Bipartisan Heavies Call for Engagement
Later today (Wednesday), an interesting letter that I will post at 2 pm will be sent to President Bush outlining key requirements necessary to secure any real success in the November Israel-Palestine Peace Summit that President Bush and Condoleezza Rice will orchestrate in Annapolis.
The signers of the letter are diverse and will send a powerful, provocative message to President Bush.
Signers include former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US Trade Representative Carla Hills, Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and US Ambassador to Russia Thomas Pickering, former Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, former House International Relations Committee Chiarman Lee Hamilton, former Counselor to President Kennedy Theodore Sorensen, and former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker.
The letter essentially makes the point that America -- in addition to the Israelis and Palestinians -- can ill afford yet another staged "epic effort designed to fail'. In the past, America could earnestly attempt to negotiate solutions in this unresolved Middle East mess but still could 'afford to fail'.
Today, when as Zbigniew Brzezinski has said, America's engagement in the Middle East is the defining challenge it faces in this era -- another failure will come at the very high cost of further eroding American credibility internationally.
What may be the most remarkable thing about this bipartisan statement is not only who is saying it but what they are prepared to say.
In the letter to Bush, beyond calling on the US and the parties to focus on the outlines of a final status settlement, the co-signatories defy the administration's views by calling for an end to the policy of isolating Hamas and for a shift in policy toward Syria -- including both US/Syria engagement and renewal of Syrian/Israeli negotiations.
Colin Powell -- who is not (yet) a signatory -- has also called for communication with Hamas, and the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group called for engaging Syria. This letter makes the point even more strongly.
Journalists and bloggers interested in participating on the conference call can contact me before 1:30 pm Eastern time -- and I will have my colleagues get you information to listen in to a call with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Nancy Kassebaum Baker, and Lee Hamilton.
The conference call will take place at 2 p.m. -- when I will post their letter to President Bush.
This effort has been jointly organized by the US/Middle East Project Inc., the International Crisis Group, and the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program. (My pal and colleague Daniel Levy has been the lead on pulling this together for the New America Foundation.)
-- Steve Clemons is Senior Fellow and Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation and publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
What a Blockbuster!
I hope that the profound sadness that overwhelmed me as I read this roster of importunate solons will prove to be ill-founded, but I cannot suppress the apprehension that the mental defective run amok who captains our team will show them and their advice the contempt that has marked his every prior interaction with wisdom.
October 9, 2007 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be impressed with the signatories, but I am not. Brzezinski is way overrated and a cliché generator master. Hamilton is a serious talking small ideas or none player. Why the hell should we listen to Scowscroft? Is working for Kissinger a quality? We have to stop to listen to people whose major merit is their political success.
Having Hammas involved is the right way to go. What is downright silly is the idea of a conference. This comes from another light weight: Condi. You need Hammas because without it, you simply have an agreement with about 50% of the Palestinians and that is amounts to a fake agreement.
Why Syria? That is beyond me. It isn't that the Syrians are not an major player, but the mindlessness of attempting to solve everything in one shot is amazing and basically shows incompetence and shallowness.
It is about time for commenters on the Isreali/Palestinian conflict to understand the complexity of the problem and its dissimilarity with almost all other nationalistic conflict. Therefore Brzezinskis and Hamiltons should just stay away and keep their collective mouth shut. Lightweights cause more damage than good.
October 9, 2007 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Koshembos - Even as an American, I have been intimately involved with Israel for my entire life. From my Granfather's Irgun days to my sister and the rest of my relatives making aliyah from 1966 onward, I have a ear for at least what the settler community believes.
While there is a peace camp in Israel, it is neither deep or passionate. The majority of Israelis would like peace but not enough to really fight for it. The reason for that is most Israelis can live with the status quo. The Palestinians are like mesquitos - irritating but not fatal. They are essentially powerless and boxed in. Sure the Quassams into Sderot are terrible but 99% of Israelis are not impacted by it.
While the Israeli peaceniks are passive and limp, the Eretz Israel crowd is fervent and organized. What Israel would gain in a peace agreement is nebulous and of uncertain duration. What Israel loses is tangible and forever. This is how the issue is framed in Israel today.
If it were up to the Israelis, there would be no peace summit. It would be business as usual with the slow inevitable annexation of west bank territory. Just yesterday, more land near the E-1 corridor was confiscated. The Peace Conference is only happening because the US is insisting. Israel does not have it's heart in it and as a result it will fail.
Israel really thinks it can live with the status quo for the next 1000 years. What can the Palestinians do about it? Nothing. Israel's belief is that it is militarily too strong. Israel will make peace ONLY when it is scared into believing peace is existentially necessary.
October 9, 2007 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
koshembos,
I don't see this as an attempt to "solve everything in one shot," as much as an attempt at getting a genuinely multilateral diplomatic engagement happening. Of course the conflict is much more complicated than a simple 2-party dispute, and it should be encouraging that diplomatic veterans are throwing their combined weight behind an effort to bring in as many components of the Arab establishment to sustain some US diplomatic momentum through the next fifteen months. It is not as if Israeli and Palestinian negotiators can throw a switch and turn on a viable, independent Palestine. They will need alot of assistance, and the bulk of the most visible sort inevitably must come from the Arab establishment. Meanwhile, it will be interesting to watch Syria's approach as the Hariri assassination investigation plods on.
October 9, 2007 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve,
Good job gathering signatories. But who's gonna read the letter to Bush?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 9, 2007 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
whatever
October 10, 2007 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The United States role is both overstates and understated. The United States will not make an agreement for the parties. Only if Abbas and Olmert and their respective supporters want a deal, and can work out the basics of a deal with an agreement be reached regardless what the United States wants.
However, the U.S. is crucial on three points. It can help at the margins. When there are sticky points the U.S. can offer honest broker suggestions. The United States is mainly the key in providing political cover for the difficult decisions and acts that the two parties need to make. The United States is a good party to blame for taking actions that are needed to be taken anyway. Lastly, the U.S. has the wallet. As with Israel and Egypt the United States will probably supply a lot of the money to paper over refugee issue.
The United States, like the Saudis, should indicate that it is ready to support any deal that the parties work out.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
October 10, 2007 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy to be cynical about this, since all sorts of people are compromised by all sorts of pasts and since nothing will happen under Bush and Cheney, but think of it as asserting a consensus, so that once the madmen are out of the White House, we can actually get somewhere.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 10, 2007 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The signers of the letter are diverse and will send a powerful, provocative message to President Bush.
If you think this means anything, or will mean anything to Bush, Cheney, or almost anyone in the Administration, or almost any Republican for that matter, than you've been under a rock for the last 7 years.
Bravo, though, to those who continue to believe that reason and rationality can influence the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, it's a futile effort, but there's something admirable, I think, to this clinging-on of reasonableness and decorum.
Quaint, but admirable.
Remember, it's all of us who in still in the "reality-based community." The Bush Administration, they create their own reality, and that's the one that matters.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
October 10, 2007 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
How stupid was Palestinian leadership not to take a deal that was offered them in 2000 and instead start Second Intifada.?
I think that The majority of Israelis don’t believe that real peace is possible.
Israel borders are not going to as safe as Luxemburg borders any time soon.
So, based on your explanation of today’s reality, peace would not bring more security to Israel
October 10, 2007 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting article in slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175479/nav/navoa/
October 10, 2007 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point, to be sure, and have some sympathy with it.
But I think you ignore the ways in which the US is inextricably linked with all these other nations...and increasingly so.
Just to correct the record, this is NOT my position:
"I know that those who accept the responsibilities of America's sole super-power status accept that we must keep our killing machine active whenever our will is defied."
October 10, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
And little by the little the West Bank settlements grow.
October 10, 2007 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be more interested in a letter signed by Israelis and Palestinians.
October 10, 2007 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
BevD,
Click here.
October 10, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is sad. Watching our more responsible leaders advocating that we try the same thing that has been tried over and over again and failed. All these 'peace processes', conferences, etc accomplish is the illusion that something is being done and a very convenient cover for the Israelis to expand the the West Bank settlements. I supported this process during the 90's but have become convinced that the US is powerless to accomplish any agreement. As is Israel today, the US is fractured into political factions that make progress impossible. We have become part of the problem. We should simply withdraw and cease our military and financial backing for any of the warring ME tribes.
October 10, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Twenty-five thousand American dead and wounded, a million dead Iraqi's and hundreds of billions wasted have had zero impact on the Decider, the "the cockiest guy I have ever met in my life." (Vincente Fox)
October 10, 2007 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
davai - Stop hiding behind a new name. You are still spouting the same unique nonsense. The 2000 Camp David was an awful deal for the Palestinians and you know it. Israel's borders under a peace agreement can be no worse than they are now so why not try for peace.
October 10, 2007 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, absenting ourselves from the region--as we did in Afghanistan after the USSR left--doesn't seem to bode well for us, either.
The mistake you're making here, I think, is to think that US intervention, on whatever side, is what causes us the problems--that if we left them alone, they'd leave us alone.
We are not just another country in the world, whether we like it or not.
On a brighter note, the Northern Ireland conflict seemed unsolvable... until it was solved.
October 10, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps not, though, if the US brought real pressure to bear--the potential withholding or lessening of financial/military aid.
October 10, 2007 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cynicism is cheap and easy.
ANYONE should be APPLAUDED who is trying to move toward a resolution to this conflict.
Period.
Congratulations, Steve, and good work, as always.
October 10, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Comon,
Even MJ accepted that Palestinians were offered 94% of West Bank.
You still believe that they were offered 70%.
why not try for peace
Sounds like a good idea to me, but explained very well why it will be much harder to achieve now.
October 10, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"any of the warring ME tribes"
Are you against selling weapon to Saudis, Jordan, Israel, Egypt?
October 10, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am afraid it is you who are spouting nonsense. The deal wasn't terrible for the Palestinians. It was terrible for Arafat who had been over promising and underperforming, as well as stealing for years. As Shlomo Ben-Ami argues in his book Barak kept making concessions without ever indicating where his bottom line was. What you also leave out was that the Palestinian, in an effort by Arafat to hold in the non-exiled Palestinians in the territories, launched a new round of militancy instead of alternative proposals.
This led to the Taba meeting which Arafat also refused to say yes to. The Palestinians refusal to say yes to a deal that does not automatically threaten Israel's existence has always been the main problem. The failure of the Palestinian's apologists to recognize this contributes to the problem. The rise of Iran and the separation between Gaza, with Hamas, and the West Bank, with Fatah, looks like it is breaking the logjam on the Palestinian size.
The Israelis have to deal with their own loons too, the settlers. but they abandoned the oilwells and the rest of Sinai for peace and Gaza for nothing.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
October 10, 2007 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should blind optimism be applauded? Should putting resources into things we know are futile be applauded?
Appeals to Bush won't work. He won't have a magical epiphany. Wish for ponies, but you won't get them.
Sometimes cynicism is called for. Perhaps skepticism is a better word for it.
October 10, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The USSR 'left' Afghanistan because of United States intervention in supplying billions in missiles and weapons to Islamic extremists, who helped the Taliban take over the country.
October 10, 2007 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent example, Afghanistan is. We have been occupying that country for five years now and have set up our own puppet in Kabul. Please describe the wonderful progress we have made and some kind of time table on when the US can withdraw its forces or at least be able to occupy our bases without someone shooting at us. Or let some kind of time table when our puppet's realm extents beyond the city limits of Kabul.
I don't expect an answer. We are in a slow bleed in Afghanistan and it only a matter of time before our NATO allies withdraw. Perhaps the US can stay there for few generations, but we will have to be willing to kill Afghanis on a large scale and be willing to accept the costs in American casualties. I know that those who accept the responsibilities of America's sole super-power status accept that we must keep our killing machine active whenever our will is defied. But I just don't get it. Why should we impose our will on people who are not interested in our values. Do you get any satisfaction at all the people our military interventions and our weapons are killing? What do the people of the US gain?
October 10, 2007 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no. The nutters have left MJ's post to settle in with Clemons. Daniel G, Davai, etc. BradtheIdiotDad will be next and BarCocaCola. You are a brave man, Mr. Clemons.
Meet the 5th column.
October 10, 2007 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What resources? Ink?
If the letter is presented to the public also--say through a full page ad in WaPo--it helps build consensus around a new conventional wisdom.
Little by little, the tide turns.
October 10, 2007 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, but if we stay out of the region, do you think the settlements will stop growing?
Or will we just feel better because we won't be paying for them anymore?
Engagement means more influence, assuming you're willing to use it.
Disengage, and you're out of touch and yet not out of reach.
October 11, 2007 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but...
Bad engagement and its consequences is not an argument against engagement.
It's an argument against bad engagement.
But to speak to your point, we gave them missiles, etc., and then got bored once the USSR had left.
October 11, 2007 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I signed up, thanks.
October 11, 2007 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point of this letter isn't it's address.
It's to bring these ideas to a wider audience and IMO, to encourage the players in Europe and in the ME (including some Israelis) who agree with them.
October 11, 2007 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink