberman?

:evilgrin:

[bemildred]

5. Now yer talking, loincloths and swords.

:popcorn:

[oberliner]

7. I think that would be a push

And dismal ratings to boot.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. the Taliban wasn't founded until 1994 well after the Soviet defeat and long after Brzezinski's

time in office which of course ended in January 1981 - thirteen years before " 2,000 Pathan Sunni Muslim theology students based in madrassas (religious schools) near the Pakistan border" formed the Taliban. " The force pledged to end the internecine conflict between the divergent Mujahedin elements that had continued after the overthrow of communist leader Najibullah Ahmadzai in April 1992."

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Taliban

The Afghan forces which U.S. intelligence under Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr. backed pretty much included anyone opposed to the Soviets. No doubt some of them went on years later to become Taliban and others went on to become the Northern Alliance or many other groups - anyone who had been committed to ridding Afghanistan of Soviet dominance.

Whether or not the U.S. should have pursed that policy is another issue. But that policy was very much rooted in the bipartisan cold war consensus of the time. No doubt this policy in Afghanistan which Mr.Brzezinski championed and the Reagan Administration expanded was an important contributing factor to the defeat of global Soviet power. If one thinks that ending Soviet power as a global influence was a good thing - they would have to agree that Mr. Brzezinski made a wise decisions to confront Soviet power in Afghanistan. If they think ending Soviet power was a bad thing - they would be inclined to say Mr. Brezinski was wrong. If they are uncertain or feel that the jury is still out on that question - then they would tend to have a mixed and nuanced opinion about Mr. Brezinski's decision to confront Soviet power in Afghanistan.

I would have to say that the American support for the many anti-Soviet and anti-Communist elements in Afghanistan is certainly another object lesson in how one conflict leads to another. Many if not most of the conflicts of today have roots in the 1914-1917 Great War "the war to end all wars".

[shaayecanaan]

8. it worked well enough...

the Soviet Union suffered its Vietnam. Afghanistan is neither here nor there. Even if carpet Afghanistan with garrisons, there are plenty of other hiding places in Central Asia with no effective government control if you are seeking a safe haven from somebody.

The entire American involvement in Afghanistan is an idiocy. There was never a functional state in Afghanistan and unless the Americans are prepared to stay fifty years and sped upwards of several trillion dollars there never will be. Like the Israelis in Lebanon, the US will stay there, even for twenty years or more, dying occasionally, until it decides one day it has corpses enough and goes home.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Those gleefully anticipating a spat between Bibi and Obama will be sorely disappointed

"No Drama" Obama doesn't strike as the sort of person that will lose sight of the strategic goals of the United States on account of some differences with another head of state.

If we truly want the peace process to get restarted, we are going to have to work with all the parties in the I/P conflict. This includes the dynamic duo of Bibi and Yvette. May I also remind our fellow DUers that the much maligned Avigdor "Yvette" Lieberman supports a 2-state solution, unlike the Likud.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. Lieberman may in theory support a two-state solution, but rejects

any compromises or concessions as a matter of principle to achieve it. He absolutely opposes any and all compromises on Jerusalem and almost all compromises on settlements. He advocates nothing short of the total military destruction of Hamas. He completely opposes anything that could even be remotely called a viable, sovereign, contiguous and independent state.

The strategic goals of the United States would require the Obama Administration to distance itself from the Netanyahu government. Whether or not he does that is another matter; he might - he might not.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Likud is opposed to giving up any land at all

Both Labour and Likud governments have built settlements as part of a payoff to their coalition partners.