ISRANET DAILY BRIEFING
Volume VIII, No. 1,969 • Thursday, November 20, 2008
A Service of CIJR
Canadian Institute for Jewish Research
Prof. Frederick Krantz, Director

U.S. Elections-Follow-up

“The spin on the story by many of the news organizations that covered Zawahiri's fulmination is that Obama's election has so challenged the demonization of the U.S. propagated by al-Qaeda that bin Laden's movement needed to do something to revive its anti-American message. In reality, however, the al-Qaeda's message has long been marginalized in the Arab and Muslim world—even among many who are actively engaged in fierce battles against U.S. allies.”—Tony Karon, columnist. (Time.com, Nov.20)

RADICAL REGIMES RETHINK OBAMA
Barry Rubin
Jerusalem Post, November 17, 2008

Everybody in the Middle East faces the challenge of how to deal with President Barack Obama, a decision with huge implications for the next four years.

The radicals praised Obama during the campaign and some even tried to help him. On the eve of the vote, however, they reconsidered their enthusiasm for three reasons:

* First, the radical regimes and revolutionary movements need anti-Americanism to maintain their popular support and distract from their failures.

* Second, they are starting to distrust Obama…. Pushed by criticism, Obama took a stance more favorable to Israel, tougher against America’s enemies and stronger for the preservation of US interests. His sincerity is irrelevant; what’s important is whether he and his team calculate such positions are vital now to avoid political problems, embarrassing mistakes, and/or a reelection defeat.

* Third, the radicals believe that Obama is weak—which may well be true—and aggressiveness for them is a no-lose policy. They can both advance their interests and get more American concessions—simultaneously. Indeed, the nastier they sound, the more Obama will be scared. The alternative is to welcome Obama, negotiate with him, and get concessions from an American president eager to please. Getting others to like us is important, Obama said. Fine, they will now present their bill for smiling at America….

The Iranian government now seems to have decided on an anti-Obama line. It really does believe most of its own rhetoric. Teheran could have insisted that it was eager for conciliation. Of course, this would have been hypocritical, a strategy to lure Obama into massive concessions. But if Obama is going to withdraw from Iraq any way and will be less tough than his predecessor regarding Iran’s nuclear program, why give up anything?

In contrast, Syria has a different approach, though one not jeopardizing its close alliance with Iran. It offers a deal: we will restrain Hizbullah and “allow” America to withdraw from Iraq if you grant us hegemony over Lebanon (as US governments did in the past), stop the sanctions, and give Damascus various economic goodies. Peace with Israel? Well, no, not interested. But if you really want—and are willing to pay us for it—we will talk indirectly with Israel and pretend to be seeking a deal.

What of the PA? The first thing it needs, and will get, is US support for “President” Mahmoud Abbas unilaterally extending his own term in office. (If Hamas names its own “president” that gives the West another incentive to sustain sanctions against it.) The PA is also doing a better job of policing—though not governing—the West Bank which ensures continued Israeli support and the flow of Western aid money….

The biggest dilemma is faced by the more moderate Arab states which will have the horrible experience of getting what they said they wanted…. Unhappy with the American presence in Iraq? “Good news,” the Americans are leaving. Publicly proclaiming you don’t see Iran’s nuclear weapons drive as a threat? No worries, the United States will ease up. Angry at the previous president’s “saber-rattling”? Great, Obama doesn’t want ever to use force, even to protect you….

(Barry Rubin is director of Global Research in International Affairs [GLORIA].)

OBAMA WINS, MUSLIMS DIVIDED
Daniel Pipes
Philadelphia Bulletin, November 12, 2008

Ali ibn Abi-Talib, the seventh-century figure central to Shiite Islam, is said to have predicted when the world will end, columnist Amir Taheri points out. A “tall black man” commanding “the strongest army on earth” will take power “in the west.” He will carry “a clear sign” from the third imam, Hussein. Ali says of the tall black man: “Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us.” Barack Hussein in Arabic means “the blessing of Hussein.” In Persian, Obama translates as “He [is] with us.” Thus does the name of the presumptive American president-elect, when combined with his physical attributes and geography, suggest that the End of Times is nigh—precisely what Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been predicting.

Back down on earth, the Muslim reaction to Obama’s victory is more mixed than one might expect. American Islamists are delighted; an umbrella group, the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Election, opined that, with Obama’s election, “Our nation has…risen to new majestic heights.”… [T]he Council on American Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, and the Muslim Alliance in North America responded with similar exuberance.

Hamas, and Islamist movements in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, India, Indonesia and the Philippines delighted in Obama’s election…. John Esposito of Georgetown University emphasizes the Muslim world’s welcome to Obama as an “internationalist president.”

But plenty of other Muslims have other views. Writing in Canada’s Edmonton Sun, Salim Mansur found John McCain the “more worthy candidate.” Yusif al-Qaradawi, the Al-Jazeera sheikh, endorsed McCain for opposite reasons: “This is because I prefer the obvious enemy who does not hypocritically [conceal] his hostility toward you…to the enemy who wears a mask [of friendliness].” Al-Qaradawi also argued that twice as many Iraqis died during Bill Clinton’s two administrations than during George W. Bush’s.

Iran’s hardliners also favored a McCain victory (according to Iran’s former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi) “because they benefit more from enmity with the U.S., which allows them to rally the Islamic world behind their policies and at the same time suppress dissent at home.” The Taliban took note of Obama’s election promise to increase U.S. troops in Afghanistan, warning that, should he fulfill this plan, “jihad and resistance will be continued.”

Iraqis are intensively divided about Obama’s plan quickly to withdraw U.S. troops from their country. That plan, plus promises to end U.S. dependence on Middle East oil and to negotiate with Iranian leaders, rattled the leaders of Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf governments.

Some commentators argue that Obama cannot make a real difference; an Iranian newspaper declares him unable to alter a system “established by capitalists, Zionists, and racists.” Predictably, the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Obama’s chief of staff confirmed Palestinian perceptions of an omnipotent Israel lobby.…

In all, these mixed reactions from Muslims suggest puzzlement at the prospect of a U.S. president of Islamic origins who promises “change,” yet whose foreign policy may buckle under the constraints of his office. In other words, Muslims confront the same question mark hanging over Obama as everyone else: Never before have Americans voted into the White House a person so unknown and enigmatic. Emerging from a hard-left background, he ran, especially in the general election, mostly as a center-left candidate. Which of these positions will he adopt as president? More precisely, where along the spectrum from hard- to center-left will he land?

Looking at the Arab-Israeli conflict, for example, will Obama’s policies reflect Rashid Khalidi, the ex-PLO flak he befriended in the 1990s, or Dennis Ross, his recent campaign advisor and member of my board of editors? No one can yet say. Still, one can predict. Should Obama return to his hard left roots, Muslim euphoria will largely continue. Should he seek to make his presidency a success by moving to the center-left, many—but hardly all—Muslims will experience severe disillusionment.

WAS HE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING?
Jonathan S. Tobin
Jewish Exponent, October 30, 2008

Has there ever been a lamer duck than George W. Bush? How he went from winning a clear majority of the 2004 popular vote to his current dismal showing is a topic that will fascinate historians in the future…. Yet, even as Bush gets swept into the proverbial dustbin of history, it would be a mistake to succumb to the temptation of viewing everything he did as wrong.

But this is exactly the angle that has been adopted by the Democrats as they appear to be coasting to victory. In the partisan debate for the Jewish vote, the Democrats argue that the Bush administration has been harmful to the Jewish state.….

Part of this has to do with the stale debate about the decision to go to war in Iraq. There’s no question that the demise of Saddam Hussein and the weakening of Iraq helped Iran. Tehran’s nuclear potential now poses the No. 1 threat to both Israel and the region in general…. Yet, this line of reasoning fails to take into account that if Saddam had been allowed to stay in power, his menacing of the region would have continued and Iran’s nuclear program would still have grown to the existential threat that it is today.

Even more significant to the Democrats’ strategy to woo Jewish voters is the charge put forth during the current campaign that Bush’s decision to back away from Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy should also be considered a mistake. They argue that Bush’s refusal to continue Bill Clinton’s hands-on engagement with the faltering peace talks led to years of violence and the current impasse….

But the truth is, the Clinton administration was itself at fault for spending years coddling then-Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat. It was Clinton (who made Arafat his most-frequent foreign guest at the White House) and his foreign-policy team, including respected men like Dennis Ross (who is hoping to return to office next year), who indulged Arafat’s demands, and lied to both the public and Congress about the Palestinian’s ties to terror and unwillingness to abide by the peace accords that he, Arafat, had signed.

Clinton’s sponsorship of the July 2000 Camp David conference resulted in a sweeping Israeli peace proposal from then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The answer from Arafat was a decisive “no.” His dismissal of Israel’s offer was topped a few months later by the launch of a Palestinian terror offensive that would take the lives of more than a thousand Israelis and far more Palestinians.

The idea that Bush could have prevented this war or lessened its impact is ridiculous, since it started on Clinton’s watch, not his. More to the point, it was Bush, acting against the advice of Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose actions directly contributed to squelching the intifada. In 2002, as the violence grew in intensity, Bush broke with precedent by refusing to stick to the Clintonesque policy of urging “restraint on both sides.” Despite Powell’s objections, Bush gave Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a “green light” to send in the Israel Defense Force to clean out Arafat’s terror bases in the West Bank. He also backed the building of the separation fence that effectively ended the suicide-bombing campaign.

Just as in 2006, when Bush supported the failed effort to fight back against the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, the administration understood that being evenhanded about the response to terror was a diplomatic code phrase for stopping Israel from defending itself.

What’s more, after Israel’s capture of a ship filled with Iranian arms sent to assist the Palestinian attacks, Bush finally did what his predecessor would not. He rightly branded Arafat as an unrepentant terrorist, and cut off American aid and diplomatic contact with him. Bush then went on to state that peace could only come once the Palestinians rejected terror and the leadership of those who support terror.

Was that a mistake? Can anyone really believe that continuing Clinton’s urging for more concessions to Arafat would have brought peace?... [But] in the last year of his presidency, Bush has abandoned Middle East policy to Powell’s successor Condoleezza Rice, who seems determined to re-enact the follies of Clinton’s final year…. If the next administration is staffed by people who embrace the Clinton Administration’s delusions about Palestinian intentions, then we can expect the same results that we got the last time: more bloodshed.

CIJR's Briefing series attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers' educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinion of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Institute.