Your Deal, Mr. President
"In a meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan on Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama said he hoped "over the next several months, that you start seeing gestures of good faith on all sides. I don't want to get into the details of what those gestures might be, but I think that the parties in the region probably have a pretty good recognition of what intermediate steps could be taken as confidence-building measures." Haaretz, this morning.
This all sounds so reasonable: the parties to the conflict will build confidence toward a subsequent negotiation; Israel will freeze settlements, the Arab countries will invite Israeli academics to conferences. And it was reasonable after the 1973 War. But does the president seriously think he can do now what Jimmy Carter did after Camp David, only try harder?
Forgive me for confessing to that sinking feeling, but the language is all wrong here.
Framing the peace process as a negotiation between the interested parties, with more or less active American facilitation, will not work, for reasons I (and others) have laid out, again and again. Colin Powell once said that America cannot want peace more than the parties themselves. It was one of the most fatuous formulations by an American Secretary of State in a long series.
In fact, the leaders of Israel and Palestine will not want peace more than their fanatic oppositions; and they will cling to power by trafficking in the demagogy of national solidarity. Moreover, America is itself an interested party. It is time for the Quartet to present its plan, from Jerusalem to refugees. Oh, and don't we all know what the plan is, from Jerusalem to refugees?
Obama is the first president since Eisenhower with the sophistication, popularity, and objectivity to rally the Western allies to (in effect) impose a just settlement on the region. He knows how to speak about a world order rooted in collective security, federal institutions, and democratic alliances. He can be the face of international peacekeeping. If, as we all suspect, he means to push the sides toward a deal, there is no obvious reason apply pressure privately. It is time he started talking more like John Foster Dulles and less like Oprah.
Obama, in other words, has to start by imposing an agenda on Israel's conversation. He can win over Israelis eventually, but only if every front page story for the next six months is about whether or not Bibi and Lieberman are destroying relations with Washington. That is the only thing Israeli elites fear more than the loss of solidarity. That is what empowers the peace camp, such as it is: the chance to appear, not the party of concessions, but the party of America.
'Tis always a pleasure to be informed that one's long-held opinion is fatuous. Golly!
Though I suppose there might be a loophole here if Neocomrade General Powell meant to say that is is somehow physically or logically impossible for Uncle Sam to want peace in the neo-Levant more than Jewish Statists and Arab natives want peace.
Hoping for a cogent exposition of my fatuity, I find only a very improbable displacement of its elements: B. Avishai fancies that all may yet be well if "the Quartet" undertakes to want peace more than mere natives and locals do. That plan, if it be a plan, runs around on another of my ancient opinions, the view that "collective security" has never lived up to its testimonials (and never will) because when China and Peru suddenly discover that St. Woodrow’s swell-sounding policy is actually going to put them to significant trouble and expense, they fold their tents and silently slip away -- usually by denying facts one would have thought undeniable.
However Woodrovianity itself seems to be only a feint with the protean B. Avishai: what he really craves is for BHO "to start by imposing an agenda on Israel's conversation," which sounds rather like the Vespasian-and-Titus approach to balance and fairness east of Suez.
Well, at least sheer unilateral impositionism after the Rancho Crawford manner might conceivably work, unlike the other Avishavian daydreams.
The bad news is that, for reasons of domestic politics here in the holy Homeland™, few things are less likely to be attempted.
Happy days.
April 22, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it really so hard to believe that the U.S. and the quartet may want a regional peace settlement more than two peoples who a) are now culturally addicted to the conflict, b) are locked in a vendetta and believe that trusting the other is naive, c) have institutional and military commitments to making war, and d) have leaders, inevitably, who cannot resist running against national divisions, which means protecting, in effect, their fanatics. Can you not believe that custodians of Western democracies, who stand to lose so much from these wars, cannot want peace more than the warriors, say, the way the children of divorcing couples want a settlement more than the parents and their lawyers?
April 22, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not hard for me to believe this at all, Bernard. Recognizing this dynamic is no different from recognizing that a community and its police force may be more interested than are the participants themselves in ending a gang war or a crime family turf battle. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become a giant pain in the global backside, and is a source of security risks for many nations. Let's end it.
I would only add that I don't think the chief problem is that the participants are "addicted to conflict", although that plays a contributing role. The chief problem is that both communities contain politically substantial sub-communities that are dedicated to achieving maximalist outcomes in the conflict. It's not that they just love fighting; it's that they want to win. But very few people outside the conflict have any important stake in any of those maximalist outcomes.
How to implement a resolution is no easy matter, however. But I think a larger body of the community of nations, not just the Quartet, needs to be involved. It will not be possible to implement a prescribed resolution without an organized, disciplined and broad-based intentional commitment to sanctions, to be imposed on either or both sides for failure to obey the will of the international community.
I have for some time felt that the most constructive thing the US could do now is work with a specially constituted UN Commission to draw a line on a map, declare an Israeli-Palestinian border, and start pointing to the map and insisting, "This is Israel, and this is not Israel; this is Palestine, and this is not Palestine."
Yet, there is this place called "Jerusalem" ...
April 22, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very good post. If the international community had the legitimacy to recognize Israel without the approval of the Arabs, then the international community has the legitimacy to recongize Palestine without the approval of the Israelis.
The time for an imposed solution is yesterday.
April 22, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The International community recognized Israel but they didn't impose a solution, anymore than the International community imposes a solution to the Darfur problem by labeling Sudan's President a war criminal.
Israel was established by virtue of Jewish arms. Period. And it remains a state by virtue of those same arms. For no other reason.
So, mythbuster, why don't you choose a more fitting name; "lost in wet dreams" seems appropriate.
April 22, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ordinary? Is that like "special"?
You say: "Israel was established by virtue of Jewish arms."
Yes, the Zionists were very successful ethnic cleansers.
April 22, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Israel will freeze settlements, the Arab countries will invite Israeli academics to conferences"
That's your idea of a reasonable trade-off which will build confidence? The Left has no sense at all.
Let the Arabs resettle Palestinian refugees - who have been languishing in camps for what? 60 years and give up their right of return, and offer recognition of the Jewish state in exchange for a return to the 1967 borders, and you might have something.
Might.
Because a hundred years of hatred and distrust simply is NOT easily dispelled. Because Muslims generally, and Arabs in particular, will never agree to such a solution. They will never agree that Israel is a legitimate state with a legitimate right to exist. And because Lefties throughout Europe and America agree with them.
April 22, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
poor israel, the unwanted child of the world.
why is everything so complicated?
give all sides the same weapons,
allowing mutually assured destruction.
they either make peace or kill each other.
and that's the solution.
April 22, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such huffing and puffing from Ordinary: "Because Muslims generally, and Arabs in particular, will never agree to such a solution. They will never agree that Israel is a legitimate state with a legitimate right to exist. And because Lefties throughout Europe and America agree with them."
Yes, the horrible Arabs. Why would they reject the people who flattened their villages? The foreign invaders who stole what they could not buy? Why will the Arabs not make those people "legitimate"?
April 22, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
to mythbuster (lost_in_wet_dreams)
"Yes, the Zionists were very successful ethnic cleansers."
Less successful than European settlers of the Americas, than Arabs following WWII, than many African states, than the Turks following WWI, than the Hindus and Muslims after Gandhi, than the Chinese in Tibet and now in the West of their country, than the Nazis and Russian Communists. Funny how you missed all that. But, of course, you can always claim that the world fundamentally changed after 1948 and any aberrations are the fault of the Joos...who, by the way, faced a desperate sitution in the interwar period; kill or be killed, expel or be expelled. Something else you missed. As I said in my first post to you; you live in a complete fantasy.
"Yes, the horrible Arabs. Why would they reject the people who flattened their villages? The foreign invaders who stole what they could not buy? Why will the Arabs not make those people "legitimate"?"
Exactly, what I said they and you believed (minus the sarcasm)...and as long as they and you believe it the best strategy for the Israelis is attack, attack, attack, expand, expand, expand. That's what the author of "the Iron Wall", founder of the Israeli army, Zhabotinsky, said in 1923 (in answer to the nonsense of the Left of that time), that's what Begin and Sharon believed when they planned and authorized massive settlement of the West Bank, and that's what today's Israeli government believes.
to JadeZ
"give all sides the same weapons,
allowing mutually assured destruction."
Nobody gave the Jews their weapons. Jewish scientists and engineers invented much of the stuff...and continue to do so. Jewish financiers in and out of the Diaspora provided and continue to provide a great deal of the necessary funds.
However, nobody's stopping you from giving...
By the way, if you truly want to level the playing field you have to make sure bot sides have equal populations and equal resources - including land area. How are you going to do that, hmmm? Probably haven't given it a thought, have you?
April 22, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do your knuckles drag when you stop typing?
April 22, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you consider that a substantive argument? I'll bet you do.
April 22, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's great progress that rightwing defenders of Israel are reduced to pointing to numerous other cases of ethnic cleansing and saying "Israel's actions were no worse than these" and then acting as though Israel's critics weren't aware of this. Which is odd, because people like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein have been comparing Israel's actions to America's treatment of the Native Americans for many years now.
Anyway, now that we all agree that Israel's behavior was barbaric and can be compared to the actions of the states "ordinary" mentions, we can move on to the solution, which would be two states with borders fairly close to the 67 borders, with minor adjustments mutually agreeable to both.
Or we could go for the one state solution, but though in theory that's the only really just way to go, I'd be afraid of civil war.
By the way, a taxonomy of pro-Israel arguments can be found
here--
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-make-case-for-israel-and-win.html
The previous post somehow reminded me of it.
April 22, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say barbaric, I say realistic. History, I'm afraid, shows humanity to be quite brutal.
Given that we all agree on that, your solutions turn out to be non-starters for all the well-known reasons - some of which I've already stated.
That leaves the imposed, great power solution so desired by Avishai and Rosenberg (Frankly, anything Rosenberg wants I know I don't want). In theory, these two want what they want because they see nothing but disaster if the status quo continues. (A variation on their theme is the "peace in our time" rationalization so favored by a certain pre-war British prime minister. After all, Israelis [and Jews in general] constitute such a small percentage of humanity, so why should we all be held hostage to their unreasonable demands (a very troublesome group those Jews)? You'll find posters advocating this solution on virtually every thread dealing with Israel.)
Obama does not have the authority of Eisenhower, or the United States the power it had at that time...and Israel has multiple nuclear weapons. So you can forget about this solution too.
So this conflict, like many other problems facing humanity today, has no solution at the present time. No solution, that is, that can be actualized, as opposed to imagined be desperate, fearful, or angry people.
April 22, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have any idea how comical you sound? Your argument is basically this: To get a Jewish state, any act is justifiable.
Of course, if that is true, then to get a Palestinian state, any act is justifiable.
Substantive enough for you, Ordinary? Maybe you are so infected by that "chosen people" garbage, you really do believe any the end justifies any means.
I believe in a simple credo: Each human life has equal value. No exceptions.
April 23, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Your argument is basically this: To get a Jewish state, any act is justifiable. Of course, if that is true, then to get a Palestinian state, any act is justifiable."
That's pretty much the way both sides act (act. not say the have acted or will act), isn't it...and the way most other states act too (we've all agreed on that). WWII alone is proof.
"I believe in a simple credo: Each human life has equal value. No exceptions."
Who cares what you believe...since you have so tenuous a grasp on reality.
April 23, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blatant shameless hypocrisy has been and forever shall be the hallmark of the paranoid settler mentality on flagrant display above. Of course, ingrained lunacy abounds in the Mideast, as much as the Arab side if not more so than on the Israeli side.
The problem for Americans is that too many of our Congressmen think that the Israel = Warsaw Ghetto delusions of West Bank occupiers actually reflects the feelings of Jewish voters in the U.S. as well. (Pro Arab-terrorist delusions, thankfully, have practically zero impact on our Congress). Such stupidity is starting to be rectified, finally though still far too slowly, thanks to websites such as this one, and such change worries the professional and amateur propagandists for the settlers.
April 23, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is a settler country - entirely so. Virtually the entire Jewish population is no more than 2 or 3 generations removed from their immigrant ancestors.
April 23, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
By "settlers" I was making normal reference, as you surely must have realized, to the fanatical Israeli inhabitants of the hideously ugly settlements on the West Bank, who steal from Palestinians, abuse them, and occasionally assassinate Israeli prime ministers to boot, and from whose disproportionate influence in Israel, and America, liberation is long overdue. Not to all Israelis, of course, but rather to the lunatic fringe that too often is the tail wagging the dog. After Hypocrisy, comes Deception in the pantheon of West Bank settler trickery and immorality.
April 23, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Because Muslims generally, and Arabs in particular, will never agree to such a solution. They will never agree that Israel is a legitimate state with a legitimate right to exist."
Ordinary - This canard is not true and you know it. Are Egypt and Jordan arab? muslim? Do you really doubt that they recognize Israel and have agreed to live with her? How about Turkey and it's relations with Israel? Syria has been trying for years to sign a peace treaty with Israel which recognizes Israel's permanent borders.
There is no question but there is a lot of animosity toward Israel in the arab world but if you polled them I believe the vast majority would say that Israel is here permenantly. They may not like it but except for some radical Islamists they at least know it's not going to go away.
The sooner Israel and Palestine sign a peace agreement, the sooner the world can get on with the job of slowly ebbing Jewish/Israeli animosity.
April 23, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I went to a presentation of Ilan Lerman a couple of years ago when he was drumming up support for the demonization of Iran. That is exactly how I feel when I read Ordinary's scatalogical activity on this site.
The Likudniks need the Muslims to be demons so they don't have to negotiate. Negotiations terminate the fantasy of Eretz Isreal. The Arabs, therefore, are eternal liars, cheats, and savages.....until Israel gets what it wants, then Israel will love Muslim customers. Imagine, a whole region where you can treat the natives like yardmen. That is the Settler Fantasy. To try to separate their views from their inherent racism is like separating water from wetness.
April 23, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure Colin Powell's statement was as fatuous as you say. After all, while we can push and prod the parties toward the obvious solution, any agreement that does not enjoy some measure of popular support seems likely to fail.
On that subject, there is an interesting poll reported in today's Haaretz purporting to state that the "vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians are willing to live alongside each other peacefully in separate states." The numbers given are 74 percent of Palestinians and 78 percent of Isrealis.
Dig a little deeper, however, and the numbers are not nearly so encouraging. Here is the link to the results. http://onevoicemovement.org/programs/documents/OneVoiceIrwinReport.pdf
I took a stab at breaking them down in a blog entry today. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/nycdefender/2009/04/poll-shows-most-israelis-and-p.php?ref=reccafe
April 22, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink