The Bushies Having a Last Laugh at the UN
The U.N. Security Council today passed its first resolution on Israeli-Palestinian peace process-related issues in 5 years. The resolution was essentially intended to anchor the Annapolis process as an ongoing effort in moving forward beyond the Bush Administration and it closely followed the language of a Quartet statement from last month. UNSCR 1850, however, not only contains little that is new, it also offers very little encouragement that progress is being made by the current approach to Israeli-Palestinian peace-making.
From the Bush Administration's perspective it is a last gasp effort at legacy-building, having failed to achieve the goals set out at Annapolis one year ago. How ironic that this Administration would seek a U.N. imprimatur for that legacy, given its characteristic hostility to the U.N. and indeed to multilateralism and international law in general. But this is an unhelpful resolution, and it looks like the Bushies are having a farewell snicker at the U.N. Plaza.
From the international community's perspective, this looks like a farewell gesture to an Administration who for seven years neglected Israeli-Palestinian peace-making and whose belated efforts were never really found to be convincing. So it can only be hoped that UNSCR 1850 in no way locks the Obama Administration into an Annapolis process that is structurally flawed. The resolution's insistence on maintaining bi-lateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, on pursuing the Roadmap and on adhering to the Quartet principles for engagement with Palestinians all seem woefully inadequate when faced with the real challenges that will have to be overcome to advance progress toward Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution.
Only this month two of the most respected establishment Washington think tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations and Brookings, suggested dropping those Quartet principles: "Washington should eschew the Quartet's conditions on Hamas." The bi-lateral negotiations themselves will almost certainly need to be buttressed by external intervention, as two of the wisest U.S. national security heads, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft have suggested: "A key element in any new initiative would be for the U.S. president to declare publicly what, in the view of this country, the basic parameters of a fair and enduring peace ought to be."
More than anything, UNSCR 1850 looks like a clumsy attempt to intervene in domestic Israeli and Palestinian politics--and one that is likely to backfire.
When Israelis go the polls in February, the main choice for Prime Minister will be between the Annapolis-supporting Tzipi Livni (Kadima) and the more hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud). If this resolution is designed to embarrass Netanyahu and to tie his hands when it discusses the "irreversibility of the bilateral negotiations", then it is unlikely to succeed. The Israeli-voting public can be open to listening to messages from the international community, but not when they are delivered with so little sophistication, in a way that lacks meaning, teeth, or follow-up and that actually borders on being nonsensical--what on earth does the "irreversibility of the bi-lateral negotiations" even mean?
The effort to assist the Palestinian Fatah leadership in Ramallah is even more woeful, transparent, and unconvincing. The resolution "calls on all states and international organizations...to support the Palestinian government that is committed to the Quartet principles and...to maximize the resources available for the Palestinian Authority." Yet one has to question how much of a selling point this resolution can be with the Palestinian public when the entire text makes no mention of occupation, settlements, or the humanitarian situation in Gaza--all things that might just concern the average Palestinian If anything this is only likely to further discredit the P.A.
A U.N. Security Council Resolution is a tool that if effectively deployed could be helpful in advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace, but Resolution 1850 only cheapens and demeans this tool. That the resolution has been largely well received is perhaps testimony to only how low the bar has now been placed for what is considered to be a positive development on Israel-Palestine. International support for such a timid approach, and one so steeped in the failure of the past, is unfortunate to say the least. It is also very out of sync with the hope and expectation of more effective and creative diplomacy that has characterized the international mood since the election of Barack Obama.
In fact, this is not the only issue on which the Bush Administration is trying to have a last laugh at the United Nations--they are also pushing for a UN Security Council Resolution on the situation in Somalia to militarily protect the discredited and impotent Transitional Federal Government there. Bush's Somalia policy has come close to being matched in its wrongheaded ideological dogmatism and devastating effects by the policy towards the Palestinians.
The only good news is that this resolution was the product of U.S.-Russian co-sponsorship (nice to see) and that like the many Israel-Palestine resolutions that preceded it, this one too is likely to be ignored.
Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy! The UN has weighed in!
The same United Nations that has passed over five hundred condemnations of the democratic Jewish State of Israel and not a single condemnation of the genocidal Islamic state of Sudan.
Now that the highly morally evolved and entirely objective UN is on the case, Middle East peace is finally imminent.
Kick any rabbis today, Daniel?
December 16, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Galdsher:
In my world you can be frustrated with a United Nations that sends a Richard Falk to investigate and report on Gaza, notwithstanding his previous comparison of Israel to the Nazis, and at the same time be frustrated with the Bush Administration's last-ditch effort to sugarcoat its absolute failure to show leadership and apply an even-handed approach with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the past eight years. My worldview might not sell papers, but the fact that Mr. Levy's focus on the Bush Administration gives an incomplete picture of the United Nations doesn't mean that Mr. Levy's assessment of the Bush Administration's hypocritical use of the Security Council at this juncture is incorrect and not newsworthy.
At this point, I have high hopes for what appears to be the Obama Administration's genuine commitment to actively pursuing a peaceful two-state solution in Israel and Palestine. That might not sell papers around here either, but a little optimism once in awhile when it comes to the Middle East can't hurt, eh?
December 16, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel Levy criticizes the Bush Administration for putting "Israeli-Palestinian peace" on the back burner for 7 years. BSLEV is hoping for "active involvement" by the incoming Obama Administration. Apparently you two have forgetten recent history. Wasn't the Clinton Administration "fully committed"? Didn't he convene intensive on-going talks that went on for months, that dealt with the core issues and come up empty? Didn't he put Arafat in a room and yell at him for an hour to get some concession out of him and fail? We are hearing again here, for the umpteenth time, that there is a magic formula available for peace, and if only the President would wave his magic wand, this formula would come out and there would be success. This fallacy is because there is a widespread myth that "everyone knows the outlines of an agreement, it is only necessary to get leaders with courage to sign off on it". This "well-known" agreement consists of Israel returning more or less to the pre-67 lines and the Palestinians giving up implementation of the Palestinian "right of return". Olmert has made this offer, it was turned down. In 1999 Barak offered something close to it. Arafat told Clinton he would be assassinated if he accepted it (remember Sadat?). Abbas is in a much weaker position than Arafat, due to having less credibility as a terrorist leader in the past, in addition to having HAMAS breathing down his neck.
The fact is the US has NO leverage to press the Palestinians for concessions in these matters, so there is NO chance of reaching an agreement, no matter how much Obama might want one. The US can NOT threaten to cut the financial aid that is vital to the Palestinian Authority (the majority of it's operating budget comes from US and EU hand-outs) because if they do make such a threat, Abbas will say "this will discredit the PA and put HAMAS into power--you sure don't want that). So Abbas has the US over a barrel. And there things will stand into the indefinite future.
December 17, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
YBD, I have not forgotten recent history and, while I recognize Clinton's inability to close the deal, I also recognize that he didn't engage as required until time had run out. I don't pretend, like many IMO do on here, that the only obstacle to peace is Israel's historical and current aggressiveness and that folks like you are immovable. I don't think that's smart or perceptive or reflective of candor; I frankly think that kind of thinking is naive at best and counterproductive and tantamount to a parlor game and I was mocked for saying so on here last week and that's cool. But I also believe that, in tough negotiations, oftentimes and most times actually, parties are at the point where there is no deal forseeable. . .until one emerges.
You and your like-minded believers will have to compromise YBD and, whether you know it or not at this point, I predict you will. The Palestinians will also have to make concessions that many of them say right now they never will make. Yes, Clinton failed, but he failed because he tried to do it all too quickly. It takes commitment, and it takes commitment from the start and it takes time. So, forgive me for my optimism; it's one of the nicest things that have been said to me on here in the context of the I-P conflict, and I thank you for that. :)
December 17, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruces says: "Yes, Clinton failed, but he failed because he tried to do it all too quickly. It takes commitment, and it takes commitment from the start and it takes time. So, forgive me for my optimism..."
That makes two of us, Bruce.
It is interesting how, even on this reasonably moderate site, the "two sides" have a hard time addressing each other's points. Real negotiation, it seems to me, and as a union man I'm sure you know this better than I, requires both sides to each other's key concerns and complaints, hopes and dreams.
At least that's how I THINK it's needs to go.
December 17, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, we are certainly in synch, again. Love your patience and wish I could borrow some once in awhile but I'm afraid it becomes harder and harder to teach an old dog new tricks.
By the way, speaking of negotiations, last night I had one quite the challenge: representing a rabbi in negotiations with a congregation. You think the I-P conflict is tough? You ain't seen nuttin. :)
December 17, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh boy! I don't envy you! I bet it was fascinating, though, unless it was just about pay.
BTW, I always meant to ask you if you ever knew Bruce Waxman. He was a friend from a long time ago who, I believe was a lawyer at the NLRB. You two might be in very different career stages/cycles, though. He was a very decent guy; I always liked him, but haven't seen him in years.
December 17, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Peter, I don't know Bruce Waxman, but I googled him and he has a real interesting labor background. It appears that, if it's the same guy you're talking about, he's retired and teaching in some capacity at George Mason University (which I believe is not far from where you are).
December 18, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bslev said:
------------------------------------------------
I also recognize that he (Clinton) didn't engage as required until time had run out.
-----------------------------------------------
I have to disagree with this. Clinton was superengaged. IIRC he was at Camp David for 2 weeks (please correct me if I am wrong). Intensive negotiations then continued until the end of his term. Arafat visited the White House 12 times, more than any other foreigner. Clinton knew the maps and the issues better than anyone.
I can't understand why the "progressives" here refuse to acknowledge that Arafat would not make an agreement under any conditions. Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israeli Foreign Minister at the time, and a super-"progressive" in the vein of Avraham Burg, says Arafat, and the Palestinians in general were not prepared to make any concessions, but, their purpose, in his words, was "to put Israel in the dock of the accused of history".
The fact is that ANY Israeli gov't, including a "right-wing" one would have no choice but to agree to a complete withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines and to remove all the settlements IF THE PALESTINIANS AGREED TO DROP THE DEMAND FOR THE RIGHT OF RETURN. Since the Palestinians refuse to drop it and the so-called Saudi plan insists on it, that can only mean they DON'T want a peace agreement. The continuation of the state of conflict serves Arab intersts well. They couldn't care less about the "welfare" of the Palestinians or their "lack of self-determination". The ongoing conflict allows them to blame Israel, the Jews and the US for all their problems. Takes the burden off of them and it also allows them to justify refusing to democratize their regimes (can't allow "Zionist agents" to manipulate the people).
IT is about time you "progressives" acknowledge the facts and stop engaging in wishful thinking.
December 17, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note how you conflate accepting Israel's demands as equal to wanting peace. Ironic.
December 17, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you read The Magnes Zionist?
If so, what do you think of it?
Don't have the URL, but you can find it easily by Googling its name.
December 17, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Israeli - Palestinian peace process has broken down because no single leader speaks for the Palestinians.
The apparent Israeli strategy has been to isolate Arafat and cage the Palestinian Authority and simultaneously to establish sufficient settlement to create a reality on the ground. Then the Israelis can argue with conviction that (a) there is no Palestinian with the credentials to negotiate for the Palestinian people, and (b) there is really nothing to negotiate about -- settlements, barriers and walls leave nothing to be decided. For the past twenty plus years the United States has given support, sometimes passive and other times active, to this strategy.
I suspect that it is now far too late in the day to hope that a Palestinian leader strong enough to negotiate peace will arrive deus ex machina; and too late in the day to hope that the Israelis will cede to the Palestinians, in negotiations or otherwise, West Bank land seized and occupied by force of arms.
December 17, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the ultimate post-Camp David myth, i.e., the lie that the Israelis have no peace partner. The actually have no surrender partner.
Abbas erroneously believed that the Israelis wanted a peace agreement. Instead, they want more pieces of Palestine, not peace with Palestine.
As Ambassador Safieh has noted, they want the geography without the demography.
This farce will continue to play out until the "facts on the ground" make a future Palestinian state the size of a postage stamp.
December 17, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Palestine has a problem backing one leader. At least for a time, Arafat was backed by his people so that at least the rest of the world had someone to talk to.
I may be way off base here but Israel keeps changing her leadership. Israel reminds sometimes of a classical Greek city state with a purity of democratic ideals. It is like the majority has a voice every hour of every day.
December 17, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best thing the US could do for the peace process would be to drive all the people out of Jerusalem and detonate a nuclear bomb under the Temple Mount. That would get the most idiotic issue off the table and they could actually discuss the real ones.
I know, it's unlikely to happen. But a person can dream.
December 17, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jean Claude Van Damme already made that movie.
December 17, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
But then folks would worship the hole.
I'm serious.
December 17, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. About 10 years ago, I walked the Stations of the Cross on the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem. About a half-way through the walk, a little boy indicated that the "second station" was to the left. It was actually a Muslim school. My wife and I just laughed. Does anyone really know? There was also substantially less traffic when we went to the shrine that marked the spot "where Jesus ascended." I didn't have the heart to tell the locals that according to Acts, Jesus ascended somewhere in the Galilee. But who knows?
December 17, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you're interested in this kind of thing, but there is a very, very long book called James, Brother of Jesus, written by Dead Sea Scroll scholar. My family couldn't believe that I read the 1,000 pages, including all the footnotes, because I'm a very slow reader. It isn't very well written, but the content is interesting, if presented a bit redundantly -:)
Anyway, his basic thesis (as I recall) is that there is a Pauline overlay on "the story" as told in the synoptic Gospels (epitomized in Acts) and a consequential obscuring of the Jamesian thread that he, this scholar, believes reflects the historical reality more closely. James was the more "Jewish" of the two, believing that actions were key to entering heaven, while Paul believed it was grace. In fact, I got the impression the scholar was asserting that many of the actions ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels were actually performed by James.
December 17, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you may also be hinting at is what I call the dirty little secret of Christianity: was it meant to be a Jewish sect or a separate religion? PBS had a nice documentary on this called "Peter and Paul," which reflected the split between Peter (Jesus came for the Jews) and Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles).
Who knows? All we can do, I think, is try to think how religion should link us to the world, particularly to people who are different from us. A little more humility, a little less certainty, might actual be needed at this point.
And isn't this the oldest problem? St. Augustine, for example, could not become a Christian until he decided that the Books of Moses must be read as a profound allegory for the gradual revelation of God to man. If it only about one tribe slaughtering another, who wants that?
December 18, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink