WarSclerotic

Fatah Infighting Jeopardizes Kerry’s Peace Process, Gatestone Institute, Khaled Abu Toameh, March 4, 2014

(How can Prime Minister Netanyahu continue the “peace process” with President Abbas, who appears to have little authority to negotiate because of the diminished and weakening nature of his  coalition? During an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, President Obama said

I believe that President Abbas is sincere about his willingness to recognize Israel and its right to exist, to recognize Israel’s legitimate security needs, to shun violence, to resolve these issues in a diplomatic fashion that meets the concerns of the people of Israel. And I think that this is a rare quality not just within the Palestinian territories, but in the Middle East generally. For us not to seize that opportunity would be a mistake. [Emphasis added.]

 Assuming the President Obama was correct, and that President Abbas’ attitudes are rare within the Palestinian territories, can any deal acceptable to PM Netanyahu and President Abbas be implemented and continue in effect? — DM)

In recent weeks, Abbas has taken a number of measures that reflect his increased fear of Mohamed Dahlan’s moves to discredit him and remove him from power. These measures include confiscating large sums of money transferred from the United Arab Emirates to Dahlan loyalists in Gaza.

Once the claim was that Abbas does not represent the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, who are under the control of Hamas. Today it is not incorrect to argue that Abbas does not even represent his own party.

As Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas continues to talk with Israel and the U.S. about ways of achieving peace in the Middle East, senior members of his ruling Fatah faction have stepped up their efforts to remove him from power.

These efforts seem to be worrying Abbas these days more than anything else, including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s proposed “framework agreement” for peace between the Palestinians and Israel – which has thus far been rejected by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority [PA] leadership.

The internal squabbling in Fatah casts doubts on Abbas’ ability or willingness to sign any peace agreement with Israel.

There are not mere tensions or disagreements among politicians. Rather, they mark the beginning of an inevitable split that could result in the creation of a rival, anti-Abbas Fatah group, headed by some of his arch-enemies.

Sooner or later, Kerry and other Western leaders will have to ask Abbas which Fatah exactly does he represent – the one dominated by veteran leaders closely associated with Abbas and his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, or the new controlled by younger grassroots leaders.

Sources close to Abbas have accused former Fatah Central Committee member and former PA security chief Mohammed Dahlan of secretly planning a coup against the PA leader. According to the sources, Dahlan, who has been living in exile in the United Arab Emirates for the past four years, has his eyes set on the Palestinian Authority presidency and regards himself as a successor to Abbas.

Mohamed Dahlan (left) and PA President Mahmoud Abbas (right). [Image source: World Economic Forum]

Recently, Abbas dispatched a high-level Fatah delegation to the Gaza Strip, prompting many Palestinians to speculate that the purpose of the trip was to achieve reconciliation with Hamas. But it quickly transpired that the Fatah delegation, headed by Abbas loyalist Nabil Sha’ath, was sent to the Gaza Strip as part of Abbas’s attempt to crush a Dahlan-engineered rebellion against his leadership.

Many Palestinians were initially convinced that Abbas had resumed his efforts to end the dispute between Fatah and Hamas. Reports in Palestinian and Western media outlets even suggested that the two rival parties had made progress towards achieving unity.

Fatah leaders, however, have now admitted that the visit was primarily aimed at “restoring order” within their faction in the Gaza Strip. Abbas, they revealed, was now seeking the help of Hamas help in preventing Dahlan and other Fatah “rebels” from continuing to challenge his leadership.

Some reports have suggested that Sha’ath and members of his delegation had to flee the Gaza Strip three days after their arrival following threats to their lives from Dahlan and his supporters. According to the reports, Sha’ath even appealed to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh to beef up security at the hotel where he was staying in Gaza City, out of fear that disgruntled Fatah activists might assassinate him or members of his delegation.

Upon returning to Ramallah, Sha’ath rushed to accuse Dahlan and his supporters of plotting to overthrow Abbas. Sha’ath said that Abbas was worried about attempts to create a schism within Fatah. “All previous splits in Fatah ended in failure,” Sha’ath said. “All those who did break away from Fatah were eventually forced to become agents for other countries.”

In recent weeks, Abbas has taken a number of measures that reflect his increased fear of Dahlan’s moves to discredit him and remove him from power. These measures include confiscating large sums of money transferred from the United Arab Emirates to Dahlan loyalists in the Gaza Strip.

More recently, Abbas spent one million dollars on a “mass wedding” of 300 Palestinians after learning that the event had been originally sponsored and financed by Dahlan.

Last week Abbas went further by threatening to expel all Dahlan loyalists from Fatah. Dahlan himself was expelled (by Abbas) from Fatah in 2011.

Palestinians in Ramallah said that the increased tensions in Fatah mean that Abbas is beginning to lose his grip over the faction — a fact that Kerry and his team would not be able to ignore if and when they force Abbas to sign any agreement with Israel.

Today it is more obvious than ever that the challenges facing Abbas are not coming only from Hamas, but from his own Fatah faction. The serious problems that have surfaced in Abbas’s back yard are, of course, very bad news for any peace process with Israel.

Once, the claim was that Abbas does not represent the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, who are under the control of Hamas. Today, however, it is not incorrect to argue that Israel’s peace partner, Abbas, does not even represent his own party.

IAF strikes terror cell attempting to fire rockets from the Gaza Strip | JPost | Israel News.

By YAAKOV LAPPIN, JPOST.COM STAFF

03/03/2014 20:29

Palestinian sources report one killed, two others wounded in strike in northern Gaza’s Beit Hanoun area.

Israel Air Force planes struck a Palestinian rocket-launching cell about to fire rockets at southern Israel from northern Gaza on Monday evening.

The military said the air strike targeted a terrorist cell that was in the final stage of preparations before firing a rocket.

According to Palestinian sources, one person was killed and two others were wounded in the attack, which was carried out in the Beit Hanoun area of northern Gaza. Palestinian media later identified the man killed as Masab Musa Aza’anin, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad member.

The strike came after a red alert siren was sounded earlier on Monday evening in the Ashkelon Coast Regional Council area. No rockets were recovered following the alert and it is assumed the Palestinian projectile that caused the siren to go off likely failed to cross into Israel.

The air strike is part of the IDF’s ongoing security policy of searching Gaza for imminent threats and acting to remove them when they are identified.

Egyptian court bans Hamas | The Times of Israel.

Islamist terror group blasts move against ‘the resistance,’ says Cairo ‘serves the Israeli occupation’

By Times of Israel staff and AP March 4, 2014, 11:48 am

Palestinian Hamas security guards walk near an Egyptian watch tower on the border with Egypt in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, on July 5, 2013 (photo credit: Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90)

A Cairo court has ordered a ban activities by the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas in Egypt, branding it a terror organization. The court also ordered that Hamas offices in the country be shut down and all dealings with the group suspended.

Hamas blasted the move as ”an attempt to besiege the resistance.” A senior Hamas official told the AFP that the ban “serves the Israeli occupation.”

Egypt’s relations with Hamas have sharply deteriorated since the military removed Islamist leader Mohammed Morsi last July. Hamas, which rules neighboring Gaza Strip, is a Palestinian offshoot of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood movement.

Morsi and scores of Brotherhood leaders are in detention, facing a multitude of trials on charges that carry the death penalty.

Two of those cases involve Hamas members, accused of assisting Morsi and others in escaping from prison in 2011. Morsi and others are also charged in a separate trial of leaking state secrets to Hamas.

Since the military regained power in Egypt, it has moved to severely curtail militant Islamic activity in the country and is engaged in an ongoing struggle against terrorists in the Sinai Peninsula. Egypt has also engaged in a campaign to destroy smuggling tunnels between Gaza and Sinai that Hamas uses to bring in supplies, weapons and other items.

Earlier this week, Hamas accused Egypt of “allying with the [Israeli] occupation” by discussing the appeal to classify it as a terror organization.

On December 25, the military-backed Egyptian government declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terror group, having toppled its government six months earlier. Hamas said it was the first time in history that an Arab court would discuss such a claim, calling it “a violation of all national norms.”

“Classifying Hamas as a terror organization is a Zionist classification,” Hamas charged in a press release posted on its website Sunday. “The tendency of some to adopt such a classification expresses an alliance with the occupation and support of it … what is expected of our nation is to support the Palestinian resistance, not try it.”

In addition to Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union and Japan all include Hamas in their lists of terror organizations.

Analysis: Putting it all on Netanyahu’s shoulders | JPost | Israel News.

By HERB KEINON

03/04/2014 07:10

If Netanyahu were to make tough decisions, then peace would flow through the region like the Jordan River in the middle of a rainy winter, many believe.

The first words out of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s mouth when he landed in Washington late Sunday evening were pretty innocuous.

“The tango in the Middle East needs at least three,” he said, using this particular dance metaphor for the umpteenth time.

“For years there have been two – Israel and the US. Now it needs to be seen if the Palestinians are also present.”

Taken on their own, these words were unremarkable; rather bland stuff. But they cannot be taken on their own.

No, they must be seen in the context of the interview US President Barack Obama gave Bloomberg’s Jeffrey Goldberg that was published as Netanyahu was flying somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean on his way to Washington.

In that interview Obama seemed to place the entire onus of responsibility for making a deal with the Palestinians on Netanyahu’s shoulders. In this construct, if Netanyahu would just make the tough decisions, then peace would flow through the region like the Jordan River in the middle of a rainy winter.

In looking at the situation, Obama cited some homespun wisdom imparted to him by his mother: “If there’s something you know you have to do, even if it’s difficult or unpleasant, you might as well just go ahead and do it, because waiting isn’t going to help. When I have a conversation with Bibi, that’s the essence of my conversation: If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who? How does this get resolved?” To which Netanyahu, when he landed, essentially replied, “Mr. President, it takes three to dance. We’re there; are the Palestinians?” What was striking about Obama’s construct was that it appeared just a few hours after US Secretary of State John Kerry made a point, in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, to stress that there are indeed expectations of the Palestinians.

Asked whether Monday’s meeting with Obama was Netanyahu’s moment of truth, whether he has “to act for the peace process to be successful,” Kerry responded – in stark contrast to Obama’s theme – that “everybody has to act.”

“This isn’t just a question or a series of questions for Prime Minister Netanyahu,” Kerry said. “He’s been very courageous and he’s made tough decisions with respect to entering into these negotiations and some of the things that he’s indicated he’s willing to do in the negotiations. It’s also up to [Palestinian Authority] President [Mahmoud] Abbas. The Palestinians need to decide whether or not they’re prepared to compromise, whether or not they’re willing to do some of the things necessary. This is not a burden exclusive to one party or the other.”

While Obama said that Kerry briefed him almost every week on the Middle East process, apparently one briefing point that he missed – or did not accept – was that it is not all up to Netanyahu, and that whether this current stab at an agreement has any more chance of success than previous tries depends not only on what Netanyahu is willing to give, but also – to the same degree – on what Abbas is willing to give.

Netanyahu was not the only one who read with great interest Obama’s interview, and responded to it immediately.

So did Abbas.

Abbas had to like what he heard, especially about the settlements and the likelihood of international pressure on Israel if the process falls apart.

“If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction – and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time – if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited,” Obama said.

“In today’s world,” he continued, “where power is much more diffuse, where the threats that any state or peoples face can come from non-state actors and asymmetrical threats, and where international cooperation is needed in order to deal with those threats, the absence of international goodwill makes you less safe. The condemnation of the international community can translate into a lack of cooperation when it comes to key security interests. It means reduced influence for us, the United States, in issues that are of interest to Israel. It’s survivable, but it is not preferable.”

Obama, in his first meeting with Netanyahu in the Oval Office in May 2009, made settlements the issue and called for a settlement freeze. The Palestinians, who until that point had never made a total settlement freeze – including in areas beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem – a condition for negotiations, heard Obama and pounced. If this was what the American president was saying, how could they ask for anything less? This essentially killed negotiations for four years.

Now, again, Obama struck the settlement chord, and not only did he hit it, but he coupled this with hints of serious trouble for Israel in the international arena – in international organizations – if Israel does not concede this point.

Abbas got the message, and it didn’t take him 12 hours before he pounced, telling Meretz head Zehava Gal-On, with whom he met in Ramallah, “If the American framework does not resolve fundamental principles on core issues, we will not permit extending the talks, and we will turn to international organizations.”

He also heard what Obama said about the settlements, throwing into the mix new conditions for extending negotiations after Kerry presents a framework agreement.

“The only way we would agree to extend the talks would be if Netanyahu declares a settlement freeze and agrees to free more prisoners beyond the next round, including women, young people, and administrative detainees,” he said.

Obama’s interview, as Goldberg said in a Channel 2 interview Monday night, might have been aimed at showing the Palestinians, who believe Kerry is giving too much to Israel in the framework document, that he is willing to pressure Israel.

Abbas is coming to Washington next week for his own talks with Obama. What will be telling is whether that meeting will be preceded by another Obama interview, only this time one in which Obama publicly takes Abbas to task over issues such as incitement and refusal to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

What will be telling is whether in that interview Obama will say, “When I have a conversation with Abu Mazen, that’s the essence of my conversation: If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. President, then who? How does this get resolved?

McCain pans Obama’s ‘feckless’ policy on Iran, Syria, Ukraine | The Times of Israel.

‘Nobody believes in America’s strength anymore,’ veteran senator who lost 2008 presidential bid tells AIPAC

By Times of Israel staff March 3, 2014, 6:33 pm

With Putin making trouble, Obama goes easy on Netanyahu | The Times of Israel.

Despite the harshly worded interview he gave last week, the US president takes a softer tone in meeting with PM

By Raphael Ahren March 4, 2014, 7:09 am

US President Barack Obama listens as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Monday, March 3, 2014 (photo credit: AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

The Ukraine crisis changed everything. After the unusually harsh comments US President Barack Obama made in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg last week – it was published on Sunday — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was expected to receive another verbal lashing Monday in the Oval Office. But Obama’s tone was surprisingly gentle.

The president’s statement made immediately prior to his meeting with Netanyahu sounded quite different from the interview, in which Obama chastised the prime minister for “continued aggressive settlement construction,” warned that the US might no longer be able to protect Israel in the international arena, and predicted that “the window is closing for a peace deal.”

Obama did not radically change his position from one day to the next, neither on Iran nor on the peace process. Some “tough decisions are going to have to be made,” he told Netanyahu Monday in the White House, and difficult compromises will have to be made to reach an agreement with the Palestinians.

While his views have stayed the same, the difference in tone was drastic. And this despite the Israeli government’s announcement that settlement construction increased by 123% in 2013 compared to the previous year, which could have potentially given the president even more ammunition to attack the prime minister.

According to Goldberg, Obama was ready to tell Netanyahu that if he failed to endorse an American peace plan, Israel “could face a bleak future — one of international isolation and demographic disaster.”

And yet, at least in the public statements the two leaders made before their nearly three-hours-long meeting, it didn’t look like the president was about to berate Netanyahu with a lecture on settlements — or on anything else that could ostensibly indicate Israel’s intransigence, for that matter. Obama did not utter the word “settlements” a single time on Monday during his public remarks.

Obviously, the president knows not to offend his guests by attacking and accusing them in person. But there’s more to the sudden change of tone. Obama’s interview with Goldberg took place last Thursday, before the Russian-Ukrainian crisis escalated. By Monday, Obama understood that Russian President Vladimir Putin was serious about his ambitions regarding Crimea, and that a possible military showdown near the Black Sea could become the defining moment of his presidency.

The US public isn’t really that worried about Iran becoming a nuclear threshold state, and the fact that Bashar Assad is still killing in Syria doesn’t keep many Americans awake at night. While in the eyes of Israelis, and the Sunni Arab states in the region, Obama is a weak leader who cannot be trusted to enforce the red lines he occasionally draws, when he has no other choice, the average Joe in the US has other worries.

But the Crimea crisis, a throwback to the Cold War, is a different ballgame. Putin’s challenge to the West, and particularly the US — which has vowed that “there is a huge price to pay” for violating Ukrainian sovereignty – is a bigger headache for Obama than the entire Middle East. And the last thing the president needs right now is a public spat with Netanyahu, who enjoys near-universal admiration in Congress. And Obama might need Congress if he is to act decisively against Moscow’s territorial appetite in Eastern Europe.

Does that mean that the US administration is going to decrease pressure on Israel in the coming weeks and months? Certainly not. As Washington prepares to get Israelis and Palestinians to sign on to a framework agreement that would allow the sides to continue negotiations toward a final-status peace accord, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry will be relentless in trying to get Netanyahu to show flexibility and make concessions. But as long as the specter of war looms in Europe, and Ukrainians and Europeans look to the leader of the free world to counter Russian provocations, Obama will be careful not to open other unnecessary fronts.

Ukraine casts shadow over US-Israel talks on Iran | The Times of Israel.

Watching developments in Crimea, some officials ponder its meaning for stopping Tehran’s nuclear program

By Haviv Rettig Gur March 4, 2014, 2:28 am

US President Barack Obama talks on the phone in the Oval Office with Russian President Vladimir Putin about the situation in Ukraine, Saturday, March 1, 2014 (photo credit: Pete Souza/White House/Flickr )

Iran says Obama remarks damage nuclear talks, Trend, March 4, 2014

(She provided no specificity as to which of President Obama’s remarks she had in mind. She also failed to allude to his demands that all Israeli and U.S. television stations weekly broadcast simulations of joint Israeli and U.S. nuclear attacks on Tehran. What? He didn’t? Oh. — DM)

Afkham stressed non-militaristic nature of Iranˈs peaceful nuclear program and underlined that Iran, by protecting its legitimate rights upon international treaties, has maintained its nuclear program structure and will continue its peaceful activities upon its programs.

Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman, in reaction to remarks of US President in an interview with a US newspaper, said that ambiguous remarks of President Obama will cause continuation of mistrust and damage nuclear talks, IRNA reported.

According to the report of Foreign Ministry Media Department on Monday evening, Marzeiyeh Afkham added that part of President Obamaˈs remarks was contradictory to the international law principles and is opposed to the spirit of diplomatic talks.

Another part of President Obamaˈs remarks was an illusion about Iranˈs motive to attend the diplomatic dialogues, said Afkham.

She added that such remarks have lost their effects in the international atmosphere.

Afkham stressed non-militaristic nature of Iranˈs peaceful nuclear program and underlined that Iran, by protecting its legitimate rights upon international treaties, has maintained its nuclear program structure and will continue its peaceful activities upon its programs.

Referring to certain efforts to damage Iranˈs relations with its neighbors through Iranophobia, Afkham underlined that such a policy had no results in the past and will never have any in the future.

She also referred to efforts by certain pressure groups and Israel lobby to have an effect on the US foreign policy.

She said unfortunately it seems that the US government is under influence of such radical viewpoints and this has increased pessimism of the Muslim nations toward the USA.

The President’s Prophetic Threats to Israel, Commentary Daily, John Podhoretz, March 2, 2014

(President Obama must view the “peace process” as wonderful in and of itself, no matter where — if anywhere — it may lead; like the P5+1 “negotiations” with Iran. Does he live in a world of fantasy?– DM)

The Palestinians, in Obama’s view, do not actually need to make changes; astonishingly, he says, they’re ready for peace. . . . Rather, they are still engaging in a pseudo-national fantasy about Israel’s disappearance or destruction. 

In an extraordinary—and I don’t use the word in a complimentary way—interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg, President Obama follows his secretary of state in warning Israel and its leader that a failure to “make peace” now with the Palestinians will have terrible consequences. Israel is “more isolated internationally,” and will become more so; there will be more Palestinians and Israeli Arabs as time goes on, not fewer, so Israel had better move now; and not to move now is to create the conditions for a “permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank….there comes a point when you cannot manage this anymore.”

The wild logical contradictions in his remarks expose the degree to which the American approach in the Kerry peace talks is to haunt Israel with the dire nightmare it will face should the talks fail; Palestinian rejectionism plays almost no role in the Obaman calculus here.

The Palestinians, in Obama’s view, do not actually need to make changes; astonishingly, he says, they’re ready for peace. “The Palestinians,” the president says, overlooking every piece of polling data we have about the opinions of the Palestinians, “would still prefer peace. They would still prefer a country of their own that allows them to find a job, send their kids to school, travel overseas, go back and forth to work without feeling as if they are restricted or constrained as a people. And they recognize that Israel is not going anywhere.”

Ah. So that 2011 poll that says 60 percent of the Palestinians reject a two-state solutionis bunk—a poll whose findings have not been  contradicted since. If Palestinians refuse to accept a two-state solution, they do not “recognize that Israel is not going anywhere.” Rather, they are still engaging in a pseudo-national fantasy about Israel’s disappearance or destruction. And they are so eager for peace and coexistence with Israel that they remain the only significant Muslim population that still has a favorable view of suicide bombings, according to a Pew survey.

“The voices for peace within the Palestinian community will be stronger with a framework agreement,” the president says. But why would the “voices for peace” need to be “stronger” if they reflect the actual views of the Palestinian people? They should be more than strong enough on their own now. Indeed, if they are so strong, we would not be hearing repeated denunciations of the “framework” process from Palestinian negotiators.

The president’s fantasies about the Palestinians also  involve Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority. “I think,” he says, “nobody would dispute that whatever disagreements you may have with him, he has proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve this issue.” Nobody would dispute? In 2008, offered a peace deal by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that involved Abbas actually drawing a new West Bank map giving the Palestinians something between 92 and 95 percent of the territory, Abbas basically fled the table and didn’t return. Granted, he didn’t do what Yasser Arafat did after a similar deal at Camp David in 2000 and begin the second intifada, but this hardly demonstrates a commitment to a diplomatic effort—except for one that fails.

So the Palestinians, in the president’s view, are all in. It’s really quite wonderful, in fact: “You’ve got a partner on the other side who is prepared to negotiate seriously, who does not engage in some of the wild rhetoric that so often you see in the Arab world when it comes to Israel, who has shown himself committed to maintaining order within the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority and to cooperate with Israelis around their security concerns — for us to not seize this moment I think would be a great mistake.”

Yes, the PA is such a partner for peace that even with negotiations going on, it celebrates acts of violence against Israel on a constant basis, as this report details.

Not to mention the little wrinkle that Abbas doesn’t speak in any way for half of the Palestinian polity, the half living under the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza. Ah, but that’s no problem, in the president’s view. “There would still be huge questions about what happens in Gaza,” the president says, “but I actually think Hamas would be greatly damaged by the prospect of real peace.” Really! Unlike Abbas, who has not faced Palestinian voters since 2004, Hamas actually won a free election in the past decade and its unquestioned commitment to Israel’s destruction is clearly shared by the people who live under its aegis. They do not want peace.

All of this is folderol, anyway, because the president clearly thinks peace is solely Israel’s to make, and basically, Binyamin Netanyahu should listen to Obama’s mother and rip off the band-aid: “One of the things my mom always used to tell me and I didn’t always observe, but as I get older I agree with — is if there’s something you know you have to do, even if it’s difficult or unpleasant, you might as well just go ahead and do it, because waiting isn’t going to help. When I have a conversation with Bibi, that’s the essence of my conversation: If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?”

Now that’s some chutzpah right there, because of course the president is invoking the words of Hillel, the ancient Jewish sage, as a rhetorical tool against the Israeli prime minister. Of course, Obama leaves out the key words of Hillel’s famed plaint, which are: “If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?” Israel must be for itself, because there is almost no country left in the world that will be for it; while the president says the American commitment to Israel is “rock-solid,” clearly he does not believe it will necessarily be so in the future…nor should it be.

Says the president of Netanyahu, “if he does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach. And as I said before, it’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible.” That’s ridiculous. A peace deal with the Palestinians is of course the right thing to do for Israel. But if there can be no peace deal, or can be no peace deal that does not pose a severe danger to Israel’s survival, then it is not the right thing to do.

The only “plausible” thing to do is to challenge the Palestinians to cure themselves of their psychotic political culture and become a rational actor with whom a true peace can be made. Is that a tragedy? It sure is. Sometimes there are tragedies, and they must be faced realistically, not wished away.

One thing that cannot be wished away is the president’s insistence on placing the burdens on Israel. This is something else his apologists can no longer wish away.

President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy, Washington Post, by Editorial Board, March 2, 2014

(“Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the editorial board.”  The article is interesting principally because of its source: not merely presenting the views of one opinion writer but presenting those of the Washington Post, an often left-leaning newspaper, as an institution.. —  DM)

[A]s long as some leaders play by what Mr. Kerry dismisses as 19th-century rules, the United States can’t pretend that the only game is in another arena altogether. Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan — these still matter, much as we might wish they did not. While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that’s harmful to U.S. national security, too.

FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past. Secretary of State John F. Kerry displayed this mindset on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday when he said, of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine, “It’s a 19th century act in the 21st century.”

That’s a nice thought, and we all know what he means. A country’s standing is no longer measured in throw-weight or battalions. The world is too interconnected to break into blocs. A small country that plugs into cyberspace can deliver more prosperity to its people (think Singapore or Estonia) than a giant with natural resources and standing armies.

Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China’s president, Xi Jinping, who is engaging in gunboat diplomacy against Japan and the weaker nations of Southeast Asia. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is waging a very 20th-century war against his own people, sending helicopters to drop exploding barrels full of screws, nails and other shrapnel onto apartment buildings where families cower in basements. These men will not be deterred by the disapproval of their peers, the weight of world opinion or even disinvestment by Silicon Valley companies. They are concerned primarily with maintaining their holds on power.

Mr. Obama is not responsible for their misbehavior. But he does, or could, play a leading role in structuring the costs and benefits they must consider before acting. The model for Mr. Putin’s occupation of Crimea was his incursion into Georgia in 2008, when George W. Bush was president. Mr. Putin paid no price for that action; in fact, with parts of Georgia still under Russia’s control, he was permitted to host a Winter Olympics just around the corner. China has bullied the Philippines and unilaterally staked claims to wide swaths of international air space and sea lanes as it continues a rapid and technologically impressive military buildup. Arguably, it has paid a price in the nervousness of its neighbors, who are desperate for the United States to play a balancing role in the region. But none of those neighbors feel confident that the United States can be counted on. Since the Syrian dictator crossed Mr. Obama’s red line with a chemical weapons attack that killed 1,400 civilians, the dictator’s military and diplomatic position has steadily strengthened.

The urge to pull back — to concentrate on what Mr. Obama calls “nation-building at home” — is nothing new, as former ambassador Stephen Sestanovich recounts in his illuminating history of U.S. foreign policy, “Maximalist.” There were similar retrenchments after the Korea and Vietnam wars and when the Soviet Union crumbled. But the United States discovered each time that the world became a more dangerous place without its leadership and that disorder in the world could threaten U.S. prosperity. Each period of retrenchment was followed by more active (though not always wiser) policy. Today Mr. Obama has plenty of company in his impulse, within both parties and as reflected by public opinion. But he’s also in part responsible for the national mood: If a president doesn’t make the case for global engagement, no one else effectively can.

The White House often responds by accusing critics of being warmongers who want American “boots on the ground” all over the world and have yet to learn the lessons of Iraq. So let’s stipulate: We don’t want U.S. troops in Syria, and we don’t want U.S. troops in Crimea. A great power can become overextended, and if its economy falters, so will its ability to lead. None of this is simple.

But it’s also true that, as long as some leaders play by what Mr. Kerry dismisses as 19th-century rules, the United States can’t pretend that the only game is in another arena altogether. Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan — these still matter, much as we might wish they did not. While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that’s harmful to U.S. national security, too.

As Mr. Putin ponders whether to advance further — into eastern Ukraine, say — he will measure the seriousness of U.S. and allied actions, not their statements. China, pondering its next steps in the East China Sea, will do the same. Sadly, that’s the nature of the century we’re living in.