The risks of Obama's 'tinderbox' plan

The Middle East is a “tinderbox that could go off at any time,” says Jordan’s King Abdullah II. He ought to know. His father and great-grandfather helped create that “tinderbox,” if grudgingly.

Abdullah told The Wall Street Journal that he will press President Obama to present his own plan for a settlement between Israeli and Arab negotiators, as The Washington Post reported. The king has already balked at combining Jordan and the West Bank in some kind of governing arrangement. As has Egypt with Gaza.

That signifies the Middle East dilemma. Everyone wants a solution without taking firm responsibility. Let Israel do the hard work.

Obama may well bring his own plan to the bargaining table on grounds that the two parties cannot reach an agreement on their own. The upshot: Israel may need to decide on giving up East Jerusalem to obtain protection from Iran’s nuclear threat.

The Obama administration’s treatment of Israeli leaders was disgraceful, but its efforts to sanction Iran are progressing. This means that the president appears to be making sincere efforts to help Israel where it most counts, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would understand that.

Concern is understandable over settlement expansion in the West Bank, where the land is needed to build a Palestinian state. However, the Arabs have never explained why they need East Jerusalem for their capital or any other purpose. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton achieved a new level of notoriety for berating the prime minister over housing plans in a Jewish neighborhood there.

Palestinian Arabs persist in clamoring for East Jerusalem at a time when Obama hopes to unite Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Arab powers as a bulwark against Iran; after all, many other Arab countries fear Iran is attempting to dominate the region.

That Iran threatens them as well as Israel is not sufficient reason to form an alliance with Israel. Arab leaders appear to believe that they must convince their own people that today’s Israel is not their father’s Israel - the oppressor of the poor Palestinians - so there are fewer extremists to threaten their rule.

In this vein, it was never enough that 10 years ago Israel offered Palestinian Arabs their own state to encompass East Jerusalem, or that five years ago Israel withdrew all settlers and soldiers from Gaza. Israeli leaders might have planned for West Bank settlement evictions had their attention not been deflected by two wars provoked by Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Obama hopes to do more than neutralize Iran, if that is possible. He wants to drain hostility in the Arab world so that extremists will ultimately lose their core following, and then Arab countries can focus on rebuilding their societies and developing friendlier ties with the West. President Bush’s abrasive policies maximized Arab antagonism.

The president has recently taken new steps to reassure the Arab world. He announced a policy to limit a nuclear response in case of attack, signed a treaty with Russia to reduce their arsenal and got countries to agree to secure their nuclear weapons. An Israeli concession to give up East Jerusalem - expected to be part of Obama’s undisclosed plan - would add to the list of Western goodwill gestures.

Sacrificing East Jerusalem might boost Israel’s image in the Arab world, but it will not solve deeply rooted internal problems in individual Arab nations. What effect will losing East Jerusalem have on Israel? Do the Palestinian Arabs even need Jerusalem?

One step for certain: Each demand must be justified. Since the Arabs want East Jerusalem so badly, why do they want it and what do they intend to do with it? Will they exploit it as a staging ground to attack Israel?

Obama has a right to present his own plan, but not if he intends to impose his concepts on either party. Of course, many supporters of Israel believe and expect that is just what the president will attempt to do. Why should Israel consent to demands that make no sense?

Obama’s role amounts to a two-edged sword. He deserves credit for his efforts to impose sanctions on Iran to preclude its production of a nuclear bomb that would evidently target Israel. The New York Times reported that President Hu Jintao of China promised to join negotiations on a new package of sanctions, after a 90-minute talk with Obama.

The president outlined measures which would likely deny Iran access to international credit, choke off foreign investment in Iran’s energy sector and punish firms owned by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a White House official told the Times. Obama has also attempted to find alternate oil suppliers for China, which fears losing oil supplies from Iran if it participates in sanctions.

It is certainly an open question to begin with if sanctions can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

The Arab parties generate concerns because they persist in pressuring Israel to make concessions instead of discussing issues. Salam Fayyad, prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, warned in Haaretz, an Israeli daily newspaper, that the PA might declare Palestine as a state in 2011, saying, “It is the right of an oppressed nation to say ’enough.’ No one should be expected to stand for injustice, not least the Palestinians, who have endured long decades of occupation.”

Fayyad neglects to mention that they could have “endured” 10 years less of of occupation had they accepted the Camp David deal in 2000.

Though Jordan invaded Israel three times, Abdullah’s great-grandfather and father led those attacks for fear of being overthrown or even invaded by one of their so-called allies. Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, and a Washington Post story reported that Jordan and America’s intelligence agencies work together to combat terrorism.

Jordan and Egypt oppose aligning, respectively, with the West Bank and Gaza because they expect the extremists there to try to seize control of their governments.

These instances raise questions about even broader issues, such as the wisdom of creating a Palestinian state; that’s grist for another article. What’s important is whether a peace settlement will benefit Israel or merely exchange one “tinderbox” for another one.