By Barry Rubin
HERZLIYA, Israel — Today Syria has entered its biggest internal crisis since 1970. The regime has come out to crush the insurrection. Either it will succeed by killing many people or the insurrection will build into a real potential revolution.
And the Western states are doing…precisely zero.
One Syrian expert friend responded: “Less than zero.”
Here’s White House press secretary Jay Carney on Air Force 1, April 22:
“As we have consistently throughout this period, we deplore the use of violence and we’re very concerned about what we’ve — the reports we’ve seen from Syria. We are monitoring it very closely; call on the Syrian government to cease and desist from the use of violence against peaceful protestors; call on all sides to cease and desist from the use of violence; and also call on the Syrian government to follow through on its promises and take action towards the kind of concrete reform that they promised.”
That’s fair and evenhanded: They are monitoring closely; both sides must cease their violence; and Syria’s dictatorship must end the state of emergency. Sort of sounds like insisting the revolution stop without changing anything.
What happened to: Mubarak must go now! Yesterday! Qadhafi must go or else! Or even condemning Israel at every opportunity that involves even the claim of the mistreatment of one Palestinian?
Oh, right, Bashar al-Assad is just an anti-American dictator who is even now a leading sponsor of terrorism; ally of Iran; host and facilitator for terrorists killing Americans in Iraq; just caught trying to get nuclear weapons secretly; aggressor against Lebanon; torturer of political prisoners; and so on. It isn’t as if he were a real problem for U.S. interests!
Note: After this article was written President Obama issued a tougher statement.
It begins:
“The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the use of force by the Syrian government against demonstrators. This outrageous use of violence to quell protests must come to an end now. We regret the loss of life and our thoughts are with the families and loved ones of the victims, and with the Syrian people in this challenging time.”
It continues saying that Assad has not fulfilled his promises of reform and that the Syrian people are rightfully demanding human rights and ends: “We call on President Assad to change course now, and heed the calls of his own people.”
But once again: Or what are you going to do about it?
Now compare today with what Obama said about Iran two years ago when it was arresting thousands of demonstrators and shooting unarmed protesters:
June 2009: “I would suggest Mr. Ahmadinejad think carefully about the obligations he owes to his own people.”
April 2011: “We call on President Assad to change course now, and heed the calls of his own people.”
Ahmadinejad didn’t think then; Assad won’t change or heed now; Obama didn’t do anything then and won’t do anything now.
The Plan in Libya (in 100 words)
Here’s what’s happening now in Libya:
–Western forces bomb Libyan government forces on various pretexts.
–Give intelligence to rebels.
–Give military advisors to rebels.
–Give rebels arms indirectly.
Goal: Rebels win war with no direct Western intervention on the ground or Western casualties. Dictator Muammar Qadhafi falls; Western intervening states say: All we did was protect civilians and have a no-fly zone! We stuck to the UN resolution.
What happens afterward? Not clear anyone has thought that through.
In a few years critics will skewer this operation as deceptive. One hopes they won’t also be ridiculing a catastrophic outcome.
*
Western Self-Destructiveness: A Small Example Regarding the Arab Media
There are two major Arab satellite television networks.
One of them is al-Jazira, owned by Qatar. Beginning as a radical nationalist station, al-Jazira became several years ago an Islamist station. News is slanted against America and the West; discussion shows turn into lynch mobs against moderates; and–though this is a well-kept secret–al-Jazira helps terrorist target-spotters by letting them pose as staff members to get into certain countries.
A moderate Arabic-speaking friend of mine who was on a show told me that while he expected the network to be only 99 percent antagonistic he was wrong. It was 100 percent hostile. When I was invited on a show, I refused since the other interviewee to discuss Israeli policy in a supposedly serious manner from a supposedy analytical viewpoint was a Jewish member of Fatah who had supported anti-Israel terrorism.
Then there is the number-two network: al-Arabiyya, owned by the United Arab Emirates. Al-Arabiyya isn’t perfect but it is a real moderate network that tries to be more balanced and does not incite anti-Western hatred. It is run by one of the best Arab journalists in the world who has shown himself to be an advocate of democracy and an opponent of revolutionary Islamism and Iranian-Syrian power over the region.
So, which network is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the current U.S. government, and various well-known American media figures promoting as a wonderful, terrific source of accurate news?
Why, al-Jazira, of course!
*
What Will Happen on the “Peace Process,” Why It Will Fail, Why It Will Do Harm
There is confusion on two points regarding the Israel-Palestinian “peace process.”
First, will the Europeans give unilateral recognition to a Palestinian state without any commitments at all to Israel? There are conflicting voices in Britain, France, and elsewhere about what these states intend. The fact that such recognition conflicts with every commitment they have made to Israel for twenty years doesn’t seem to figure in their debates.
Second, is there going to be a U.S. plan for resolving the conflict that will be offered with confident smugness and end up by making things worse? Reportedly, though it might not be true, there are four principles in the projected U.S. plan:
–Israel accepts a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders.
Let’s see, the main highway from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem will be closed and the corridor connecting Jerusalem to the rest of the country reduced to a very narrow neck that can be cut by a Palestinian state whenever it chooses. Tens of thousands of Israelis will be displaced from settlements within one mile of the pre-1967 borders. A lot more can be said on this but these are two immediate points.
But there’s another detail here. What might it be? Ah, yes, the second to last president of the United States agreed that Israel would get to negotiate its own borders with the Palestinians. Later, that same president proposed minor border changes involving about three percent of the West Bank but allowing Israel to protect its security and keep a large portion of settlers where they were without taking property belonging to individual Palestinian Arabs. In exchange for these promises, Israel made concessions and took risks.
The last president before this one promised–in exchange for more Israeli risks and concessions–that the United States would support the incorporation of “settlement blocs” along the lines mentioned above–into Israel.
In the autumn of 2009, the Obama Administration promised Israel, in exchange for the settlement freeze and other steps, to accept the settlement bloc idea.
Now the Obama Administration proposes to abrogate all of these promises, raising the question of why should Israel believe any of its future promises.
–The Palestinians giving up their demand that refugees or their descendants return to Israel.
This would, of course, be a concession in Israel’s favor. But the Palestinian Authority would never and could never accept this. It won’t happen. “President” Mahmoud Abbas opposes it, his public overwhelmingly rejects it, and Hamas would make too much political advantage from such a concession. Forget it.
“We oppose any U.S. peace plan which wants us to waive one of our most basic rights and that is the right of return for refugees,” Fatah Central Committee member Nabil Shaath said. And he’s a relative moderate who has been coddled–and enriched–by U.S. governments. Far from being pleased the U.S. peace plan will make Palestinians even more anti-American. What do we need Obama for, they will say, when we can get everything we want through a unilateral declaration of independence, violence, and patience.
–Jerusalem would be the capital of both states.
While Israel would not want to make such a concession, it is possible. Prime Minister Ehud Barak even proposed this in 2000. But if Israel gets nothing in exchange such a concession is unthinkable.
–Security guarantees for Israel.
Sounds good but there are four problems.
First, while borders and Jerusalem, major concessions for Israel, are demanded ahead of time, the guarantees for Israel would only be defined later. The Israeli concessions are front-loaded; the concessions from the Palestinians will never come.
Second, such ideas as a non-militarized Palestinian state, a ban on foreign military forces being allowed in there, Israeli early-warning stations along the Jordan, or other such things, are not going to be accepted by the Palestinian Authority.
Third, who is going to be making these guarantees? The United States and Europe? The United Nations? Yet the first have repeatedly broken promises to Israel and the second is going to remain passionately and unfairly anti-Israel no matter what concessions Israel makes and after a Palestinian state is created.
Consider the last very big promises regarding security guarantees:
In 1993, the United States and others guaranteed the Oslo process. But when in 2000 the Palestinians didn’t live up to their commitments, refused to negotiate, and launched a war of terrorism against Israel, the West did nothing.
In 2006, the United States, others, and the UN guaranteed Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, promising to keep Hizballah from returning militarily to southern Lebanon, block arms smuggling to Hizballah, and even help to disarm that terrorist militia. But since then not only have these promises not been kept but there has been no serious attempt even to try.
In 2008, when Hamas tore up the ceasefire and attacked Israel, the main Western and UN response was to blame Israel for defending itself.
These are not encouraging precedents.
Fourth, any commitment the Palestinian Authority makes does not bound Hamas which rules almost half the Palestinian people and territory. There is absolutely no way the United States, Europe, or UN will make Hamas observe a peace agreement. And they won’t even try.
How can anyone even pretend to negotiate a peace agreement that doesn’t bind the co-government of that people and territory? Moreover, as we are now seeing in Egypt, if a new Palestinian government comes to power by election or coup it will feel totally vindicated in disregarding any agreement made by its predecessor.
This, then, is the context of a proposed new U.S. peace plan. Might the U.S. government, the mass media, or the “experts” acknowledge and respond to any–even a single one–of these points? One hopes a lot but doubts even more.
*
Barry Rubin, who may be read on Pajama’s media, http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. GLORIA Center site: http://www.gloria-center.org He may be contacted at barry.rubin@sdjewishworld.com