“Of course we understand that Iran aims to acquire nuclear weapons and we are concerned about this,” said Prof. Yin Gang. “While it declares that its nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes, the Chinese government and intelligence services believe that Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb.” This clear statement was made by an independent Chinese expert on the Middle East who recently visited Israel at the invitation of Signal, an organization that furthers academic ties between Israel and China.

Gang, who was here to participate in a symposium at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, is a professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He defines himself as an independent scholar who is not affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party or the government, and his knowledge of Iran also stems from visits there. His insights offer a glimpse into Chinese foreign policy and its apparent contradictions, which Israel sometimes has difficulty understanding.

	Professor Ying Gang.

Like Russia, China has refused to join the United States and other Western countries in imposing new, tighter sanctions on Iran in response to the latter’s refusal to obey UN Security Council resolutions demanding that it cease uranium enrichment. But on the other hand, China did vote for weaker sanctions against the ayatollahs’ regime. China purchases oil from Iran, but has refused to build nuclear reactors there or sell it equipment for its nuclear program.

Nevertheless, Ying views China’s policy on the Middle East in general, and Iran in particular, as clear and consistent. “It is a policy based on our philosophy of refraining from taking sides in conflicts,” he said. “We try to remain neutral in the Middle East conflict. In the past, during the Cold War, we sided with the Arabs against Israel. But this has changed. Today we see ourselves as friends of Israel, and at the same time we attempt to maintain friendly relations with all countries. We are friends of Israel and the Turks and the Iranians and the Arabs.”

In his estimation, “China cannot do much to influence developments in the region. We do not export revolution and we do not support democratic movements. We need oil for our economy, and for that we need a stable Middle East. Only when there is peace will oil flow.”

A canceled sale

To prove his claim that China acts responsibly in the international arena, he cited the way relations between China and Iran have developed over the years. In 1993, the two countries signed an agreement under which China would sell Iran two relatively small nuclear reactors for producing electricity. But two years later, Russia offered it a larger reactor, whose construction in Bushehr has just been completed and is now being connected to Iran’s national grid.

“Only then, in 1995, did America and Israel begin to understand that Iran’s nuclear program would also allow it to produce nuclear weapons,” Yin said. “Washington exerted heavy pressure on us, and we decided to cancel all our nuclear agreements with Iran. The Iranians were angry and imposed various embargoes on us, accusing us of caving in to American and Zionist pressure.”

Ever since, he said, China has been working methodically to convince Iran to cooperate with the international community, demonstrate goodwill and prove that its nuclear program is really intended for peaceful purposes rather than to produce nuclear weapons. For this reason, China also supported Security Council decisions to sanction Iran. “It is not in China’s interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons,” he emphasized.

Now and then, there are reports of Chinese companies aiding Iran’s nuclear effort.

“These are private rather than government firms. Whenever there are cases of illegal trade that violates international decisions, the government of China investigates. Perhaps this is not widely known, but in 2006, in the wake of a UN Security Council resolution, we stopped selling all weapons to Iran.”

But you are not willing to be more aggressive to prevent them from reaching their goal – the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

“We definitely want to stop them. In our estimation, Iran has not yet made a final decision. They have the desire to obtain nuclear weapons, but they have not yet made a final decision on it.

“I recently met with the Iranian ambassador in Beijing and told him, ‘You have missed the opportunity to produce nuclear weapons. If you build one now, you will have to fight the United States, Israel, the West and the Arab states, too.’

“I suggested taking Japan’s route. Japan is a nuclear power. It has nuclear reactors and immense amounts of stockpiled plutonium and enriched uranium, but it has decided not to build nuclear weapons. Of course, it has the option to do so. If Japan wants to, it can build nuclear weapons within a very short time.”

How did he respond?

“He simply listened and did not respond.”

To underscore China’s unique diplomatic policy, Yin made the following surprising statement: “China is opposed to any military action against Iran that would damage regional stability and interfere with the flow of oil. But China will not stop Israel if it decides to attack Iran. For all these reasons, Israel and the Middle East need a country like China. Israel needs China’s power.”

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: I would like to talk to you about a subject that is at the heart of the United Nations – the pursuit of peace in an imperfect world.

War and conflict have been with us since the beginning of civilization. But in the first part of the 20th century, the advance of modern weaponry led to death on a staggering scale. It was this killing that compelled the founders of this body to build an institution that was focused not just on ending one war, but on averting others; a union of sovereign states that would seek to prevent conflict, while also addressing its causes.

	U.S. President Barack Obama addresses the UN General Assembly, September 21, 2011.
	Photo by: Reuters

No American did more to pursue this objective than President Franklin Roosevelt. He knew that a victory in war was not enough. As he said at one of the very first meetings on the founding of the United Nations, “We have got to make, not merely a peace, but a peace that will last.”

The men and women who built this institution understood that peace is more than the absence of war. A lasting peace – for nations and individuals – depends upon a sense of justice and opportunity; of dignity and freedom. It depends upon struggle and sacrifice; on compromise, and a sense of common humanity.

One delegate to the San Francisco Conference that led to the creation of United Nations put it well – “Many people,” she said, “have talked as if all we had to do to get peace was…to say loudly and frequently that we loved peace and hated war. Now we have learned that no matter how much we love peace and hate war, we cannot avoid having war brought upon us if there are convulsions in other parts of the world.”

The fact is, peace is hard, but our people demand it. Over nearly seven decades, even as the United Nations helped avert a third World War, we still live in a world scarred by conflict and plagued by poverty. Even as we proclaim our love for peace and hatred of war, there are convulsions in our world that endanger us all.

I took office at a time of two wars for the United States. Moreover, the violent extremists who drew us into war in the first place – Osama bin Laden, and his al Qaeda organization – remained at large. Today, we have set a new direction.

At the end of this year, America’s military operation in Iraq will be over. We will have a normal relationship with a sovereign nation that is a member of the community of nations. That equal partnership will be strengthened by our support for Iraq – for its government and Security Forces; for its people and their aspirations.

As we end the war in Iraq, the United States and our coalition partners have begun a transition in Afghanistan. Between now and 2014, an increasingly capable Afghan government and Security Forces will step forward to take responsibility for the future of their country. As they do, we are drawing down our own forces, while building an enduring partnership with the Afghan people.

So let there be no doubt: the tide of war is receding. When I took office, roughly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this year, that number will be cut in half, and it will continue to decline. This is critical to the sovereignty of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to the strength of the United States as we build our nation at home.

Moreover, we are poised to end these wars from a position of strength. Ten years ago, there was an open wound of twisted steel and broken hearts in this city. Today, as a new tower rising at Ground Zero symbolizes New York’s renewal, al Qaeda is under more pressure than ever before. Its leadership has been degraded. And Osama bin Laden, a man who murdered thousands of people from dozens of countries, will never endanger the peace of the world again.

Yes, this has been a difficult decade. But today, we stand at a crossroads of history with the chance to move decisively in the direction of peace. To do so, we must return to the wisdom of those who created this institution. The UN’s Founding Charter calls upon us, “to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.” And Article 1 of this General Assembly’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us that, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.’ Those bedrock beliefs – in the responsibility of states, and the rights of men and women – must be our guide.
In that effort, we have reason to hope. This year has been a time of transformation. More nations have stepped forward to maintain international peace and security. And more individuals are claiming their universal right to live in freedom and dignity.

One year ago, when we met here in New York, the prospect of a successful referendum in South Sudan was in doubt. But the international community overcame old divisions to support the agreement that had been negotiated to give South Sudan self-determination. And last summer, as a new flag went up in Juba, former soldiers laid down their arms; men and women wept with joy; and children finally knew the promise of looking to a future that they will shape.

One year ago, the people of Cote D’Ivoire approached a landmark election. And when the incumbent lost, and refused to respect the results, the world refused to look the other way. UN peacekeepers were harassed, but did not leave their posts. The Security Council, led by the United States, Nigeria, and France, came together to support the will of the people. And Cote D’Ivoire is now governed by the man who was elected to lead.

One year ago, the hopes of the people of Tunisia were suppressed. But they chose the dignity of peaceful protest over the rule of an iron fist. A vendor lit a spark that took his own life, but ignited a movement. In the face of a crackdown, students spelled out the word freedom. The balance of fear shifted from the ruler to those that he ruled. Now the people of Tunisia are preparing for elections that will move them one step closer to the democracy they deserve.
One year ago, Egypt had known one President for nearly thirty years. But for 18 days, the eyes of the world were on Tahrir Square, where Egyptians from all walks of life – men and women; young and old; Muslim and Christian – demanded their universal rights. We saw in those protesters the moral force of non-violence that has lit the world from Delhi to Warsaw; from Selma to South Africa – and we knew that change had come to Egypt and to the Arab World.

One year ago, the people of Libya were ruled by the world’s longest serving dictator. But faced with bullets and bombs and a dictator who threatened to hunt them down like rats, they showed relentless bravery. We will never forget the words of the Libyan who stood up in those early days of revolution and said, “Our words are free now. It’s a feeling you can’t explain.”

Day after day, in the face of bullets and bombs, the Libyan people refused to give back that freedom. And when they were threatened by the kind of mass atrocity that often went unchallenged in the last century, the United Nations lived up to its charter. The Security Council authorized all necessary measures to prevent a massacre. The Arab League called for this effort, and Arab nations joined a NATO-led coalition that halted Qadhafi’s forces in their tracks.

In the months that followed, the will of the coalition proved unbreakable, and the will of the Libyan people could not be denied. Forty-two years of tyranny was ended in six months. From Tripoli to Misratah to Benghazi – today, Libya is free. Yesterday, the leaders of a new Libya took their rightful place beside us, and this week, the United States is reopening our Embassy in Tripoli. This is how the international community is supposed to work – nations standing together for the sake of peace and security; individuals claiming their rights. Now, all of us have a responsibility to support the new Libyan government as they confront the challenge of turning this moment of promise into a just and lasting peace for all Libyans.

So it has been a remarkable year. The Qadhafi regime is over. Gbagbo, Ben Ali, and Mubarak are no longer in power. Osama bin Laden is gone, and the idea that change could only come through violence has been buried with him. Something is happening in our world. The way things have been is not the way they will be. The humiliating grip of corruption and tyranny is being pried open. Technology is putting power in the hands of the people. The youth are delivering a powerful rebuke to dictatorship, and rejecting the lie that some races, religions and ethnicities do not desire democracy. The promise written down on paper – “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” – is closer at hand.

But let us remember: peace is hard. Progress can be reversed. Prosperity comes slowly. Societies can split apart. The measure of our success must be whether people can live in sustained freedom, dignity, and security. And the United Nations and its member states must do their part to support those basic aspirations.

In Iran, we have seen a government that refuses to recognize the rights of its own people. And as we meet here today, men, women and children are being tortured, detained and murdered by the Syrian regime. Thousands have been killed, many during the holy time of Ramadan. Thousands more have poured across Syria’s borders. The Syrian people have shown dignity and courage in their pursuit of justice – protesting peacefully, standing silently in the streets, dying for the same values that this institution is supposed to stand for. The question for us is clear: Will we stand with the Syrian people, or with their oppressors?

Already, the United States has imposed strong sanctions on Syria’s leaders. We have supported a transfer of power that is responsive to the Syrian people. Many of our allies have joined us in this effort. But for the sake of Syria – and the peace and security of the world – we must speak with one voice. There is no excuse for inaction. Now is the time for the United Nations Security Council to sanction the Syrian regime, and to stand with the Syrian people.

Throughout the region, we will have to respond to the calls for change. In Yemen, men, women and children gather by the thousands in towns and city squares every day with the hope that their determination and spilled blood will prevail over a corrupt system. America supports their aspirations. We must work with Yemen’s neighbors and our partners around the world to seek a path that allows for a peaceful transition of power from President Saleh, and a movement to free and fair elections as soon as possible.

In Bahrain, steps have been taken toward reform and accountability, but more are required. America is a close friend of Bahrain, and we will continue to call on the government and the main opposition bloc – the Wifaq – to pursue a meaningful dialogue that brings peaceful change that is responsive to the people. And we believe the patriotism that binds Bahrainis together must be more powerful than the sectarian forces that would tear them apart.

Each nation must chart its own course to fulfill the aspirations of its people, and America does not expect to agree with every party or person who expresses themselves politically. But we will always stand up for the universal rights that were embraced by this Assembly. Those rights depend upon elections that are free and fair; governance that is transparent and accountable; respect for the rights of women and minorities; and justice that is equal and fair. That is what our people deserve. Those are elements of a peace that lasts.

Moreover, the United States will continue to support those nations that transition to democracy – with greater trade and investment, so that freedom is followed by opportunity. We will pursue a deeper engagement with governments, but also civil society – students and entrepreneurs; political parties and the press. We have banned those who abuse human rights from travelling to our country, and sanctioned those who trample on human rights abroad. And we will always serve as a voice for those who have been silenced.

Now I know that for many in this hall, one issue stands as a test for these principles – and for American foreign policy: the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

One year ago, I stood at this podium and called for an independent Palestine. I believed then – and I believe now – that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that genuine peace can only be realized between Israelis and Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May. That basis is clear, and well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.

I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. So am I. But the question isn’t the goal we seek – the question is how to reach it. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN – if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians – not us – who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and security; on refugees and Jerusalem.

Peace depends upon compromise among peoples who must live together long after our speeches are over, and our votes have been counted. That is the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That is the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is the path to a Palestinian state.

We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There is no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. And it is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can achieve one.

America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable, and our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day. Let’s be honest: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile, persecution, and the fresh memory of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they were.

These facts cannot be denied. The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.

That truth – that each side has legitimate aspirations – is what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in each other’s shoes. That’s what we should be encouraging. This body – founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide; dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every person – must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The measure of our actions must always be whether they advance the right of Israeli and Palestinian children to live in peace and security, with dignity and opportunity. We will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down together, to listen to each other, and to understand each other’s hopes and fears. That is the project to which America is committed. And that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come.

Now, even as we confront these challenges of conflict and revolution, we must also recognize once more that peace is not just the absence of war. True peace depends upon creating the opportunity that makes life worth living. And to do that, we must confront the common enemies of human beings: nuclear weapons and poverty; ignorance and disease. These forces corrode the possibility of lasting peace, and together we are called upon to confront them.

To lift the specter of mass destruction, we must come together to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. Over the last two years, we have begun to walk down that path. Since our Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, nearly 50 nations have taken steps to secure nuclear materials from terrorists and smugglers. Next March, a Summit in Seoul will advance our efforts to lock down all of them. The New START Treaty between the United States and Russia will cut our deployed arsenals to the lowest level in a half century, and our nations are pursuing talks on how to achieve deeper reductions. America will continue to work for a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons, and the production of fissile material needed to make them.

As we meet our obligations, we have strengthened the treaties and institutions that help stop the spread of these weapons. To do so, we must continue to hold accountable those nations that flout them. The Iranian government cannot demonstrate that its program is peaceful, has not met its obligations, and rejected offers that would provide it with peaceful nuclear power. North Korea has yet to take concrete steps toward abandoning its weapons, and continues belligerent actions against the South. There is a future of greater opportunity for the people of these nations if their governments meet their obligations. But if they continue down a path that is outside international law, they must be met with greater pressure and isolation. That is what our commitment to peace demands.

To bring prosperity to our people, we must promote the growth that creates opportunity. In this effort, let us not forget that we have made enormous progress over the last several decades. Closed societies gave way to open markets. Innovation and entrepreneurship has transformed the way we live and the things that we can do. Emerging economies from Asia to the Americas have lifted hundreds of millions from poverty. Yet three years ago, we confronted the worst financial crisis in eight decades. That crisis proved a fact that has become clearer with each passing year – our fate is interconnected; in a global economy, nations will rise, or fall, together.

Today, we confront the challenges that have followed that crisis. Recovery is fragile. Markets are volatile. Too many people are out of work. Too many others are struggling to get by. We acted together to avert a Depression in 2009. We must take urgent and coordinated action once more. Here in the United States, I have announced a plan to put Americans back to work and jumpstart our economy, and committed to substantially reduce our deficit over time. We stand with our European allies as they reshape their institutions and address their own fiscal challenge. For other countries, leaders face a different challenge as they shift their economies towards more self-reliance, boosting domestic demand while slowing inflation. So we will work with emerging economies that have rebounded strongly, so that rising standards of living create new markets that promote global growth. That is what our commitment to prosperity demands.

To combat the poverty that punishes our children, we must act on the belief that freedom from want is a basic human right. The United States has made it a focus of our engagement abroad to help people to feed themselves. And today, as drought and conflict have brought famine to the Horn of Africa, our conscience calls on us to act. Together, we must continue to provide assistance, and support organizations that can reach those in need. And together, we must insist on unrestricted humanitarian access so that we can save the lives of thousands of men, women and children. Our common humanity is at stake. Let us show that the life of a child in Somalia is as precious as any other. That is what our commitment to our fellow human beings demands.

To stop disease that spreads across borders, we must strengthen our systems of public health. We will continue the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. We will focus on the health of mothers and children. And we must come together to prevent, detect, and fight every kind of biological danger – whether it is a pandemic like H1N1, a terrorist threat, or a treatable disease. This week, America signed an agreement with the World Health Organization to affirm our commitment to meet this challenge. Today, I urge all nations to join us in meeting the WHO’s goal of making sure all nations have core capacities to address public health emergencies in place by 2012. That is what our commitment to the health of our people demands.

To preserve our planet, we must not put off the action that a changing climate demands. We must tap the power of science to save those resources that are scarce. Together, we must continue our work to build on the progress made in Copenhagen and Cancun, so that all of the major economies here today follow through on the commitments that were made.

Together, we must work to transform the energy that powers are economies, and support others as they move down that path. That is what our commitment to the next generation demands.

And to make sure our societies reach their potential, we must allow our citizens to reach theirs. No country can afford the cancer of corruption. Together, we must harness the power of open societies and open economies. That is why we have partnered with countries from across the globe to launch a new partnership on Open Government that helps ensure accountability and empower their citizens. No country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere. And no country can realize its potential if half its population cannot reach theirs. This week, the United States signed a new Declaration on Women’s Participation. Next year, we should each announce the steps we are taking to break down economic and political barriers that stand in the way of women and girls. That is what our commitment to human progress demands.

I know that there is no straight line to progress, no single path to success. We come from different cultures, and carry with us different histories. But let us never forget that even as we gather here as heads of different governments, we represent citizens who share the same basic aspirations – to live with dignity and freedom; to get an education and pursue opportunity; to love our families and our God. To live in the kind of peace that makes life worth living.

It is the nature of our imperfect world that we are forced to learn this lesson over and over again. Conflict and repression will endure so long as some people refuse to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Yet that is precisely why we have built institutions like this that bind our fates together – because those who came before us believed that peace is preferable to war; freedom is preferable to suppression; and prosperity is preferable to poverty. That is the message that comes not from capitals, but from citizens.

When the corner-stone of this very building was put in place, President Truman came here to New York and said, “The United Nations is essentially an expression of the moral nature of man’s aspirations.” As we live in a world that is changing at a breathtaking pace, that is a lesson that we must never forget.

Peace is hard, but we know that it is possible. Together, let us resolve to see that it is defined by our hopes and not our fears. Together, let us work to make, not merely a peace, but a peace that will last. Thank you.

It is not actually his region. Still, with the arrogance that is so characteristic of his behavior in matters he knows little about (which is a lot of matters), he entered the region as if in a triumphal march. But it wasn’t the power and sway of America that he was representing in Turkey and in Egypt. For the fact is that he has not much respect for these representations of the United States. In the mind of President Obama, in fact, these are what have wreaked havoc with our country’s standing in the world. So what—or, rather, who—does he exemplify in his contacts with foreign countries and their leaders? His exultancy gives the answer away. It is he himself, lui-mème. Alas, he is a president disconnected from his nation, without enthusiasts for his style, without loyalists to his policies, without a true friend unless that’s what you can call his top aide de camp,Valerie Jarrett, which probably you can. Obama is lucky, but it’s the only luck he has, that there are nutsy Republican enemies who aspire to his job. Maybe Rick Perry can save him from … well, yes, himself. I wouldn’t take bets on that, though.

Obama’s first personal excursions into the Middle East as president were to Turkey and Egypt. Recep Tayyip Erdogan welcomed his visit. Indeed, the president’s journey set the framework for the Ottomanization of modern Turkey’s foreign policy. The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne formally abrogated the empire’s previous rights in North Africa, these being the rights it had lost in the First World War. From then on, the country was content to make trouble only for the Kurds across its borders and for Greece. A member of NATO, with more than 600,000 troops under arms (omitting more than half a million reservists and paramilitary), it certainly played a role in deflecting Soviet ambitions in the Mediterranean. Now, with the Russian threat (temporarily?) deferred, the military still faces minor annoyance from Georgia, Armenia, Iraq. But since Obama communed with Erdogan—by all accounts, it was love at first sight—the prime minister has been taking on new projects. Only in the last days has he made what can reasonably be called a conqueror’s march through Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, evoking the old empire’s rule in North Africa not so long ago.

After all, let’s face it: Egypt is simply spent. Erdogan can seduce it with a speech or two. Yet it does have up-to-date military equipment. But, if it were tempted by war with Israel, Jerusalem would not give it the respectful pity that it gave Cairo’s Third Army 38 years ago. The Egyptian military has lost control of the Sinai to the Bedouins, even though Israel has already permitted thousands of Egyptian regulars, contravening specific prohibitions of the bilateral 1979 peace treaty, to re-enter the peninsula with heavy military equipment. For far into the future, I would assume. So what about the construction of Egypt in political, judicial, and economic terms? I’d give you heavy odds that in a decade or even two the political system will still be as undemocratic and corrupt as it has been since the comic and corpulent King Farouk reigned. By the way, it was the CIA’s Middle East head spook who initiated the coup that dispatched the monarch and his family to Italy and then to Monaco where he joined other deposed royals in the sedentary life. After Farouk came the reign of the colonels, a model favored by Allen Dulles whose wisdom spooked the region ever since. The courts will be fair when hell freezes over which, given global warning, is not at all likely. And the economy? My, my: With the desertification of the land, the high birth rate, and the functional illiteracy of most of the population, do not believe that anything will change quickly or, for that matter, anything much will change at all.

Were it not for Libyan oil, no country would have been tempted to intervene on “the shores of Tripoli” again. Even with its oil and with NATO intervention, the outcome of the civil war will not be as clear as folks like me had hoped or as decisive as the huge claque of always optimistic Arabisants have already concluded. Tout va bien. (Speaking of other Arabisants—without Arabic, incidentally—I wonder what my sort-of Harvard colleagues Stephen Walt and Joseph Nye now have to say about their notable protege Saif al-Qaddafi. Indeed, Walt has written against targeted killing by the alliance in Libya, doubtless making a pitch to save Saif’s ass. Yet the Kennedy School professor doesn’t seem nearly as interested in the random killings of Jews by Palestinians and other Arabs.) Under Qaddafi, Libya set its sights southward, trying to become a major force in sub-Saharan Africa. African leaders took the country’s petrodollars and gave Qaddafi the preposterous titles he required for his self-respect. He did become a comrade of Robert Mugabe and other gangster politicians, and even Nelson Mandela, yes, the sainted Nelson Mandela, has stood by him through thick and thin. But this augurs nothing special for the future of Libya. On the other hand, Erdogan’s stage show in Tripoli does put Turkey at the top of the list to dominate the crazy tyrant’s family business in oil.

Frankly, Tunisia doesn’t matter much in high politics. History was mostly made on its people rather than by them. When, for example, Israel drove the leadership of Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization out of Lebanon, the Arab League forced the organization onto Habib Bourguiba’s calm country from which it continued its elevated work. Bourguiba tried nonetheless to pacify the Israeli conflict with the Palestinians, to no avail, of course. Jews settled in this region long ago, after the destruction of the First Temple. So Tunisia was the home of one of Jewry’s earliest and most significant settlements outside its promised land. What with the “return,” however, and the emergence of Palestinian terror, there are fewer than 1,800 Jews in the country, a rough thousand in the legendary island of Djerba and the rest in Tunis. The Berber presence has played a role in both the Libyan and Tunisian revolt. But since journalists have barely heard of the Berbers they will not get their due in the media. This will soon change. Of course, Erdogan has now more or less placed the Turkish flag on this turf and he will extract whatever he can from the country. Good news: Small though it is, Tunisia is the most advanced country in the Maghreb, not a huge or intimidating comparative pool. Still.

All of this is in no way real big potatoes for Erdogan. But he surely required a build-up by someone at the top to pull off even this relatively modest adventure. That top guy was Barack Obama. And I suspect that the president is not surprised by the malevolently cranky despot’s success in l’Afrique du nord. The real query is whether Obama is at all startled by Erdogan’s seriously consequential mischief against Israel. I am not reporting. But I can well imagine the president of the U.S. and the prime minister of Turkey having a good chat about the troubles the Netanyahu government brings to the area where Islam is the dominant mode of thought, the dominant way of life, and the dominant religion. If such a conversation took place it was surely at Obama’s initiative. He was the one whose conscience burned for the question of Palestine.

As it happens, Erdogan had never shown much empathy for the trials of his Palestinian fellow-faithful. The contrary is true. The posture of his country for decades was that it and Israel would through their dominance on the military scene pacify the neighborhood. Israel considered Turkey a buffer against Muslim millenarianism. To Turkey, Israel was a vital trade partner, a technocratic mentor, an ace in the hole against Islamic fanaticism which surged all around it, most significantly in Iraq and Iran. But Erdogan had raised the passions of Turkey’s own ummah in his movement’s political conflict with both of his enemies, civil society and the military. Trying to use religious extremism also made him captive of its fanatics.

The instrument of this mobilization was mounting a campaign against the Jewish state. There were gradual lead-ups to the confrontation between the Israeli military and a noxious combo of the Free Gaza Movement (a Hamas affiliate) and the International Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief. But the IHH, shorthand for this flatulently named and militantly hostile agit-prop group, had no other object than to get the IDF to fire on its flotilla. As it happens, even an independent UN investigation found this spring that Israel’s intercession was entirely legal, if a bit too eager. Still, Erdogan has clutched on to the cause and he won’t let it go. He gave a hardline speech to the Arab League in support of the Palestinian campaign to get the UN to recognize and give credentials to the phantom state. Ankara is now fully enlisted in the PA’s effort to substitute an insubstantial resolution sanctioning a “state” for a real transaction setting one up with the intricate and, indeed, cumbersome provisions that alone might end a century-old war.

Now, even the Obama administration is hostile to this effort. Some of the team, especially Dennis Ross and our ambassador in Israel, Daniel Shapiro, have followed this saga for decades. It realizes that this is not the first time that the Palestinians have declared statehood. In fact, 124 of the 193 governments represented at the United Nations already have recognized the State of Palestine. Presumably, the Palestinian Authority has dispatched ambassadors to some of these countries, although I don’t know with what activities they fill their time. No doubt, also, a good number of these recognizing states send their ambassadors to wherever the State of Palestine really is. Which actually is nowhere. Or maybe Ramallah where it would be quite an adventure for a young diplomat to serve. Jeffrey Goldberg has just published a piece in Bloomberg Businessweek arguing that “Palestine May Win a Vote, But Won’t Be a State.” That’s the way I see it too.

I wish there would be a Palestinian state, not because there is actually a real Palestinian people. I’m not persuaded of that. And, of course, I don’t think that there is a Nigerian people which is why, when younger, I was an active supporter of Biafra, the would-be Ibo state, squashed by an indifferent world in behalf of the territorial integrity of, yes, Nigeria which is breaking apart before our eyes, in part because of the machinations of Muslim extremism. The world will some day have to come to grips with the fact that most governments are not really representative of their peoples. The whole notion of a country’s UN membership being a certificate of legitimacy is morally corrupt. UN membership is an admission ticket to the expensive blandishments of New York.

So I want a Palestine because I want Israelis not to have to burden themselves with an internal population that has neither the coherence of a nation nor a tradition of democratic norms. President Obama is enamored of the current Palestinian narrative, as false as it is self-pitying. This is a simple narrative and an over-simple projection into the future. It assumes that a 1949 map of the cease-fire lines—yes, of course, with appropriate but tiny land exchanges—will assure the peace. I do not think it assures anything except that Israel would be deflected from the art and science of building an ever freer society, a chore—if you’ll forgive me—it has shown some talents in doing. I do not know Obama’s head. Maybe nobody does. But his fervent and fervid clamoring for a simple Israeli route to an independent Palestine misled no people so much as the Palestinians. When he retreated from his formulae, which the PA assumed he could impose on Israel, they were already on an independence high. His somber entreaties could not bring them back to any semblance of reality.

This conundrum of a non-negotiated state for the Palestinians appeals to the ardent déclarateurs. It ignores the fact that free and responsible politics has never been a habit in the Arab world. Read me right: never. There is nothing in Palestinian history to have made the Arabs of Palestine an exception to this stubborn commonplace now being played out again in virtually every country in the region. A commitment is never a commitment. A border is never a border. A peace is never long-lasting. Turkey has now added its serious mischief to the scenario. Erdogan himself will now unravel Cairo’s peace with Jerusalem, as Erdogan has already locked the PA into phantom international politics.

Poor Barack Obama. His adoring view of Erdogan has stimulated the Turkish regime to be a force not for stability in Cairo or reason in Ramallah. What’s more, Obama’s Palestinian initiatives have all collapsed. But the most striking collapse of his Arab politics has been in Syria where he posited that there were sensible and dependable men with whom Israel could make peace. Of course, that would entail giving up the Golan Heights (which are not the Great Plains) to Dr. Assad. The administration courted the family tyranny and its epigones. Responsible, reasonable, reserved. Two smart-assed Jewish boys were dispatched to play computer games with the Damascus elite. They were also enthused by the possibilities. I know that none of these people pulled the triggers on any of the thousands who are now dead. They just encouraged the clan to think they will get away with murder forever.

The fact that Obama so thoroughly misunderstands the Middle East, so thoroughly also misunderstands militant Islam, has blotted out for both the Arabs and the Israelis the bona fides of the official American intermediaries. It is not simply that some of them are biased, a bit to Israel, a much larger cohort to the victim mentality of the Palestinians and to the oil deposits of other Arabs. It is that this administration has been stupid about the whole region and entranced with the Palestinian narrative which is, to be utterly brash but candid, nearly wholly false.

Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic.

Turkey and Israel do not need the United States’ help in mending their troubled diplomatic ties, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told the French news agency AFP on Saturday, ahead of a planned meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Ties between Israel and Turkey have taken another turn for the worse recently, as Ankara initiated a series of actions geared at downgrading its diplomatic ties with Jerusalem over Israel’s refusal to apologize for its raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in 2010.

	U.S. President Barack Obama meets with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in June 2010.
	Photo by: AP

Reports on Friday alleged that Obama will meet Erdogan at the UN General Assembly in New York next week to urge the Turkism PM to repair relations with Israel, as tensions continue to rise between the two key U.S. allies in the region.

Speaking to AFP on Saturday, Davutoglu rejected the notion that the U.S. would be able to sway Turkey to back down on its hostilities toward Israel, saying: “We do not need mediation … for Israel in any way.”

“There is no such situation in which mediation is needed. The demands of Turkey are clear,” Davutoglu added, referring to Turkey’s long-standing demand that Israel apologize for the raid as well as pay compensation to the families of the nine Turks killed in the incident.

The Turkish FM insisted that “no one should test our resolve on this matter,” adding that the Americans “are probably the people who best understand Turkey’s position on this issue.”

On Friday, White House National Security Council spokesman Ben Rhodes told reporters that Obama also anticipated a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the president’s three-day U.N. visit which starts late on Monday.

“We have encouraged Israel and Turkey, two close friends of the United States, to work to bridge their differences, so we’ll have an opportunity to discuss those issues,” Rhodes told a news briefing.