How Much Time is Left?

The clock has started ticking in the Levant. It is set to go off in September when the Palestinians will seek recognition as a state by the U.N. General Assembly along the lines of the 1967 border. Given the make up of the U.N., it is likely that recognition will be had. If it is granted Israel will find itself in a difficult position. Should a Palestinian state be recognized, Israel would overnight find itself an occupying power. Not that it would matter much. Israel has shown little but disdain for the U.N. and its resolutions over the years. Nevertheless, a formal recognition of the 1967 borders would officially make Israel a transgressor in violation of international law. That would be a serious blow to Israel's international standing (such as it is) and severely complicate its desire for continued expansion. It might even occasion sanctions.

Naturally, Israel and the U.S. were critical of the move. Israel condemned the action as a threat to the peace process. It insists that any resolution of the issue must go through Jerusalem, a sensible enough demand since any agreement would ultimately have to be one Israel could live with. The U.S. disapproved of the action since not only would the move undermine its efforts to find a solution to the problem: a project it has been working on intermittently for over 40 years, it would potentially place it in conflict with its most important ally in the region. U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state would be much more than another rebuke of Israel. The international recognition of a Palestinian State along the lines of the 1967 border would change the whole dynamic of Palestinian Israeli negotiations. Israel could find itself in the position of negotiating to keep land rather than to give it away.

As a new era is emerging in the Middle East the U.S. is finding itself in an increasingly awkward position. After advocating democracy, self determination, and pluralism throughout the region it is reinforcing ethnic division in Israel and being pressured to throttle the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. As the U.S. twists and turns it is inviting the charge of hypocrisy and risking the ire of emerging regimes, to say nothing of alienating a whole new generation of Arabs.

By all means the Palestinians and the Israelis should keep talking. But it should be kept in mind that it is the Palestinians who are suffering while the talking is going on. If the Palestinians can be persuaded to wait, perhaps in a decade or two we might have an agreement, assuming there is anything left to negotiate. But time is not on the Palestinians' side. The longer negotiations go on, the less there is to negotiate. If Palestinians cannot get satisfaction at the hands of Israel or the U.S. they should not be blamed for seeking it elsewhere. If Israel wants negotiations to go through Jerusalem it should make it possible for them to go through Jerusalem rather than stop in Jerusalem.

If you look at a map of Israel at its founding in 1948 and compare it with a map of Israel in 1967 it is clear that even if Israel was persuaded to return to the 1967 borders, it is still coming out very much ahead. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned the proposal claiming that a return to the 1967 border would render Israel indefensible. Against whom? The Palestinians would have no army and Jordan poses absolutely no threat to Israel. Whatever danger Israel faces, it is not from the east unless you include Iran. When it comes to Iran, the Jordan River is no barrier. The most probable reason for Israel's insistence on a military presence along the Jordan River is to keep the Palestinians in a bottle. As for terrorism, a Palestinian state would have every incentive to prevent infiltration by Hezbollah or other radical organizations. The presence of such groups would give Israel ample pretext to intervene and reoccupy the West Bank and thereby doom any chance of a sovereign Palestine along the Jordon River.

The only threat the Palestinians hold to Israel is their presence. Israel wants to get rid of them. There is very little room in a Jewish state for non Jews. It will drive out the Palestinians it can and build a wall around the ones it can't. The Palestinians are not just fighting to get a state of their own, they are fighting for a place to live. Short of being allowed citizenship in Israel, the only place Palestinians will be secure in their lives, property, and possessions is in a state of their own. Israel ought to appreciate that.

What if the Rebels Don't Win?

Rebels in Libya have begun to turn things around in their fight against Gaddafi's troops. After weeks of stalled fighting it was reported that they had gained ground and made progress in their struggle to break the siege of Misrata by capturing an airport and pushing government troops, aka Gaddafi's troops, from the western suburbs. Rebel victories have been few and far between since the rebellion began, much to NATO's dismay.

Western support of the rebels has been increasing since fighting first broke out. After the rebellion began, the West quickly imposed more sanctions on the Libyan government. When the increased sanctions didn't work, a "no fly" zone was implemented and the Libyan air force was quickly grounded. When the "no fly" zone didn't succeed in tipping the balance, combat air support was provided. Libyan tanks, artillery, and mechanized forces were soon hobbled. Since March 31st, NATO has carried out more than 2,400 air strikes, including some aimed directly at Gaddafi's himself. Still, the rebellion is foundering.

The fighting has been going on for nearly three months since riots first broke out in Benghazi. The U.S. and its allies are determined to help the rebellion succeed. Indeed the only reason the fighting has lasted this long is because of NATO air support and military assistance. Given the level of support being provided, if the rebellion doesn't succeed, the West will suffer a major black eye. Dictators in the region and around the world would take heart.

The U.S. and NATO have invested themselves heavily in the struggle. They have expanded their mission from protecting rebel forces to providing combat air support and interdiction. NATO has struck at government troops, supply routes, and logistics and command centers. It has been hitting targets of its own choosing for some time in cities like Tripoli. It has even targeted Qaddafi himself. By investing themselves heavily in the success of the rebels, Western military prestige is on the line. A rebel defeat would be a NATO defeat. After a string of impressive air campaigns by the West, its perfect record is in jeopardy. If one country can withstand a NATO onslaught, others can. The West is determined that an example not be set.

If the rebels do manage to win, it will not be due to the legitimacy of their cause or their military prowess. It will be due to Western military efforts. If they succeed, they will have the U.S. and NATO to thank. In the eyes of the West, that would be a very good thing.

What Limit?

According to a report in this morning's New York Times the federal government has reached its $14.3 trillion debt limit. That would not be a problem, well, not as big a problem anyway, if the government did not need more money to get it through the year, but it does. Discussion is under way on what to do about it. Republicans want spending cuts. Democrats want to increase revenue. It is anticipated that a compromise will be reached. A compromise will have to be reached. It is inconceivable that taxes could be raised or spending cut enough to put the nation back in the black any time soon.

There is talk in Washington that something will have to be done. Unfortunately, such talk is rarely little more than symbolic. When Washington speaks about addressing spending it is trying to send a message that it is serious about addressing the issue even, or especially, if it is not serious about it. Nevertheless, it is a necessary message to send, not just to the public, but to our lenders as well. You know you are in trouble when lenders begin to get squeamish about lending you more money.

The government is in serious financial straights. There will be stern countenances and grave pronouncements but the debt limit will be raised. A balanced budget is flat out of the question. In 2009 the government had a $1.84 trillion deficit. Last year it ran a deficit of $1.26 trillion. It is anticipated that the deficit for this year will be a more modest $929 billion. Even if the trend continues, it will be many years before black ink is seen. The debt is going to go up as sure as the sun is going to rise. The only question is by how much.

A debt limit that can be raised when it becomes inconvenient is not a limit. It is at best a hurdle. Until we can pass a balanced budget why even talk about addressing the debt?