|
Wednesday Jan 07, 2009
Rosner's Domain: The new peace envoy Haass, and what he believesPosted by SHMUEL ROSNER
Comments: 12      Update: you should probably ignore this post and go here. Mark Ambinder reports: Transition officials confirm that President-elect Obama has asked Dennis Ross, Richard Haass, and Richard Holbrooke, to serve as his chief emissaries to world hot spots. It's expected that Ross will get the Iran portfolio, that Holbrooke, the hard-headed architect of the Dayton Peace Accords, will take the tough (and tougher) Southwest Asia portfolio, which includes India, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that Haass will deal with the Middle East. Spencer Ackerman isn't even sure the part about Haass is true: "it appears, particularly with Haass, the chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, that this is premature. Maybe itll happen" - but it's not yet final. And I hear that he is not the only reporter questioning the validity of this report. However, for the sake of this post, let's assume that it is, as the IPA Blog (hat tip) does when it predicts: The latter appointment is sure to set off alarm bells in the pro-Israel community - Haass having been a lead player in the George H.W. Bush-James Baker days (remember - pressuring Prime Minister Shamir to the Madrid Conference; Bush Sr.'s complaint that he was "one lonely guy against 1,000 pro-Israel lobbyists".) I would not go this far - Shamir is no longer the man in power - but also believe that Haass will not be seen as good news in Jerusalem. Not long ago, I wrote about a piece Haass wrote (with Martin Indyk) - and was raising some questions regarding the duo's reccomendations: 1. What if Iran keeps refusing to freeze enrichment activities? Tehran has refused to do it when it was offered by the Bush administration in return for negotiation. Now Haas and Indyk are willing to start the talking and only later demand a freeze. Maybe it will work, but what if it doesn't? The authors admit that if negotiations fail they arent yet sure what should be done. Those among us more prone to think that it will, indeed, fail, cant be satisfied by a proposal which stops short of pondering the options for the day after. 2. What if Syria wants to keep its relations with Iran as close as they are now? Will this mean an end to the Syrian track Haas and Indyk would try to pursue? 3. Why should Israel agree to the possible deployment of any force - be it Arab or international or European - in the West Bank when the international force in Lebanon fails to do the things it was supposed to do? 4. What if Hamas doesn't feel "pressured by Gazans"? What if it doesn't care about such pressure? Earlier last year, I was even less impressed with Haass' article on Iran: This is the way we should go, according to Haass: Start by asking the Iranians to give up their independent enrichment capability. But since we know there's no way they will accede to that demand, we are already preparing a better option for them. That is, for them to consider "accepting clear limits on enrichment." (Why the Iranians would go for the first option when they already know they can get a better deal is beyond me). And of course, we should talk, no preconditions, face to face, etc., etc. But here's a question: what happens if the Iranians will don't buy the first OR second deal? What if, after spending yet another six or eight or twelve months talking, we reach again (as can reasonably be expected) this "fork in the road"? What Yogi Berra would do we already know. But I think we also know what Haass will do. "Respectfully," he'll find yet another excuse for inaction. We know - and more importantly, Tehran knows. Then again, Ambinder reports that Haass will be handling the Arab-Israeli peace process - not Iran.
1 | Esav Benyamin - US, Wednesday Jan 07, 2009
Diplomats talk, that's all they do. Politicians decide. Focus on what the Presiden'ts policy will be and try to inform and influence that for more near-term pressure on iran (or anyone else). We already know how ineffective all these advisors and talkers are. Forget about them in advance.
2 | Observer, Finland, Wednesday Jan 07, 2009
Why don't the Americans have more innovative ideas of the world and the Middle East? Why hire anti-Israeli people when the coming Obama administration fully knows that the US's national interests will not be attained by these people who do not comprehend the world realities. Why only concentrate on one actor , Israel, which cannot bring peace to the ME if the Arabs are not willing. Is this just old-fashioned anti-Semitism. Is this the "change" Obama promised? Anti-Israelism? There must be younger, new people who could have better results.
3 | Carolyn USA, Wednesday Jan 07, 2009
Haass no longer has any credibility, if he ever did.Once he advocated for Angelina Jolie for membership to the CFR, he lost all standing.This is his judgment.Now,we are to entrust the lives of 6.2 millionJews and the Jewish nation to him, let alone the US and Iran's foreign policy? PLEASE! Let's head all of this off at the pass. Obama came in on ONE word- "Change." Hold him to it.
The Middle East game has collapsed. Utterly. Haass and the CFR have seen their day.Look at what they have done. Discredit them, because with Obama's "change" that is what he did already.Support that. Remind him.
4 | mariana - USA, Wednesday Jan 07, 2009
NOW these things occur to you! When you voted for Obama and Dem Majorities in the US Hs & Senate, did it not occur to you that these would be the people running things, including the FATE OF ISRAEL? It's amazing. 2006, American Jewry voted 87% against Bush, who was fighting terrorist Islamists and Dem legislators. Now, you've given them a free hand &, already you're complaining that the permanent foreign policy establishment [Haas, Holbrook, Ross, Indyk, Brzezinsky], who've screwed you regularly, are back. Like the kid who killed his parents and cried "orphan". Deal with it! mariana
5 | joe, Thursday Jan 08, 2009
I know Haass. He was my instructor at the Kennedy School way back in 1986/87. He was one of the few Republicans there at the time, definitely a fish out of water. Fairly conservative. Very cranky. I believe he is an Oberlin grad, and former Rhodes Scholar, so he resisted the lefty foreign policy world fairly well. He was close with Colin Powell back in Bush I, and had fairly big role in advising on the First Gulf War. Later, I believe he was a special mediator on Cyprus, where I think he was fairly successful. He's Jewish, although more JINO than Jew. Definite hardass.
6 | David M USA, Thursday Jan 08, 2009
The most important thing is that nobody from the Carter administration get appointed, Carter is the most anti-Israel president ever. Carter's appointees are relentlessly hostile to Israel. Carter will try to get his people into the administration through the back door. Carter is remembered for long gas lines, high interest rates, high unemployment, hostages, and a tenacious hostility to Israel. We must make sure he does not get back into power through appointments.
7 | Mike, Thursday Jan 08, 2009
Haass fits neatly into Obama's worldview and is historically a jaw jaw advocate, who only sees virtue in diplomacy. He bears no truck for all things military.If he is indeed appointed, then Israel will have grave cause for concern.
8 | Ronald USA, Thursday Jan 08, 2009
International politics is about power - military and economic. The effectiveness of any US diplomacy will depend on her capability and willingness to use power against adversaries like Iran. It is quite clear from Obama's campaign and the foreign policy staff he is assembling, that he will absolutely NOT use the power of the US to back up negotiations; therefore, we can be quite certain that US foreign policy will be ineffective. Unfortunately, when US foreign policy regarding real enemies is in shambles, the US may gamble again with Israel's security.
9 | Amnon, the Great AMERICAN Southwest, Thursday Jan 08, 2009
I've mentioned Ross, Kurtzer and Miller before, but you could easily list Dickie Haass and Marty Indyk in the dubious pantheon of self-hating, Israel pressuring JINO American Diplomats. Like their friends both Haass and Indyk came out of AIPAC, were proteges of Ross, and like him wrote eloquently and very pro-Israel during their AIPAC tenure, Indyk more outspokenly pro-Israel then, but Haass was on record urging Israel NOT to negotiate with the PLO. Interesting how they changed. Incidentally another member of this crew was the equally odious MJ Rosenberg. All hired by the same AIPAC lefty.
10 | Amnon, the Great AMERICAN Southwest, Thursday Jan 08, 2009
None of the above.
All three are self-hating Jews. Holbrooke wasn't involved in anti-Israel policies, but he sure pressured the Serbs, who despite a record of being massacred, slaughtered, tortured by the Nazis, their Bosnian Muslim allies and the Croats, and later betrayed by America and Britain, were treated no better than Nazis by the pathetic Leftists of the Clintonista camp. The other two served their masters well in demonstrating their antipathy towards Israel - Ross with Baker and Madame NotBright, Haass with Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell. Kurtzer and Miller are not far behind.
11 | terry USA, Thursday Jan 08, 2009
Dennis Ross should be the emissary for the Middle East. He did it before,knows all the players and has great respect in the region.
12 | Jay, Thursday Jan 08, 2009
The American Left is living in far worse denial about Iran and Islamic terror than anyone in Israel. Sadly the only ones who are seeing clearly are the Israeli leaders at the moment, as crazy as that sounds.
|
 |
Search this blog
The Israel Factor, Sep. 2009: Obama is rapidly losing favor with panel of Israeli experts
Tags:
Blogroll |
Post your own comment
