U.S. policy on Syria still lacks coherence

By Washington Post Editorial Board, Published: May 1, 2013

READ THIS TO HELP EVALUATE OBAMA'S "FIRM" RED LINE PLEDGES…AND ITS LESSON FOR ISRAEL

THE MUDDLE that is President Obama’s policy on Syria has grown still muddier. On Tuesday the president backed away from a “red line” he had drawn on the use of chemical weapons by the regime of Bashar al-Assad, setting the threshold for proof of a violation in such a way as to virtually exclude the possibility that one could ever be confirmed. Yet that same day his aides leaked to The Post and other news organizations the news that the president might soon reverse his long-standing opposition to providing Syrian rebels with arms. And the administration readied yet another effort to persuade Russia to abandon its support of the Assad regime in favor of a negotiated political transition.

Can any coherence be found in this? A charitable interpretation might be that Mr. Obama wishes to avoid immediate U.S. intervention but wants to pressure Moscow into changing its position by letting it be known that the alternative is greater U.S. support for the rebels. If so, Mr. Obama is being too clever. His weak and legalistic words about the need to verify a “chain of custody” on any chemical-weapons use and his declaration that even a hard confirmation would lead only to a “rethink [of] the range of options” simply invite further chemical attacks.

As Free Syrian Army commander Salim Idriss — the man the administration is counting on to unify the moderate opposition — put it in a letter to the president: “Assad is not taking your carefully phrased condemnations as warnings, but as loopholes, which justify his continued use of chemical weapons on a small, strategic scale.”

As for Russia, ruler Vladi­mir Putin has offered no public hint that he has any inclination to reverse his support for Mr. Assad. It’s not just that the Kremlin has interests to protect in Syria; Mr. Putin’s priority is to prevent what he views as another U.S.-sponsored regime change. Even were he to decide to cooperate with Mr. Obama, it’s doubtful that Mr. Putin could induce the Assad clique and its principal backer, Iran, to give up what the dictator himself has called a fight to the death.

A slim chance for a political settlement may still exist but only if the United States and its allies take measures that decisively, and relatively quickly, shift the momentum of the war. Only when the Assad army is defeated and the regime crumbles will a deal be possible. Supplying arms to the rebels, as Mr. Obama is said to be considering, would be a step in that direction but probably not a big enough one. Without stronger U.S. measures, the most likely outcome is the fragmentation of Syria into warring fiefdoms, with some turf controlled by Iran and some by al-Qaeda.

What’s needed is what the opposition has repeatedly requested: a no-fly zone in parts of Syria, or other measures — such as attacks with missiles and stealth bombers — to ground the Syrian air force. Yes, such measures would have to be taken without a United Nations resolution, and they would upset Mr. Putin. But if Mr. Obama continues to pursue a policy of awaiting U.N. consensus and deferring to Russia, the result will be more crossings of his red line — and grave damage to U.S. interests.

Qatar: Attention-Starved Teen of the Middle East

  Jeffrey Goldberg  May 2, 2013 

Here is the genius of Qatar, the peanut-sized Persian Gulf state that provides material support to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and possibly some of Syria’s jihadist rebel groups, in a single image: A two-cheeked kiss, in public, between Qatar’s second-most powerful man, the prime minister (and foreign minister), Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, and Haim Saban, the Israeli-American billionaire who funds, among other things, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

The kiss took place at a Brookings dinner last week in Washington that was convened to pay homage to Al Thani for his support -- because, yes, in addition to pledging $400 million to Hamas, Qatar also supports Brookings, one of Washington’s premier research groups.

One of the biggest questions asked by people who watch the Middle East is a simple one: What, exactly, does Qatar want?

In addition to funding Hamas and providing support for Islamists across the region, Qatar also hosts the forward headquarters of the U.S. Central Command at the huge Al Udeid Air Base. The government of Qatar also hosts, and owns, the Al Jazeera television network, which allows it to project its often anti-American ideas around the world. (The only government that has guaranteed immunity against criticism from Al Jazeera is, unsurprisingly, Qatar’s). And as the kiss on Saban’s two cheeks suggests, Qatar sees nothing incongruous about maintaining open contacts with Israelis while funding an organization whose declared goal is killing Israelis.

Three Interests

Many Arab leaders think that Qatar’s leadership is motivated by three basic interests. The first is that Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani (the prime minister’s boss and cousin), actually feels sympathy for Islamists. The second is that despite this sympathy, he understands that the best guarantor of his continued rule in his unhappy neighborhood is the permanent presence of the American military on his territory. The third is that Qatar will support -- out of competitiveness, spite and jealousy -- whatever Saudi Arabia, its much larger neighbor, opposes.

The ultimate explanation for Qatar’s behavior, however, may be that the country is essentially an attention-starved teenager, whose emotional insecurity causes it to insert itself into everyone’s business. That’s one reason the Qatari government maintains an intermittently open relationship with Israeli officials; it wants to play a central role in the Middle East peace process. This week, it spearheaded a drive to revive negotiations, reintroducing a version of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state and normalization of relations between Arabs and Israel.

It may seem improbable that the Qataris would even try to match Saudi Arabia, or any of their larger neighbors, in influence. Qatar is about half the size of Belize. But thanks to its immense oil wealth, the country’s per-capita gross domestic product is one of the highest in the world.

Qatar may also be the biggest exploiter of guest workers in the world. Of a population of roughly 1.9 million, almost 90 percent are migrant workers who, human-rights groups allege, are often treated with great cruelty by their employers and by the state. Qatar was recently chosen to host the 2022 World Cup, and it plans to use an army of exploited Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Nepalese to build its new stadiums.

Uncomfortable Questions

If it sounds as if I’m describing a miserable place, I am. I went to the dinner that night embarrassed on behalf of Brookings, which, like many institutions in Washington, shouldn’t be taking money from despotic Middle Eastern regimes, yet does. And the warm-up acts were indeed cringe-worthy. I can’t write about what was said, because these introductory remarks were summarily declared off the record, but suffice to say that various government officials who should have known better ventilated on the subject of Qatar’s magnificence with more than the minimally required sycophancy.

The main event -- a conversation between HBJ, as Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani is known, and Martin Indyk, a vice president and director of foreign policy at Brookings -- was more enlightening. When his turn came, Indyk (who is a friend of mine) asked HBJ a series of direct and uncomfortable questions that prompted answers so incredible they had many of the people in the audience not on Qatar’s payroll rolling their eyes. “Whether it’s your bailing out the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, or your support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, or Hamas in Gaza,” Indyk said, “there’s the impression that you’re taking sides.”

HBJ replied: “I am happy for this question because this thing has been spread a lot in Washington and I know how it’s being spread.” When Middle Eastern countries are upset with one another, he said, “we try to make rumors against each other.” He went on to argue that Qatar -- whose government is a family-run business that allows neither dissent nor political parties -- supports whichever Arabs happen to be rising against their leaders at any given moment.

“The Tunisian people chose the Islamic government, and we should respect that,” he said, citing a country not named by Indyk. “We will respect anything being chosen by the people, not by us.” He went on, “It is the same in Egypt, everybody is talking about the Islamic Brotherhood, and Qatar is supporting them. Also, I know and you know that these rumors come from our region. Fine, we expect this.”

Indyk’s next question touched on an even more sensitive subject: Qatar’s support for antigovernment Syrian Islamists, including those with direct ties to al-Qaeda. Again, the prime minister bobbed and weaved, eventually settling on a rhetorical strategy of blaming the U.S.: “We have to do more. The United States has to do more,” he said. “But later, don’t blame us, or you blame yourself, because it will be our mistake together not to intervene.” He ended by scolding his host: “So this rumor, again, it’s between families, which are sometimes jealous. Sometimes we tease each other. Don’t go to this business, Martin.”

Unpretty Picture

For a reality check, I spoke to two administration officials deeply engaged on the Syria question and on Qatar’s role in supporting the rebels. (They requested anonymity to speak freely.) They painted an unpretty picture. The officials were pleased by the role Qatar is playing in the Arab-Israeli peace process, but they were flummoxed by its support for Hamas -- which directly undermines the possibility of achieving an equitable two-state solution (Hamas being, as it is, opposed to Israel’s existence). They were also concerned that Qatar may be supporting the most radical Syrian group, the Nusra Front, which is openly affiliated with al-Qaeda.

In a meeting with the emir on April 23, President Barack Obama is said to have spoken in blunt terms about Qatar’s support for jihadists, and to have warned that Qatari backing of al-Qaeda-like groups would pose a direct challenge to the national-security interests of the U.S. The emir was said to have agreed with the president wholeheartedly on the matter.

He was also said to have suggested to the president that stories about Qatari two-timing were mere rumor.

(Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Qatar: Attention-Starved Teen of the Middle East 

Jeffrey Goldberg  May 2, 2013 

Here is the genius of Qatar, the peanut-sized Persian Gulf state that provides material support to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and possibly some of Syria’s jihadist rebel groups, in a single image: A two-cheeked kiss, in public, between Qatar’s second-most powerful man, the prime minister (and foreign minister), Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, and Haim Saban, the Israeli-American billionaire who funds, among other things, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

The kiss took place at a Brookings dinner last week in Washington that was convened to pay homage to Al Thani for his support -- because, yes, in addition to pledging $400 million to Hamas, Qatar also supports Brookings, one of Washington’s premier research groups.

One of the biggest questions asked by people who watch the Middle East is a simple one: What, exactly, does Qatar want?

In addition to funding Hamas and providing support for Islamists across the region, Qatar also hosts the forward headquarters of the U.S. Central Command at the huge Al Udeid Air Base. The government of Qatar also hosts, and owns, the Al Jazeera television network, which allows it to project its often anti-American ideas around the world. (The only government that has guaranteed immunity against criticism from Al Jazeera is, unsurprisingly, Qatar’s). And as the kiss on Saban’s two cheeks suggests, Qatar sees nothing incongruous about maintaining open contacts with Israelis while funding an organization whose declared goal is killing Israelis.

Three Interests

Many Arab leaders think that Qatar’s leadership is motivated by three basic interests. The first is that Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani (the prime minister’s boss and cousin), actually feels sympathy for Islamists. The second is that despite this sympathy, he understands that the best guarantor of his continued rule in his unhappy neighborhood is the permanent presence of the American military on his territory. The third is that Qatar will support -- out of competitiveness, spite and jealousy -- whatever Saudi Arabia, its much larger neighbor, opposes.

The ultimate explanation for Qatar’s behavior, however, may be that the country is essentially an attention-starved teenager, whose emotional insecurity causes it to insert itself into everyone’s business. That’s one reason the Qatari government maintains an intermittently open relationship with Israeli officials; it wants to play a central role in the Middle East peace process. This week, it spearheaded a drive to revive negotiations, reintroducing a version of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state and normalization of relations between Arabs and Israel.

It may seem improbable that the Qataris would even try to match Saudi Arabia, or any of their larger neighbors, in influence. Qatar is about half the size of Belize. But thanks to its immense oil wealth, the country’s per-capita gross domestic product is one of the highest in the world.

Qatar may also be the biggest exploiter of guest workers in the world. Of a population of roughly 1.9 million, almost 90 percent are migrant workers who, human-rights groups allege, are often treated with great cruelty by their employers and by the state. Qatar was recently chosen to host the 2022 World Cup, and it plans to use an army of exploited Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Nepalese to build its new stadiums.

Uncomfortable Questions

If it sounds as if I’m describing a miserable place, I am. I went to the dinner that night embarrassed on behalf of Brookings, which, like many institutions in Washington, shouldn’t be taking money from despotic Middle Eastern regimes, yet does. And the warm-up acts were indeed cringe-worthy. I can’t write about what was said, because these introductory remarks were summarily declared off the record, but suffice to say that various government officials who should have known better ventilated on the subject of Qatar’s magnificence with more than the minimally required sycophancy.

The main event -- a conversation between HBJ, as Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani is known, and Martin Indyk, a vice president and director of foreign policy at Brookings -- was more enlightening. When his turn came, Indyk (who is a friend of mine) asked HBJ a series of direct and uncomfortable questions that prompted answers so incredible they had many of the people in the audience not on Qatar’s payroll rolling their eyes. “Whether it’s your bailing out the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, or your support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, or Hamas in Gaza,” Indyk said, “there’s the impression that you’re taking sides.”

HBJ replied: “I am happy for this question because this thing has been spread a lot in Washington and I know how it’s being spread.” When Middle Eastern countries are upset with one another, he said, “we try to make rumors against each other.” He went on to argue that Qatar -- whose government is a family-run business that allows neither dissent nor political parties -- supports whichever Arabs happen to be rising against their leaders at any given moment.

“The Tunisian people chose the Islamic government, and we should respect that,” he said, citing a country not named by Indyk. “We will respect anything being chosen by the people, not by us.” He went on, “It is the same in Egypt, everybody is talking about the Islamic Brotherhood, and Qatar is supporting them. Also, I know and you know that these rumors come from our region. Fine, we expect this.”

Indyk’s next question touched on an even more sensitive subject: Qatar’s support for antigovernment Syrian Islamists, including those with direct ties to al-Qaeda. Again, the prime minister bobbed and weaved, eventually settling on a rhetorical strategy of blaming the U.S.: “We have to do more. The United States has to do more,” he said. “But later, don’t blame us, or you blame yourself, because it will be our mistake together not to intervene.” He ended by scolding his host: “So this rumor, again, it’s between families, which are sometimes jealous. Sometimes we tease each other. Don’t go to this business, Martin.”

Unpretty Picture

For a reality check, I spoke to two administration officials deeply engaged on the Syria question and on Qatar’s role in supporting the rebels. (They requested anonymity to speak freely.) They painted an unpretty picture. The officials were pleased by the role Qatar is playing in the Arab-Israeli peace process, but they were flummoxed by its support for Hamas -- which directly undermines the possibility of achieving an equitable two-state solution (Hamas being, as it is, opposed to Israel’s existence). They were also concerned that Qatar may be supporting the most radical Syrian group, the Nusra Front, which is openly affiliated with al-Qaeda.

In a meeting with the emir on April 23, President Barack Obama is said to have spoken in blunt terms about Qatar’s support for jihadists, and to have warned that Qatari backing of al-Qaeda-like groups would pose a direct challenge to the national-security interests of the U.S. The emir was said to have agreed with the president wholeheartedly on the matter.

He was also said to have suggested to the president that stories about Qatari two-timing were mere rumor.

(Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Qatar: Attention-Starved Teen of the Middle East 

Jeffrey Goldberg  May 2, 2013 

Here is the genius of Qatar, the peanut-sized Persian Gulf state that provides material support to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and possibly some of Syria’s jihadist rebel groups, in a single image: A two-cheeked kiss, in public, between Qatar’s second-most powerful man, the prime minister (and foreign minister), Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, and Haim Saban, the Israeli-American billionaire who funds, among other things, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

The kiss took place at a Brookings dinner last week in Washington that was convened to pay homage to Al Thani for his support -- because, yes, in addition to pledging $400 million to Hamas, Qatar also supports Brookings, one of Washington’s premier research groups.

One of the biggest questions asked by people who watch the Middle East is a simple one: What, exactly, does Qatar want?

In addition to funding Hamas and providing support for Islamists across the region, Qatar also hosts the forward headquarters of the U.S. Central Command at the huge Al Udeid Air Base. The government of Qatar also hosts, and owns, the Al Jazeera television network, which allows it to project its often anti-American ideas around the world. (The only government that has guaranteed immunity against criticism from Al Jazeera is, unsurprisingly, Qatar’s). And as the kiss on Saban’s two cheeks suggests, Qatar sees nothing incongruous about maintaining open contacts with Israelis while funding an organization whose declared goal is killing Israelis.

Three Interests

Many Arab leaders think that Qatar’s leadership is motivated by three basic interests. The first is that Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani (the prime minister’s boss and cousin), actually feels sympathy for Islamists. The second is that despite this sympathy, he understands that the best guarantor of his continued rule in his unhappy neighborhood is the permanent presence of the American military on his territory. The third is that Qatar will support -- out of competitiveness, spite and jealousy -- whatever Saudi Arabia, its much larger neighbor, opposes.

The ultimate explanation for Qatar’s behavior, however, may be that the country is essentially an attention-starved teenager, whose emotional insecurity causes it to insert itself into everyone’s business. That’s one reason the Qatari government maintains an intermittently open relationship with Israeli officials; it wants to play a central role in the Middle East peace process. This week, it spearheaded a drive to revive negotiations, reintroducing a version of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state and normalization of relations between Arabs and Israel.

It may seem improbable that the Qataris would even try to match Saudi Arabia, or any of their larger neighbors, in influence. Qatar is about half the size of Belize. But thanks to its immense oil wealth, the country’s per-capita gross domestic product is one of the highest in the world.

Qatar may also be the biggest exploiter of guest workers in the world. Of a population of roughly 1.9 million, almost 90 percent are migrant workers who, human-rights groups allege, are often treated with great cruelty by their employers and by the state. Qatar was recently chosen to host the 2022 World Cup, and it plans to use an army of exploited Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Nepalese to build its new stadiums.

Uncomfortable Questions

If it sounds as if I’m describing a miserable place, I am. I went to the dinner that night embarrassed on behalf of Brookings, which, like many institutions in Washington, shouldn’t be taking money from despotic Middle Eastern regimes, yet does. And the warm-up acts were indeed cringe-worthy. I can’t write about what was said, because these introductory remarks were summarily declared off the record, but suffice to say that various government officials who should have known better ventilated on the subject of Qatar’s magnificence with more than the minimally required sycophancy.

The main event -- a conversation between HBJ, as Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani is known, and Martin Indyk, a vice president and director of foreign policy at Brookings -- was more enlightening. When his turn came, Indyk (who is a friend of mine) asked HBJ a series of direct and uncomfortable questions that prompted answers so incredible they had many of the people in the audience not on Qatar’s payroll rolling their eyes. “Whether it’s your bailing out the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, or your support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, or Hamas in Gaza,” Indyk said, “there’s the impression that you’re taking sides.”

HBJ replied: “I am happy for this question because this thing has been spread a lot in Washington and I know how it’s being spread.” When Middle Eastern countries are upset with one another, he said, “we try to make rumors against each other.” He went on to argue that Qatar -- whose government is a family-run business that allows neither dissent nor political parties -- supports whichever Arabs happen to be rising against their leaders at any given moment.

“The Tunisian people chose the Islamic government, and we should respect that,” he said, citing a country not named by Indyk. “We will respect anything being chosen by the people, not by us.” He went on, “It is the same in Egypt, everybody is talking about the Islamic Brotherhood, and Qatar is supporting them. Also, I know and you know that these rumors come from our region. Fine, we expect this.”

Indyk’s next question touched on an even more sensitive subject: Qatar’s support for antigovernment Syrian Islamists, including those with direct ties to al-Qaeda. Again, the prime minister bobbed and weaved, eventually settling on a rhetorical strategy of blaming the U.S.: “We have to do more. The United States has to do more,” he said. “But later, don’t blame us, or you blame yourself, because it will be our mistake together not to intervene.” He ended by scolding his host: “So this rumor, again, it’s between families, which are sometimes jealous. Sometimes we tease each other. Don’t go to this business, Martin.”

Unpretty Picture

For a reality check, I spoke to two administration officials deeply engaged on the Syria question and on Qatar’s role in supporting the rebels. (They requested anonymity to speak freely.) They painted an unpretty picture. The officials were pleased by the role Qatar is playing in the Arab-Israeli peace process, but they were flummoxed by its support for Hamas -- which directly undermines the possibility of achieving an equitable two-state solution (Hamas being, as it is, opposed to Israel’s existence). They were also concerned that Qatar may be supporting the most radical Syrian group, the Nusra Front, which is openly affiliated with al-Qaeda.

In a meeting with the emir on April 23, President Barack Obama is said to have spoken in blunt terms about Qatar’s support for jihadists, and to have warned that Qatari backing of al-Qaeda-like groups would pose a direct challenge to the national-security interests of the U.S. The emir was said to have agreed with the president wholeheartedly on the matter.

He was also said to have suggested to the president that stories about Qatari two-timing were mere rumor.

(Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Qatar: Attention-Starved Teen of the Middle East 

Jeffrey Goldberg  May 2, 2013 

Here is the genius of Qatar, the peanut-sized Persian Gulf state that provides material support to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and possibly some of Syria’s jihadist rebel groups, in a single image: A two-cheeked kiss, in public, between Qatar’s second-most powerful man, the prime minister (and foreign minister), Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, and Haim Saban, the Israeli-American billionaire who funds, among other things, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

The kiss took place at a Brookings dinner last week in Washington that was convened to pay homage to Al Thani for his support -- because, yes, in addition to pledging $400 million to Hamas, Qatar also supports Brookings, one of Washington’s premier research groups.

One of the biggest questions asked by people who watch the Middle East is a simple one: What, exactly, does Qatar want?

In addition to funding Hamas and providing support for Islamists across the region, Qatar also hosts the forward headquarters of the U.S. Central Command at the huge Al Udeid Air Base. The government of Qatar also hosts, and owns, the Al Jazeera television network, which allows it to project its often anti-American ideas around the world. (The only government that has guaranteed immunity against criticism from Al Jazeera is, unsurprisingly, Qatar’s). And as the kiss on Saban’s two cheeks suggests, Qatar sees nothing incongruous about maintaining open contacts with Israelis while funding an organization whose declared goal is killing Israelis.

Three Interests

Many Arab leaders think that Qatar’s leadership is motivated by three basic interests. The first is that Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani (the prime minister’s boss and cousin), actually feels sympathy for Islamists. The second is that despite this sympathy, he understands that the best guarantor of his continued rule in his unhappy neighborhood is the permanent presence of the American military on his territory. The third is that Qatar will support -- out of competitiveness, spite and jealousy -- whatever Saudi Arabia, its much larger neighbor, opposes.

The ultimate explanation for Qatar’s behavior, however, may be that the country is essentially an attention-starved teenager, whose emotional insecurity causes it to insert itself into everyone’s business. That’s one reason the Qatari government maintains an intermittently open relationship with Israeli officials; it wants to play a central role in the Middle East peace process. This week, it spearheaded a drive to revive negotiations, reintroducing a version of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state and normalization of relations between Arabs and Israel.

It may seem improbable that the Qataris would even try to match Saudi Arabia, or any of their larger neighbors, in influence. Qatar is about half the size of Belize. But thanks to its immense oil wealth, the country’s per-capita gross domestic product is one of the highest in the world.

Qatar may also be the biggest exploiter of guest workers in the world. Of a population of roughly 1.9 million, almost 90 percent are migrant workers who, human-rights groups allege, are often treated with great cruelty by their employers and by the state. Qatar was recently chosen to host the 2022 World Cup, and it plans to use an army of exploited Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Nepalese to build its new stadiums.

Uncomfortable Questions

If it sounds as if I’m describing a miserable place, I am. I went to the dinner that night embarrassed on behalf of Brookings, which, like many institutions in Washington, shouldn’t be taking money from despotic Middle Eastern regimes, yet does. And the warm-up acts were indeed cringe-worthy. I can’t write about what was said, because these introductory remarks were summarily declared off the record, but suffice to say that various government officials who should have known better ventilated on the subject of Qatar’s magnificence with more than the minimally required sycophancy.

The main event -- a conversation between HBJ, as Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani is known, and Martin Indyk, a vice president and director of foreign policy at Brookings -- was more enlightening. When his turn came, Indyk (who is a friend of mine) asked HBJ a series of direct and uncomfortable questions that prompted answers so incredible they had many of the people in the audience not on Qatar’s payroll rolling their eyes. “Whether it’s your bailing out the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, or your support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, or Hamas in Gaza,” Indyk said, “there’s the impression that you’re taking sides.”

HBJ replied: “I am happy for this question because this thing has been spread a lot in Washington and I know how it’s being spread.” When Middle Eastern countries are upset with one another, he said, “we try to make rumors against each other.” He went on to argue that Qatar -- whose government is a family-run business that allows neither dissent nor political parties -- supports whichever Arabs happen to be rising against their leaders at any given moment.

“The Tunisian people chose the Islamic government, and we should respect that,” he said, citing a country not named by Indyk. “We will respect anything being chosen by the people, not by us.” He went on, “It is the same in Egypt, everybody is talking about the Islamic Brotherhood, and Qatar is supporting them. Also, I know and you know that these rumors come from our region. Fine, we expect this.”

Indyk’s next question touched on an even more sensitive subject: Qatar’s support for antigovernment Syrian Islamists, including those with direct ties to al-Qaeda. Again, the prime minister bobbed and weaved, eventually settling on a rhetorical strategy of blaming the U.S.: “We have to do more. The United States has to do more,” he said. “But later, don’t blame us, or you blame yourself, because it will be our mistake together not to intervene.” He ended by scolding his host: “So this rumor, again, it’s between families, which are sometimes jealous. Sometimes we tease each other. Don’t go to this business, Martin.”

Unpretty Picture

For a reality check, I spoke to two administration officials deeply engaged on the Syria question and on Qatar’s role in supporting the rebels. (They requested anonymity to speak freely.) They painted an unpretty picture. The officials were pleased by the role Qatar is playing in the Arab-Israeli peace process, but they were flummoxed by its support for Hamas -- which directly undermines the possibility of achieving an equitable two-state solution (Hamas being, as it is, opposed to Israel’s existence). They were also concerned that Qatar may be supporting the most radical Syrian group, the Nusra Front, which is openly affiliated with al-Qaeda.

In a meeting with the emir on April 23, President Barack Obama is said to have spoken in blunt terms about Qatar’s support for jihadists, and to have warned that Qatari backing of al-Qaeda-like groups would pose a direct challenge to the national-security interests of the U.S. The emir was said to have agreed with the president wholeheartedly on the matter.

He was also said to have suggested to the president that stories about Qatari two-timing were mere rumor.

(Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Prime Minister Netanyahu's Real Accomplishment  Moshe Feiglin 5-2-13

The special relationship between Israel and the U.S. is not a cliché. Polls and in-depth surveys repeatedly show that America relates to Israel positively in the most fundamental way – despite, to the contrary, the tireless efforts of the Jews influencing the New York Times and Haaretz.

We share common values, based on the Bible. America’s Founding Fathers saw their new country as a rebirth of the nation of liberty and its universal message. These common goals should have been the basis for the relationship between Israel and the U.S. “And I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you shall be cursed," God says to Abraham. That is the motto of some 80 million American Evangelicals who are convinced that American prosperity is contingent on its significant alliance with Israel. Hardship, they believe, happens when the U.S. takes a stand against Israel.

But instead of reinforcing our status as the eternal People of the Book and the source of American values, we Israelis have chosen to market ourselves as a young nation searching for its place among the established nations and under their patronage. Our relationship with the U.S. has become – through our own volition – a father-son relationship.

American aid, merely 1.5 percent of Israel's income, is not something Israel really needs. In the long run, it harms us economically, politically and militarily. But our insistence on receiving it stems from a psychological need. When our pocket money continues to roll in from across the ocean, it shows that "Father" is still there and that we are not alone among the nations. When we try to escape from our Father in Heaven, we must look for a weak replica in foreign lands.

This flawed mentality was the source of the "Obamania" that we experienced during President Obama's recent visit to Israel. Thus, relations that could have been based on shared values were instead based on dependence.

Israel, fleeing its identity and constantly evading open adoption of those common goals, has consistently based its connection with the U.S. on a completely different foundation. The main goal that we touted was our right to self-defense. Instead of the Shrine of the Book and sites that attest to our biblical foundations here in Israel, our honored guests are always taken to the Holocaust Memorial Museum, Yad Vashem. After viewing those horrific images, nobody was supposed to be able to ask any questions. That was good for us; no need to deal with the questions of our identity and the justice of our national existence in this land.

But the Holocaust "lemon" has been completely squeezed out. A new generation has risen in Europe, a generation that is no longer willing to pay for the sins of its predecessors with silence. This generation sees the Palestinians demanding justice as the new Jews, bereft of a homeland, while they view the Israelis who demand security as the new Nazis.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's insistence on restoring the focal point of Obama's visit from the Holocaust Museum to our deep historical foundations in Israel; his assertive speech in the U.S. in which he explained that Yad Vashem is not the foundation of our existence; rounding out this approach by bringing President Obama to the Shrine of the Book; the explanation that Obama received there that every Israeli child can read what his forefathers wrote here over 2,000 years ago – were, in my opinion, the most important accomplishments of Obama's visit.

I was in the Channel 2 studio when Professor Shalom Rosenberg of the Shrine of the Book explained to the viewers what the American president was looking at, at that very moment.

"You don't have a Palestinian scroll to show him?" I asked, unable to withhold my thought. "Not from 1,000 years ago, not from 100 years ago, or less than that. Nothing?"

The professor shifted his weight uncomfortably.

"This is the most important outcome of Obama's visit and Netanyahu's major accomplishment," I said. "It is not about Obama, but first and foremost about Israeli society that has been trained to see Auschwitz as the justification for our existence."

Who knows? Maybe next time we will take our visiting VIPs to the altar built by Yehoshua bin Nun on Mount Eval just 40 years after the Exodus from Egypt. The Dead Sea Scrolls are certainly important. But our history in this land does not begin 2,000 years ago. It begins more than 3,300 years ago.

True, 93 percent of the biblical sites in Israel are in the areas earmarked for the two-state solution. But what can we do? The place that gives meaning to our national existence, the focal point of our longing and our destiny, is also there. I speak of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Netanyahu made an invaluable turnabout in the way Israel explains itself. We must complete that turnabout. We must not go half way.

 Qatar Seth Mandel  5-2-13

The Washington Post has a story up today gently knocking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for being less than enthusiastic about the resurgence of the Arab Peace Initiative. The Arab plan is slightly improved from its past iterations, but to understand why Netanyahu is so cautious about embracing the plan as an outline for negotiations, the Post story should be read in tandem with Jeffrey Goldberg’s incisive and spot-on portrait of the Qatari government in his latest Bloomberg column.

The setting for the column is a Brookings Institution event to honor Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani. Brookings is, along with Hamas and other sordid outfits in whose company Brookings does not belong, funded by the Qatari government. Goldberg makes plain his discomfort with this. As I wrote in January, Qatar has been playing every side of the Middle East’s various conflicts, most often as a nuisance to American objectives. Goldberg’s whole column is worth reading, but this particular gem sticks out with regard to the Arab peace plan:

For a reality check, I spoke to two administration officials deeply engaged on the Syria question and on Qatar’s role in supporting the rebels. (They requested anonymity to speak freely.) They painted an unpretty picture. The officials were pleased by the role Qatar is playing in the Arab-Israeli peace process, but they were flummoxed by its support for Hamas — which directly undermines the possibility of achieving an equitable two-state solution (Hamas being, as it is, opposed to Israel’s existence). They were also concerned that Qatar may be supporting the most radical Syrian group, the Nusra Front, which is openly affiliated with al-Qaeda.

American officials who are “pleased by the role Qatar is playing in the Arab-Israeli peace process” while also acknowledging that Qatar funds Hamas–a terrorist government that has both the desire and ability to derail any progress on Arab-Israeli peace while constantly putting innocent lives in danger–are being scammed. And far too easily for people who work for the president of the United States.

Goldberg calls Qatar “an attention-starved teenager.” He puts the country’s foreign policy in context: Qatar supports Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and is believed to be funding the most radical Islamist groups in Syria; but Qatar also funds Brookings and hosts U.S. Central Command forward headquarters. Those are strategic calculations, and they are well-placed and well-played. On the diplomatic front, Qatar publicly claims to support Israeli-Palestinian peace while making certain to undermine it in every possible way.

But appearances–and money–are important, especially in a world with vanishing superpower influence. As Moises Naim notes in his new book, The End of Power:

One of the best examples of smaller countries that have used coalitions of the willing, economic diplomacy (i.e. a lot of money), and soft power to advance their interests must surely be Qatar. It led the way in toppling Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi by supplying rebels with money, training, and more than twenty thousand tons of weapons, and called early for the arming of rebels in Syria. It has attempted mediation in Yemen, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Palestine and–importantly–in Lebanon. Through an $85 billion investment fund, Qatar has bought into businesses from Volkswagen to the Paris St. Germain Football Club. And it is not only behind what is perhaps the most influential new news organization, the network Al Jazeera, but has been building up its reputation as a cultural center with top-rated museums of Islamic and Middle Eastern art as well as high-profile purchases of pieces by the likes of Warhol, Rothko, Cezanne, Koons, and Lichtenstein.

Throwing that kind of money around the worlds of soccer, art, news media, and violent revolution is the mark of a serious player in world affairs. But that doesn’t mean the Qataris are serious about each of those issues, or that the issues themselves are serious. I don’t mean to knock soccer or Cezanne, but simultaneously funding a wave of revolutions and the media on the ground covering them is a far better compass to guide our interpretation of Qatar’s intentions than partying with Brookings or making canned pronouncements that amount to, essentially, “peace is good; the Arabs and Jews should have more of it.”

Thus with regard to the Arab Peace Initiative, Qatar is attempting to play everyone for fools. Netanyahu recognizes this, because he is not a fool. His reaction, then, was to subtly shift attention from what Qatar claims to support–peace–to what it undeniably does support–anti-Semitic terrorist groups and their unending war against Israel, as well as anything that weakens Western influence in the region that creates a vacuum into which Qatar can step. Neither the Obama administration nor the Netanyahu government is put in an easy position by this, but it will not be made any easier by denying the obvious.