Whatever the twists and turns in Obama's "new" policy, it cannot be relied on.

****Once burnt, twice shy. Twice burnt, four times shy. Consistency with past hostility cannot be papered over with short-term and insincere gestures.The worst thing about Obama is not that he's more unsmart than many think; rather it's that he thinks others are stupid. ****
Why Gates Rolled Out the Red Carpet for Ehud Barak - Laura Rozen When Defense Secretary Robert Gates hosted visiting Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak this week, the Obama administration appeared to be pulling out all the stops in lavishing honor and warm attention on the visiting Israeli official, who has come to Washington numerous times in the past few months without so much grand ceremony. The administration seems to be making a concerted effort to put to rest any impression that the top U.S. military brass was in any way questioning the value of the U.S.-Israeli military and strategic relationship. The White House is engaged in an aggressive public relations and outreach effort to the Hill and Jewish groups to assure them of its commitment to Israel's security. (Politico)****The more the WH protests, at this point, the less it can be believed. Appeasement never works; appeasing an appeaser would be double folly. ****
Obama Spreads the Love - For Now - Ron Kampeas
The Obama administration is projecting a new attitude when it comes to Israel, and is selling it hard: unbreakable, unshakeable bond. "It's a positive development," Alan Solow, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said of the recent Jewish outreach blitz by the administration. "There are two questions, though, that will only be answered over time: Will the outreach be sustained, and will the policy be consistent with the positions being expressed in the outreach?" (JTA)****Is the whole effort sincere or just due to the alarming petition by 76 Senators and the waning of funding support for the Dems?***
Rejectionism by Palestinians Key to Mideast Standoff - David Harris
...ignoring the conflict's core issue - Palestinian rejectionism. Four consecutive prime ministers, including Benjamin Netanyahu, have endorsed a two-state accord, but to no avail. Withdrawal from southern Lebanon and Gaza has led to increased, not reduced, tension. Virulent incitement against Israel continues apace both in the West Bank and Gaza...the historical record. Previous talks with the Palestinians, prior to the Obama administration, were held without any preconditions. Those negotiations, in fact, led to breakthrough proposals by Israel, in 2000 and again in 2008, to create a viable Palestinian state. The conflict's root remains what it has been for more than 60 years - namely, the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel's very legitimacy. When that hurdle is overcome, peace will become not just possible but inevitable. The writer is executive director of the American Jewish Committee. (Financial Times-UK)//
Palestinians Expect Obama to Do All the Work - Eytan Gilboa Ever since President Obama entered the White House, the Palestinians are the ones refusing to renew negotiations with Israel. However, the image created by Obama's policy is that Israel alone is responsible for the impasse, and that construction in Jerusalem is the main obstacle to securing an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Somehow, no American policymaker or commentator is asking how Fatah, which cannot engage in talks with its Hamas "brethren" and secure a deal with them, can finalize an agreement with Israel.
Obama started off by presenting requests and demands to Israel, the Palestinians, and pro-American Arab states for mutual gestures in order to renew the talks. Netanyahu was the only leader who did something. In his Bar-Ilan speech he endorsed the two-state principle, and he even declared a construction freeze in the territories. All the others rejected the American requests. The Palestinians wholly disregard Obama and expect him to do all the work for them and elicit unilateral concessions out of Israel. The writer is a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. (Ynet News)
America's Big Middle East Game - Tony Badran
* Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, testifying last week before the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, outlined the administration's conceptual framework for its Syria policy as follows: The U.S. is working to mitigate Iran's regional influence, which Syria facilitates. But Syria is not Iran, and there's a basic policy difference between them - unlike Iran, Syria has an interest in negotiating a peace agreement with Israel.****Why, pray tell, does Syria have "an interest"? Syria is interested in gaining the Golan Heights (for the purposes of war) and that's it's only interest in "agreements."**** Therefore, the peace process is, in Feltman's words, the "big game."
* This toxic viewpoint was echoed by National Security Adviser Jim Jones at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy: "One of the ways that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict....Advancing this peace would...help prevent Iran from cynically shifting attention away from its failures to meet its obligations." * The sought-after model for Syria is Anwar Sadat's Egypt. But that model is totally inapplicable. Egypt made the leap into the pro-American camp before signing the peace treaty.
* The Obama administration might lean on the Israelis to resume peace talks with Syria. But even if the Netanyahu government agrees, it's highly unlikely that the talks will lead anywhere, especially since Assad has repeatedly rejected putting his ties to Hizbullah and Iran on the table - a sine qua non for Israel. And so, the "grand idea" will come crashing down, as it already has in its Palestinian version.
The writer is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.