Stay Informed

Sign up to receive the Middle East Bulletin!

Support Middle East Progress

In-Depth Coverage

Original Commentaries

08/20/10
Center for American Progress Welcomes Resumption of Direct Talks  —
08/10/10
A View from the Ground  —Darbaz Kosrat Rasul, chair, Rebaz Foundation. Interview with Middle East Bulletin.
08/03/10
U.S.-Turkish Relations  —Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone, Jr., recently returned deputy ambassador in Afghanistan; former ambassador to Egypt (2005-2008); and deputy chief of mission and charge d'affaires in U.S. embassy in Turkey (1995-1999). Congressional Testimony.

Setting the Record Straight

Eye Still on the Ball

“Adverse developments in Iraq will be (and will look to be) increasingly a function of the Obama Team taking their eye off of the ball and rushing to declare mission accomplished. Yes, in such a scenario the Iraqis should bear most of the blame, but the part that is due to U.S. action or inaction will be Obama's responsibility. And it will matter. Iraq is at the center of a region that every president since Jimmy Carter has identified as vital to our national security. Iraq is next door to, and the playground for mischief from, the most thorny national security challenge the United States faces: a nuclear-weapons-seeking Iranian regime. These inconvenient facts mean that if the Iraqi situation demands more focused and costly U.S. attention, it will likely get it. At that point, what sort of domestic coalition will be available for President Obama's Iraq policy?”
—Peter Feaver, director, Triangle Institute for Security Studies; former director for defense policy and arms control, National Security Council, “Obama’s Iraq Speech: Another Missed Opportunity,” Foreign Policy, August 3, 2010versus
  • “Iraq is a strategically important place in the Middle East, just by its geographic location, by its population, by the influence it's had in the Middle East for a long time. So neighboring countries from around the Middle East have an interest inside of Iraq.

    “But I will tell you that I think Iraqis themselves are nationalistic in nature, and that's why it's important. A strong Iraq will defend itself against interference from outside countries, and I think as we build a strong Iraq and as we continue to build a strong security mechanism and as we continue to help them economically and diplomatically, that will make it less likely of others from the outside being able to interfere.

    “Now, for the vacuum as we see today, again, I remind everyone is that we still have a significant presence here, and we are not going to—we will not allow undue maligned influence on the Iraqi government as they attempt to form their government. What we're trying to do is provide them the space and time for them to do that, and we will continue to do that post 1 September. We'll still have a significant civilian presence, and again, we'll still have 50,000 troops on the ground here to ensure that this government can be formed by the Iraqis. And that all the other nations respect their sovereignty as they go about forming their government.”
    —General Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, interview, “This Week” with Christiane Amanpour, August 8, 2010

    • Middle East Analysis

    Upcoming Events

    The Road Forward on Middle East Peace

    Event: October 1, 2009 - 12:00pm-1:00pm

    Introduction:
    Winnie Stachelberg, Senior Vice President for External Affairs, Center for American Progress

    Featured speaker:
    Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL)

    Moderated by:
    Moran Banai, U.S. Editor of Middle East Bulletin

    WATCH HERE

    The Rabin Vision: Maybe This is the Way Out

    Nabil Al-Khatib, Executive Editor of Al Arabiya, based in Dubai; Palestinian journalist from Ramallah

    Twelve years have passed since the bullets fired by Yigal Amir managed to assassinate the Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzchak Rabin. A new reality has set in and we realize today that Amir’s bullets succeeded in killing, not only Rabin, but his vision as well.

    People close to the late leader of Israel, and those Palestinians who used to sit on the opposite side of the table negotiating with him, always talked about his determination to end the conflict based on the “two-state solution.”

    However, since then, Amir’s voice has remained the loudest, just like the loudness of his fatal bullets while the voices demanding peace have remained low.

    Supporters of peace continue whispering in each other’s ears in workshops, using theoretical methods to try to reach a possible solution – on paper - for a far too complicated situation.

    The paradox is that all current and former politicians share a common consensus that they keep repeating behind closed door: “The solution is known…the question is how to implement it?”

    The solution Rabin paid his life for …, The solution President Clinton proposed to the parties when it was too late … The solution Taba negotiators worked on, and were too late… The solution the Arab Initiative proposed five years ago … The solution that President Bush highlighted more than five years ago …

    The solution is there but no one is willing to be a leader and fight for its implementation, not only in the region, but among the international community as well.

    Consequently, the concerned parties and mediators are still in a prison of the same old tragedy, with the U.S. escalating its efforts in the last months of the president’s term, and the negotiating parties in Jerusalem discussing the problem of controlling ten fighters in Nablus, as a prerequisite for negotiating a final agreement to end the conflict!!!

    The problem, nowadays, is that all the efforts of the U.S. administration and the Middle East quartet and the Arab quartet to work along with the concerned parties to find a solution are starting from point zero. The concerned parties are like merchants trying to win a bargain in an ancient bazaar, with each side trying to give the other what it was forced to give and not what might make both of them winners.;It seems that both sides keep missing the big picture by concentrating on the details and forgetting the final goal

    Thus, what if Dr. Condoleezza Rice came to the Palestinians and Israelis and presented President Clinton’s ideas/parameters announced January 8, 2001, and asked both to deal with them as the starting point for talks?

    What if she asked Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas what their objections are on those ideas in order to try and work on closing the gap, while judging both parties based on the “Bush Vision”?

    The fact that she did not, and the fact that President George W. Bush, just like President Bill Clinton, did not push for a solution until the last few months of his presidency might lead to the same result. And we will probably hear a speech by President Bush on January 8, 2008, repeating the same old story.

    The scenarios for the future, if no solution will be implemented soon, are predictable.

    Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis will enjoy the kind of state that each of them has been dreaming about. Probably, the "Historical Palestine" will fall into a long painful "apartheid-like" situation for "practical reasons".

    I do not think that late Yitzhak Rabin was ready to compromise by establishing a viable Palestinian state out of love to the Palestinians, but rather, because he realized the necessity of it and that the destiny of the Jewish state was at stake.

    Sadly, Rabin paid with his life for trying to implement his vision.Meanwhile, Yigal Amir and all those who see only conflict and bloodshed as the solution are applauding themselves for their success and for the failure of the supporters of peace.

    Hence, my advice, for all those concerned, is to try to build on what was achieved.

    Starting from the beginning will only keep things permanently at the beginning.