EFTA00659669.pdf

From: To: J <jeevacation@grnail.com> Subject: Re: March 4 update Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 15:34:42 +0000 Thank you! On Tuesday, March 4, 2014, J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote: Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Office of Terje Rod-Larsen Date: March 4, 2014 at 11:21:53 A AST Subject: March 4 update 4 March, 2014 Article I. NYT As Obama and Netanyahu Meet, Ukraine Becomes a Focus of Conversation Mark Landler and Anne Barnard Article 2. The New Republic How Ukraine will Shape the Future of the Middle East Dennis Ross Article 3. Al Jazeera AIPAC: American watchdog or Israel's attack-dog? Marwan Bishara Article 4. The Washington Post Putin's aggression in Ukraine needs a response Zbigniew Brzezinski Article 5. The Daily Star Jordanian jihadists are on the rise EFTA00659669 Mona Alami Article 6. Al Monitor Moscow foresees breakdown in Israeli-Palestinian talks Vitaly Naumkin Al Monitor The Qatar channel between Gaza and Israel Shlomi Eldar Article 7. Article I. NYT As Obama and Netanyahu Meet, Ukraine Becomes a Focus of Conversation Mark Landler and Anne Barnard March 3, 2014 -- President Obama welcomed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to the White House on Monday to discuss a litany of familiar problems and confront a new one: the Ukrainian crisis, which threatens American policies throughout the Middle East. The West's standoff with Russia over its seizure of Crimea, analysts and former administration officials said, could complicate American efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program, resolve Syria's civil war and, even in the short run, broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Russia is a pivotal player on Syria, an influential member of the negotiating group with Iran and a symbol of resistance to the West throughout the region. A long-lasting dispute with Moscow, experts said, would inevitably spill over into these other issues, transforming Russia from a truculent partner into a potentially disruptive force. "The EFTA00659670 Russians will look for ways to show us the consequences of pressuring or trying to isolate them," said Dennis B. Ross, a former adviser to Mr. Obama on the Middle East. "But they will also have to consider where that may or may not make sense for their own interests." The most obvious target is Syria, experts said, where President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia would be even less likely to abandon President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Putin, most of the experts agreed, would probably follow through on the agreement with the United States to remove Mr. Assad's chemical weapons, if only to preserve Russia's national prestige. But the Russians would most likely drop any pretense of negotiating a political settlement. Fears of that possibility resonated throughout Syria and its growing diaspora on Monday, with opponents of the government questioning whether any future Russian-American cooperation on Syria would fall victim to the clash in Crimea. For Mr. Netanyahu, the biggest threat involves Iran, which has embarked on negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear agreement with the United States, Russia and other major powers. While the Russian government shares America's qualms about a nuclear-capable Iran, the experts said, a failure of diplomacy would almost certainly block American attempts in the United Nations to punish Iran with new sanctions. "Russia could play a critical role in helping us convince Iran to accept the tight constraints on its nuclear program necessary to produce an acceptable nuclear deal," said Robert J. Einhorn, a former Iran negotiator at the State Department who is now at the Brookings Institution. "A confrontation over Ukraine could make such cooperation on Iran more difficult." Cliff Kupchan, an Iran expert at the Eurasia Group, said that without a nuclear deal, "the Crimean invasion makes it more likely that Russia would lead an effort to let Iran out of the penalty box." In the Oval Office, Mr. Netanyahu acknowledged that Mr. Obama was probably distracted by events outside the Middle East. "I know you've got a few other pressing matters on your plate," he said to Mr. Obama. EFTA00659671 But Mr. Netanyahu reaffirmed the primacy of Iran as a threat to Israel and insisted that Iran be denied the ability to produce a weapon. "That goal," he said, "can be achieved if Iran is prevented from enriching uranium and dismantles fully its military nuclear installations." The Israeli leader thanked Secretary of State John Kerry for his "tireless efforts" to push a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians. But Mr. Netanyahu sounded a pessimistic tone, condemning "just incessant Palestinian incitement against Israel." Mr. Obama, in his remarks, noted that the "time frame that we have set up for completing these negotiations is coming near, and some tough decisions are going to have to be made." But his tone was mild, and he praised Mr. Netanyahu for taking the talks seriously. With a major crisis in Europe, several Middle East experts said that now was not the right time for Mr. Obama to lean too hard on Mr. Netanyahu. "Who is going to understand the president opening up a significant new difference of opinion with a close ally when Putin is doing this?" asked Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East peace negotiator. "It does give the prime minister additional room to maneuver." Administration officials insisted that they could pressure Russia while continuing to work with it on Iran and Syria. "That's not going to somehow lead us to not tell the truth and not support Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity," a senior official told reporters on Sunday. In the Arab world, people see Russia's roles in Ukraine and Syria as deeply intertwined. Russia has opposed Western policy precisely because of its antipathy to foreign-backed, pro-democracy demonstrations in its own sphere of influence, whether in Kiev or even Moscow. As the Ukrainian crisis mounted, Russian officials framed it in terms strikingly similar to those they have used to describe the insurgency against Mr. Assad, referring to the Ukrainian protesters as foreign- backed terrorists interfering with a legitimate sovereign government. EFTA00659672 "President Putin has consistently suggested that the reason for opposing any further sanction on the Assad regime is respect for territorial integrity, sovereignty of Syria," a senior American official said. "So there's an extraordinary amount of Russian hypocrisy in what we see in Ukraine today." Some antigovernment Syrians even contend that the Ukrainian crisis is rooted in theirs: They contend, with dismay, that Mr. Obama's failure to strike the Syrian government after chemical attacks in August emboldened Russia to act in Ukraine. Others, angry at what they see as Russian complicity in Syrian state violence against civilians, have cheered on defiant Ukrainians; demonstrators in the northern Syria town of Kafranbel posted a picture of themselves with the Ukrainian flag. A major question is whether Russia and the United States could make some kind of grand bargain "to exchange Syria for the Ukraine, whereby the Kremlin will abandon Assad in return for Washington and Brussels' abandoning their allies in Kiev, or vice versa," as Uraib al-Rintawi, a commentator at the Jordanian newspaper Al Dostor, put it. But, he added, "such a deal seems impossible," given that Russia and the United States rank Ukraine much higher in importance than Syria. In the short term, supporters and opponents of the Syrian government agree, it is hard to imagine the United States or Russia devoting much attention to Syria, Iran or the peace talks. The sense of slipping beneath the radar has added to the despair among the many Syrians who want to see the war end and who believe an international deal is the only way out. "If the West and Russia end up bogged down in Ukraine, Assad will still have Iran, while we have no one," Shakeeb al-Jabri, a Syrian antigovernment activist in Beirut, said on Twitter. Mark Landler reported from Washington, and Anne Barnard from Beirut, Lebanon. EFTA00659673 Article 2. The New Republic How Ukraine will Shape the Future of the Middle East Dennis Ross March 2, 2014 -- Vladimir Putin has done it again. Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, and now Crimea; wherever there are potentially ethnic Russian areas in former Soviet republics that are not prepared to toe the Russian line, there will be separatist movements that will break away as in the case of Moldova, Georgia, and now Ukraine -- and Russia will support them. It matters not that there is an international agreement -- in this case the Budapest Memorandum -- in which Russia, along with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine are all signatories and that Russia has pledged its respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine; that was 1994 and Russia, in Putin's eyes, was weak, and now it is 2014, and it is not, and it can impose its will with little concern for the consequences. It is ironic that Putin, who worries so much about the territorial integrity of Syria -- and who rails against external intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states -- appears so quick to disregard such concerns when he determines that Russia's interests are involved. It seems that his principles are situational, and where he has the power to impose his will, he does. The implications for the United States and Europe should be clear. There needs to be a price. No one is going to war over the Crimea, including the Ukraine. But there should be a political and economic price. Not going to the G-8 Summit in Sochi will not impress Putin. He will say he is protecting ethnic Russians and if President Obama and European leaders choose not to go, he will be defiant -- and most likely garner substantial domestic support in the process. But why not say that if Russia remains in Crimea, or moves to incorporate it, the Russians will forfeit their membership in the G-8? How about boycotting all financial and trade meetings with the Russians? I would favor going further and EFTA00659674 imposing targeted sanctions on the Russians. To be sure, some may worry that if we and the Europeans impose economic sanctions on the Russians, they will withhold natural gas supplies to Europe and Ukraine and/or cease their cooperation as part of the P5+1 on Iran. Such responses are certainly possible. But Putin, too, needs to consider the consequences of such moves at a time when he is presiding over negligible growth, can ill afford to lose the revenues, and runs the risk of losing critical natural gas markets at a time when other suppliers, including the U.S., are becoming increasingly important. Similarly, does Putin really want Iran to become a nuclear weapons state? The point is that we are not without leverage in imposing consequences, and President Obama, having stated there will be a cost, must be certain that there is one. That is especially important for those in the Middle East watching the events in Crimea unfold. Presently, they see another example of Russia's readiness to defy international norms and act in the service of its power -- a currency that is often the only one that matters to most Middle Eastern leaders. They are acute observers of the balance of power. Many of our Middle Eastern The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of EFTA00659675