The Return of Martin Indyk


The Obama administration is turning its alchemic powers toward Palestine.  It is aiming to fashion a ‘success’ out of the shambles created by its lame failure to stand up to the Israeli government of Bibi Netanyahu.  This is the sternest test to date of its talent at conjuring virtual realities.  A tip-off as to what the latest Middle East machinations are about was provided by Martin Indyk, former Ambassador to Jerusalem, whose featured op ed in The New York Times last week made waves by optimistically forecasting that peace is at hand.  Looked at together with recent White House statements it reveals what magical feats we have to look forward to.

Martin Indyk is an institution in the capital.  The embodiment of the Washington consensus on Israel and all matters that touch on its self-defined interests – as reflected through the American prism.  He is the authoritative figure whose views are eagerly sought by ‘serious’ journalists.  Indyk habitually deviates by only a few degrees from the prevailing line in Jerusalem/Washington line.  When something big is in the diplomatic works, something ginned up by the two governments, he normally is there to lend it his weight.

Now that Obama and Netanyahu have contrived another virtual peace process, he has come forward to offer his judgment that peace indeed is to be had.  The initiative badly needs a supposedly authoritative seal of approval.  For it is nonsensical to think that anything close to a meaningful agreement and stable settlement cam emerge from current conditions.  Let’s remind ourselves of its cardinal features.  An ultra right Israeli government headed by an avowed opponent to any serious concessions at whose side is Foreign Minister and governmental no. 2, Avigdor Lieberman, who has been described as a “Jewish fascist” by the most honest and prescient of Israeli commentators –Uri Avnery.  That is one.  An American president who has been humiliated repeatedly and personally by Netanyahu who holds over his head the drawn sword of the Israeli lobby.  Obama was stared down on the settlements, cowed into submission to the point where he reflexively swallowed whole, and publicly parroted word by word the Jerusalem spin on the Gaza flotilla affair.  That is two.  Mushrooming Israeli settlements (all illegal) on the West Bank that, along with collateral infrastructure, have eaten up a large fraction of Palestinian land.  Those ‘facts on the ground’ are three. Then there is the hapless Mr. Abbas – used as a dish rag by both the Israelis and Americans – whose sole value for them is as signatory of an accord composed and issued jointly by Netanyahu and Obama.  The fact that Abbas’ authority has been shredded by his repeated forced obeisance to the will of the Palestinians’ keepers is conveniently overlooked.  A nominal President whose writ, such as it is, runs for only half the people and territory of Palestine he officially represents, he still will suffice for the legal formalities to be met.  That is four.

This revised plot is just a variation of what Obama had in mind from the outset.  Curt Israeli rejection of the White House idea of a settlement freeze denied Washington the political cover it had sought for the operation.  Unwilling to stand up to the Israelis, the Obama administration has decided to plunge ahead nonetheless.  That is to say, press a contrived agreement with a pliable if discredited PLO leadership that ignores Hamas.  The so-called Palestinian ‘entity’ on the West Bank would be string of Bantustans.  The self-serving assumption remains that when the Gazans are presented with this fait accompli, they will abandon their elected Hamas leaders for the sake of survival.  The solid phalanx of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan will be called upon to play their assigned role of putting the squeeze on the Gazans as the other part of the vise.  If they prove stiff necked and balk, they will be locked in their cage indefinitely – a policy that Washington has backed whole heartedly for three and a half years.

This is the latest Washington exercise in manufacturing fanciful ‘successes’ a la Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.  The confected nature of the advertised goal explains how and why Hillary Clinton could pronounce that there definitely will be an agreement within the year.  It explains how and why Obama had the nerve to call Netanyahu “someone ready to make sacrifices for peace” during the former’s latest visit to Washington.  What these statements signal is that before the 2012 campaign season gets underway, the Obama people are prepared to say with a straight face that they have achieved an historic breakthrough – no matter what.  Commentaries like Martin Indyk’s are there to brush on the first cosmetic layers that build a foundation for the artistic rendering of whatever ignoble outcome comes to pass.

Michael Brenner is a Professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.



Michael Brenner is a Professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.

November 30, 2015
Henry Giroux
Trump’s Embrace of Totalitarianism is America’s Dirty Little Secret
Omur Sahin Keyif
An Assassination in Turkey: the Killing of Tahir Elci
Uri Avnery
There is No Such Thing as International Terrorism
Robert Fisk
70,000 Kalashnikovs: Cameron’s “Moderate” Rebels
Jamie Davidson
Distortion, Revisionism & the Liberal Media
Patrick Cockburn
Nasty Surprises: the Problem With Bombing ISIS
Robert Hunziker
The Looming Transnational Battlefield
Ahmed Gaya
Breaking the Climate Mold: Fighting for the Planet and Justice
Matt Peppe
Alan Gross’s Improbable Tales on 60 Minutes
Norman Pollack
Israel and ISIS: Needed, a Thorough Accounting
Colin Todhunter
India – Procession of the Dead: Shopping Malls and Shit
Roger Annis
Canada’s New Climate-Denying National Government
Binoy Kampmark
Straining the Republic: France’s State of Emergency
Bill Blunden
Glenn Greenwald Stands by the Official Narrative
Jack Rasmus
Japan’s 5th Recession in 7 Years
Karen Lee Wald
Inside the Colombia Peace Deal
Geoff Dutton
War in Our Time
Charles R. Larson
Twofers for Carly Fiorina
John Dear
An Eye for an Eye Makes the Whole World Blind
Weekend Edition
November 27-29, 2015
Andrew Levine
The Real Trouble With Bernie
Gary Leupp
Ben Carson, Joseph in Egypt, and the Attack on Rational Thought
John Whitbeck
Who’s Afraid of ISIS?
Michael Brenner
Europe’s Crisis: Terror, Refugees and Impotence
Ramzy Baroud
Forget ISIS: Humanity is at Stake
Pepe Escobar
Will Chess, Not Battleship, Be the Game of the Future in Eurasia?
Vijay Prashad
Showdown on the Syrian Border
Dave Lindorff
Gen. John Campbell, Commander in Afghanistan and Serial Liar
Colin Todhunter
Class, War and David Cameron
Jean Bricmont
The Ideology of Humanitarian Imperialism
Dan Glazebrook
Deadliest Terror in the World: the West’s Latest Gift to Africa
Mark Hand
Escape From New York: the Emancipation of Activist Cecily McMillan
Karl Grossman
Our Solar Bonanza!
Mats Svensson
Madness in Hebron: Hashem Had No Enemies, Yet Hashem Was Hated
Walter Brasch
Terrorism on American Soil
Louisa Willcox
Grizzly Bears, Dreaming and the Frontier of Wonder
Michael Welton
Yahweh is Not Exactly Politically Correct
Joseph Natoli
A Politics of Stupid and How to Leave It Behind
John Cox
You Should Fear Racism and Xenophobia, Not Syrian Refugees or Muslims
Barrie Gilbert
Sacrificing the Grizzlies of Katmai Park: the Plan to Turn Brooks Camp Into a Theme
Rev. William Alberts
The Church of “Something Else” in “an Ecclesiastical Desert”
Andrew Gavin Marshall
Bank Crimes Pay
Elliot Murphy
Cameron’s Syrian Strategy
Thomas S. Harrington
Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe and the Death of Ezra Schwartz
Gareth Porter
How Terror in Paris Calls for Revising US Syria Policy
Michael Perino
The Arc of Instability