Setting the Record Straight on U.S. Middle East Policy

• Determined to Reach a Common Objective
• Setting the Record Straight | Oct 13, 2010
• “We knew at the outset that the task would be difficult. We acknowledged that publicly and privately. We knew this would be a road with many bumps— and there have been many bumps—and that continues to this day. But we are not deterred. We are, to the contrary, determined more than ever to proceed to realize the common objective, which we all share, of a Middle East that is at peace with security and prosperity for the people of Israel, for Palestinians, and for all the people in the region. We will continue our efforts in that regard, undeterred and undaunted by the difficulties, the complexities or the bumps in the road.”—George Mitchell, special envoy for Middle East peace, remarks with Prime Minister Netanyahu, September 29, 2010
• Despite Challenges, Peace is Possible
• Setting the Record Straight | Sep 28, 2010
• “The real danger between these two star-crossed inhabitants of the same Holy Land is not failure to negotiate; it’s the failure of the negotiations. Flashpoints in the Holy Land tend to burst after they sit down at the negotiating table, give their speeches, fail to agree, and watch the process collapse.”
  —Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations, “Hillary’s Dangerous Mideast Leap,” The Daily Beast, September 15, 2010
• 
• “Let us direct our courage, our thinking, and our decisions at those historic decisions that lie ahead. Now, there are many skeptics. One thing there’s no shortage of, Mr. President, are skeptics. This is something that you’re so familiar with, that all of us in a position of leadership are familiar with. There are many skeptics. I suppose there are many reasons for skepticism. But I have no doubt that peace is possible.”
  —Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, remarks at the White House, September 1, 2010
• Close But Frank Relationship
• Setting the Record Straight | Sep 21, 2010
• “In fact, a stronger AKP may be a threat to U.S policy toward Iran, Israel, the Palestinians, Lebanon, and Syria. Turkey’s opposition to the transfer of U.S. troops to Northern Iraq in the spring of 2003, its current support of Iran despite the UNSC sanctions, its launch of a flotilla to boost Hamas in Gaza, and its increasingly vituperative anti-Israeli policy are signs that cannot be ignored.”
  —Ariel Cohen, senior research fellow, The Heritage Foundation, “Turkey’s Referendum: A Looming Challenge to U.S. Interests?,” WebMemo #3016, September 17, 2010
• 
• “On Iran, we were clear publicly and privately with the Turkish government. We had exactly the same view on the desired outcome which was to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. We had significantly common views on how to get there including getting 1200 kilograms of uranium, LEU, out of Iran and holding it potentially in Turkey which is a scenario we supported. Then we had some differences on exactly the criteria that would have to be met for this to be useful. We were clear with the Turkish government about that. Then when the Turkish government and the Brazilian government reached the Tehran Declaration we didn’t think it met those criteria and they did. We were frank with them and they were frank with us in just the way—that’s all governments can do.
  
  “Similarly on the other issues you mentioned, Hamas and the flotilla, we’ve had our differences. We’ve been clear about them in public and in private, but I can tell you that there’s not a government in Europe with which we have more ongoing and open dialogue than with the government of Turkey. Secretary Clinton speaks regularly with Foreign Minister Davutoglu. President Obama, I think regularly is probably the right word for his engagements with Prime Minister Erdogan.”
  —Phillip H. Gordon, assistant secretary of state, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, "2010 Transatlantic Trends Report," remarks at the German Marshall Fund, September 15, 2010
• Status Quo is Unsustainable
• Setting the Record Straight | Jun 8, 2010
• “[W]e use all our chips for the negotiating sessions, instead of applying them to the hard work of nation building. ... We use American influence with Israel not to promote economic growth in the West Bank, but to try and impede Jewish (never Arab) construction in Israel's capital city. This set of priorities is perverse and will not lead to peace. Instead, a pragmatic approach that seeks to create in the West Bank a decent society and a state that will maintain law and order should be our goals.”
  —Elliott Abrams, former deputy national security adviser to President George W. Bush; senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, "The Future of an Illusion," The Weekly Standard, April 5-12, 2010
• 
• “[T]he status quo is not sustainable. It is not sustainable for Israel's identity as a secure, Jewish, and democratic state, because the demographic clock keeps ticking and will not be reversed. The status quo is not sustainable for Palestinians who have legitimate aspirations for sovereignty and statehood. And the status quo is not sustainable for the region because there is a struggle between those who reject Israel's existence and those who are prepared to coexist with Israel—and the status quo strengthens the rejectionists and weakens those who would live in peace. … The United States stands ready to do whatever is necessary to help the parties bridge their differences and develop the confidence needed to make painful compromises on behalf of peace. As we do so, we will also strongly support the Palestinian Authority's efforts to develop its institutions from the ground up and call on other states, particularly in the region, to do their part to support the Palestinian Authority as well.”
  —National Security Adviser James L. Jones, remarks, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, April 21, 2010
• Economic Development is No Substitute for Two-State Solution
• Setting the Record Straight | May 4, 2010
• “The West Bank governs itself. It’s not a country exactly, but then neither is Kosovo or Nagorno-Karabakh. The international community does not invest much energy worrying about the precise status of either of these autonomous self-governing regions. Why not allow the Palestinian Authority to stumble along in the same way? … Then, for the time being—a time that may stretch for decades—everybody tacitly agrees to live with the status quo: The Israelis keep what they have, the West Bank Palestinians commit to keep order on their side of the fence, Hamas remains an international pariah, foreign aid continues to flow to the West Bank so long as good behavior continues. No process, no treaty, just quiet and development.”
  —David Frum, “Peace Without the Process,” National Post, May 1, 2010
• 
• “Even though the economic situation in the West Bank has improved over the last two years and Abu Mazen and Fayyad repeatedly declare that they oppose a resumption of the violent confrontation with Israel, such pronouncements do not guarantee security stability over time. Although the population's sense of economic welfare is gradually evolving, given the occupation and settlement construction, there will always be motivation to resume the confrontational approach. … The absence of a political process will deny the PA legitimacy to continue working intensively against Hamas on the West Bank.”
  —Col. (Ret.) Ephraim Lavie, director, Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace, Tel Aviv University, “Between Settlement and Crisis: The Next Round of the Palestinian Issue,” Strategic Assessment, INSS, February 2010
• Progress Toward Peace is an Israeli Interest
• Setting the Record Straight | Apr 27, 2010
• “The true barrier to ending the Mideast conflict is the widespread Palestinian refusal to accept and to live alongside Israel as a Jewish state. Despite this reality, since day one the White House has applied a severe double standard that refuses to hold the Palestinians accountable for their many provocations. It makes one wonder where the responsible adults are in the administration? The administration’s troubling policy of manufacturing fights with Israel to ingratiate itself with some in the Arab world is no way to advance the cause of Mideast peace. What kind of message is sent to the world when our country appears to turn its back on key strategic allies who share our values?”
  —Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), minority whip, U.S. House of Representatives, statement, April 15, 2010
• 
• “The world isn’t willing to accept—and we won’t change that in 2010—the expectation that Israel will rule another people for decades more … It’s something that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world. The alienation that is developing with the United States is not good for Israel. We have strong ties with the United States, a bond, long-term friendship and strategic partnership. We receive three billion dollars from them each year; we get the best planes in the world from them. For all these reasons we must act to change things. … With a broad readiness to go for a [peace] agreement, Israeli governments have overcome many obstacles in the daily discourse with the Americans about building in this or that settlement or a Jerusalem neighborhood.”
  —Ehud Barak, Israeli defense minister, April 19, 2010
• Long-Term U.S. Commitment to Security
• Setting the Record Straight | Apr 6, 2010
• “In Pakistan, our efforts are vital to success in Afghanistan, and also to American security in their own right. … I am under no illusion that success will come quickly or easily. But think where we were a year ago. The extremists were 100 miles from Islamabad and met little resistance in launching attacks on American troops from border areas. Since then, the Pakistani government has launched important offensives in Swat, in South Waziristan, and throughout the country. We are moving in the right direction, and this progress has been possible because of our commitment to Pakistan’s people and government. … Our success depends on rapidly and sustainably scaling up our efforts, especially high-impact projects that visibly demonstrate our long-term commitment, and on bolstering the capacity of the Pakistanis while ensuring accountability. That simply cannot happen without more funds in the pipeline.”—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, testimony, “FY 2010 War Supplemental,” U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, March 25, 2010
• Connecting the Dots
• Setting the Record Straight | Mar 23, 2010
• “Let's assume there is a comprehensive settlement to which the Palestinian Authority (PA) agrees. It isn't going to happen but this is for demonstration purposes. … What would happen? First, none of this would apply to the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Muslim Brotherhoods, and many others would renounce this as treason. … Would the kind of people who are now prone to support revolutionary Islamism then say: 'What a fair settlement. This settles all our grievances. Thank you, America for being so wonderful!'”
  —Barry Rubin, director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, blog, “Why What General Petraeus Said is Wrong About the Middle East (Or is It Just Being Misinterpreted?)” March 17, 2010
• 
• “The Arab-Israeli conflict, and especially the Palestinian issue, remains one of the most contentious and sensitive issues in the entire Muslim world. The Palestinian issue can get Muslims demonstrating in the streets from Jakarta to Nigeria to Lebanon. … When the United States is expending its blood and treasure fighting insurgencies in overwhelmingly Muslim Iraq and Afghanistan, the dots are even easier to connect. It’s all part of a very important whole. We would be naive to think that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will eliminate the problems of terrorism and radicalization in the Islamic world, but it will go a long way toward draining the swamp of issues that extremists exploit for their own ends. So I think any American president would be well-advised to tackle this issue.”
  —Edward Djerejian, former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs and U.S. ambassador to Israel; currently director, James Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, interview with the National Journal, February 20, 2010
• U.S. and Israel Have Shared Interests
• Setting the Record Straight | Mar 16, 2010
• “I think it's a big deal. This is a fight that the White House has picked. … I think it surprised Netanyahu. Netanyahu apologized to Vice President Biden … And he expressed regret. … And they thought the thing had been put to bed … And then for some reason … the White House at the highest levels—the president decided let's make a big fuss about this … I do not know, honestly, why the president chose to pick a big public fight just when it was all dying down with Israel.”
  —William Kristol, editor, Weekly Standard, Fox News Sunday, March 14, 2010
• 
• “[T]he president, the vice president, secretary of State did exactly the right thing for American interests and for Israel ... [F]irst of all, they were speaking for many secretaries of State, many presidents in the past who have had Israeli settlements shoved in their face before, during, and after a visit by Israel. ... So there's a lot of backstory here, this isn't just about that trip.“Then let's look at the moment we're in. We have an Israeli prime minister from the right who actually could deliver the right. He's done actually a lot of good things on the ground in the West Bank. You have to give him credit for that. We have the best Palestinian leadership we've had in a long time. And we have a Sunni Arab world obsessed with Iran, ready to work with Israel more than ever. You'd think in that context Israel could say to the United States, you know, ‘You're doing all this for us, we're just going to stop settlements in Jerusalem, in the West Bank, not temporarily, not moratorium. We're going to give you a chance to actually test the other side whether they're for real. ... Barack Obama, this Bud's for you. We're going to do this for the American people.’ Is that anti-Semitism, is that anti-Israelism, to ask that of an Israeli government, to ask, act first in its own interest and then in America's interest? I don't think so.”
  —Tom Friedman, columnist, The New York Times, Meet the Press, March 14, 2010
• Settlements Inconsistent With Peace
• Setting the Record Straight | Dec 1, 2009
• “This is an order to halt construction in the state of Israel. This is a racist, immoral and illegal decision which is therefore invalid.”
  —Gershon Messika, head, Samaria Regional Council in the northern West Bank, November 30, 2009
• 
• “You can convince Americans of the miracle of Israel's founding and the justice of her struggle against terror and rejection. You can convince them that it makes demographic and political sense for Israel to trade settlements near Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority in return for land elsewhere in Israel. But you cannot convince Americans that it makes sense for an Israel that supports a Palestinian state to maintain a large settler population in the heart of the West Bank.”
  —Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president, Union for Reform Judaism in North America, op-ed, “No to Settlements is Yes to Peace,” Haaretz, October 30, 2009