President Barack Obama gave a new Mideast policy speech on Sunday, in order to mend fences following the aftershock of his speech on Thursday. Whereas his Thursday speech was clearly designed to please the Palestinians and anger the Israelis, his new speech takes a more middle of the road approach, and will clearly anger both sides. Thus, each side can point to reasons why Obama likes them or hates them, and so Washington has returned to business as usual.
The event was an election fundraising speech to the pro-Israel group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Obama’s reception was one of intense skepticism, according to the center-right (pro-Tory) Telegraph, who said, “Wagging his finger repeatedly, Mr Obama adopted the manner of a schoolmaster frustrated that his pupils were too dim or inattentive to pay attention to what he had said.”
Obama told them many things that they wanted to hear. He condemned the Hamas-Fatah unity agreement, he criticized Hamas for not recognizing Israel’s right to exist, he said that Israel’s security is sacrosanct, and he said that the United Nations can’t solve this, referring to the Palestinian plan to create a state of Palestine unilaterally in September.
But he also made it clear that he didn’t really mean the pre-1967 borders that he appeared to be talking about on Thursday, but rather the pre-1967 borders after a number of agreed land swaps, large enough to guarantee Israel’s security.
Palestinian and pro-Palestinian commentators that I heard pointed out that he didn’t talk about the issues of Jerusalem or the “right of return” of the Palestinian refugees. One emphasized that a return to the pre-1967 borders was a non-negotiable demand, and that only very tiny land swaps would be permitted. The large land swaps that Obama appeared to be describing would put many Arabs into Israel, and that’s not acceptable.
As far as I can tell from various comments, the Israelis are still very suspicious of Obama’s motives and intentions, while the Palestinians are totally disgusted with his apparent complete cave-in to the Israelis in the Sunday speech.
What I found most interesting about his speech was the following passage:
“Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian Territories. This will make it harder and harder — without a peace deal — to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.
Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace.
Third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.
And just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. There’s a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process, or the absence of one, not just in the Arab World — in Latin America, in Asia, and in Europe. And that impatience is growing, and it’s already manifesting itself in capitals around the world. …
But the march to isolate Israel internationally — and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations — will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. And for us to have leverage with the Palestinians, to have leverage with the Arab States and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success. And so, in advance of a five-day trip to Europe in which the Middle East will be a topic of acute interest, I chose to speak about what peace will require.”
This is an interesting generational analysis, provided by President Obama, to explain why a peace deal is required very soon, and why the Israelis have to change direction.
However, it’s actually a generational analysis that explains why no peace deal is possible. Just because you understand the problem doesn’t mean that a solution exists.
And that’s the real irrationality of this situation. Obama understood that the existing “peace process,” which really involves kicking the can down the road, cannot possibly work. And so, the youthful Gen-X president sat down with his advisors, and they came up with a new “peace process.” But surely it must have occurred to them that the new “peace process” has no more chance of working than the old one. But perhaps the youthful Gen-X president and his advisers, who were once promising to heal the world, could not admit to themselves that the solutions to some problems are beyond their reach.
The next steps
So what happens next? Generational Dynamics tells us that there will be a major new Mideast war, and that gives us a big advantage over most journalist, analysts and politicians, since at least we know where we’re going to end up, and they have no idea.
There were many people who were furious at President Obama’s speech on Thursday because it appeared to sell out the Israelis.
I was appalled by his speech, but for an entirely different reason. I don’t care whom Obama seems to side with, because I know that a politician can neither cause nor predict what’s coming — in this case, an all out genocidal Mideast war. I couldn’t care less what boundaries Obama recommends, because I know for certain, based on generational analysis, that those boundaries are just talk, and they won’t be applied.
What I was appalled about is, perversely, that Obama’s speech was too clear. Instead of obfuscating the issue of boundaries, which is what a politician is supposed to do, he clearly stated the problem in a way that would produce a backlash. And the backlash came in the form of a scolding by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And now, Obama had to provide a rebuttal on Sunday, and Netanyahu will give a surrebuttal when he speaks to Congress on Tuesday. It’s a dreadful chain of events.
A web site reader wrote on Sunday that it’s important to watch what happens in Jordan. That’s certainly true. Even though Jordan’s government has had a long-time friendly relationship with the U.S., many of the people of Jordan are Palestinian refugees, and the country is a tinder box that might explode at any time. And a speech like the ones given recently might be the chaotic event that causes the chain reaction that triggers that explosion.
As important as Jordan is, I would have to emphasize the importance of Saudi Arabia itself. The rapidity of the recent “techtonic shift” that turned Saudi Arabia from a trusted ally to a potential enemy in only a few weeks is truly frightening. (See “21-May-11 News — Saudi Arabia advances Gulf Cooperation Council, further cuts U.S. ties.”) From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, such rapid changes in attitudes and behaviors indicate that the hostility to the U.S. is much deeper than previously believed, and that some kind of trigger has already occurred (i.e., the incident involving Mubarak). Because of Saudi Arabia’s strategic importance as an oil producer and its position on the Persian Gulf, combined with Jordan’s strategic relationship with Israel, it’s possible that we’ll be seeing more major shifts in the next few weeks.
Another web site reader wrote the following to me on Sunday, referring to this “tectonic shift”:
“I think you should be working hard to figure this out. You are probably one of the only people on the planet that can get even close, and it would be a great boon to have some clarity on who is going to fighting who. I think you have enough analytical skill to come up with some actionable data that could be used to make yourself a bunch of money on the currency markets.”
I am REALLY flattered to receive this comment, but Generational Dynamics doesn’t provide anything close to that level of precision. I’ve never made any money from Generational Dynamics, and I doubt that I ever will, and I certainly don’t have a clue about the Mideast currency markets.
But if that’s asking too much, it’s still appropriate to speculate, based on what we do know, and what we see happening.
If Jordan is joining the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), then it’s reasonable to speculate that Jordan and the GCC countries will be on one side (the side that opposes Israel and the West). Since the Palestinian factions (Fatah and Hamas) are essentially enemies, does that mean that one or the other will be on Israel’s side? Stranger things have happened.
I’ve said in the past that I believe that Egypt could go either way, based on generational reasons: The large majority of the Egyptian population is under 30, and they’ve never known Israel as anything but an ally. Despite some well-publicized rhetoric and anti-Coptic violence from Egyptian salafists, it’s still my opinion that Egypt is more likely to be Israel’s ally than Israel’s enemy.
The key is always the phrase “forced to choose.” It’s easy to be anyone’s friend or enemy, when all that’s at stake is rhetoric. Stalin may have hated Britain and the United States with all his heart, but when he was “forced to choose” because the Nazis were invading, he chose the Allies. Egypt may well do the same. But once again, this all speculation, albeit informed speculation.
The survival of Israel in a generational Crisis era
Beyond that, there are some other considerations. As I’ve discussed in the past with the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, and the recent response to the “invasion” by unarmed protesters, Israel is playing out a generational Crisis era script in an extremely panicked form.
There is a Mideast war coming that Israel may not survive. But if the Israelis continue on their current path, and the country DOES survive the Crisis era war, then Israel may not survive the Recovery Era, if the United Nations, or its next incarnation, decide that Israel is at fault for starting the war (just as most people in 1945 blamed Germany for starting BOTH WW I and WW II).
If the nation of Israel is going to continue to be in existence in the 2020s, in anything resembling its current form, then the Israelis and their defenders are going to have to become a lot more rational. Unfortunately I don’t expect that to happen, and the irrational debate going on right now between Obama and Netanyahu over borders is a good example.