To Do Nothing Is an Insane Policy
When President Obama appointed former Senator George Mitchell as his Special Envoy for the Middle East Peace Process on only his second day in office, one cannot imagine he envisioned the region being mired in a painful stalemate less than a year later. On the contrary, his early engagement was designed to keep such an impasse from occurring.
Unfortunately, mistakes were made. The U.S. went too far in demanding nothing less than a complete settlement freeze, ensuring that the Palestinians could demand no less. The popular right-wing government in Israel remained obstinate on the freeze; the U.S. then backtracked, causing the Palestinians to cry foul and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to threaten not to run in the next election. In the process, Israelis have lost trust in Obama (if they ever had any to begin with is debatable), and the Palestinians have lost their once high hopes.
In the past, when similar Arab-Israeli stalemates have gripped the region, and a void of creative ideas has caused an upswell of hopelessness for any "peace process," many have turned to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to suggest new ideas or support thoughtful policy approaches for overcoming such a deadlock.
While his ideas have by no means been flawless, they have stimulated fresh thinking, encouraged creative problem solving and, at times, inspired a degree of hope.
So, it was especially disheartening to read Thomas Friedman's latest missive on how to overcome the current stalemate, "Call White House, Ask for Barack,"in which he argues that in the absence of strong prospects for any real movement toward a two-state solution the United States should "take down our 'Peace-Processing-Is-Us' sign and just go home."
Friedman sums up what he calls a "radically new approach" for U.S. Arab-Israeli diplomacy in these four sentences: "When you're serious, give us a call: 202-456-1414. Ask for Barack. Otherwise, stay out of our lives. We have our own country to fix."
Friedman may be correct that rising above the current stalemate requires a radical new approach. The U.S. certainly needs to reassess its expectations and recalibrate its approach to diplomacy in the Middle East. But abandoning efforts entirely - essentially having a policy based on doing nothing at all - would be incredibly irresponsible.
Here's why:
"Give us a call" ... after another round of violence
As Friedman might say "we've seen this movie before." Violence sparks in the region when 1) rejectionists fear progress in the peace process (see: Hamas suicide bombs, Rabin's assassination) and when 2) political progress appears hopeless (see: first and second intifadas).
The absence of any meaningful gestures to support Mahmoud Abbas, and the recent prisoner release to Hamas in exchange for a videotape of captive Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit, have seemingly added further strength to the perception that violence, not diplomacy, produces results.
And in the absence of any prospect for political progress, we have already heard growing warnings that a third Palestinian intifada could be sparked.
If diplomacy were abandoned entirely, violence could very likely ensue as the alternative. Some fear that a third intifada would be even more violent and deadly than in the past. There is no way of knowing whether such violence could spin out of control, bringing on a wider, and deadlier, regional conflict.
One cannot imagine this is the "pain" that Friedman has in mind when he writes: "Today, the Arabs, Israel and the Palestinians are clearly not feeling enough pain to do anything hard for peace with each other..."
It is hard to understand how abandoning a conflict, and thereby potentially sparking exactly the kind of violence - and possibly regional warfare - we hope to avoid, could be in the interests of the United States.
It's not our habit--it's our interest.
Friedman ridicules hope for peace in the Holy Land as merely "our habit." He likens U.S. Arab-Israeli diplomacy efforts to "a callisthenic, like weight-lifting or sit-ups, something diplomats do to stay in shape, but not because they believe anything is going to happen."
This is likely news to George Mitchell, who stepped out of retirement to take on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, stating "There is no such thing as a conflict that can't be ended." Surely, at 76, and with his legacy of success mediating a resolution to the Northern Ireland conflict intact, Mitchell doesn't need the exercise.
Mitchell knows it won't be easy. Recalling his experience in Northern Ireland, he told reporters upon his appointment as Mideast envoy that "we had 700 days of failure and one day of success. For most of the time, progress was nonexistent or very slow."
It is also hard to imagine that National Security Advisor Jim Jones was doing the diplomatic equivalent of jumping-jacks when he recently said that if he could tell President Obama to resolve one conflict it would be the Arab-Israeli one.
The reality is that the United States may indeed want peace more than the parties seem to--because it is critically important that it be achieved for our national interests as well. If we sit around and do nothing, the parties will not be the only ones to suffer. Our challenges to stabilize the Middle East, combat violent extremism, strengthen moderates, and halt Iranian nuclear ambitions would become far more difficult. Even more, when there is a vacuum in the region, someone inevitably steps in to fill the void.
Who will be calling?
On Monday, Ethan Bronner of The New York Times reported that unlike in the past, Mahmoud Abbas' threat to not run in the election called for January 24th is being taken seriously by his colleagues. Furthermore, some believe that Abbas may resign before that date and his colleagues may go with him, effectively dissolving the Palestinian Authority.
Then what?
"Let them call us when they are ready," Friedman seems to say. But the key point is who will be the "them" on the Palestinian side?
Without the Palestinian Authority, it is likely we would see the end of the so-called "Fayyadism," the growth of the West Bank economy under Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad, coined by Friedman just three months ago as having the potential to "start a trend in this part of the world -- one that would do the most to improve Arab human security -- good, accountable government."
In addition, without the P.A., it is questionable what would become of the U.S.-trained Palestinian National Security Force, also hailed by Friedman just months ago. In an interview last month, Major General Diab el-Ali, a commander of the force, warned that the security progress in the West Bank "is still very fragile and very much connected to a political solution. If there is no political horizon, we're all likely to suffer a serious regression."
If Abbas, whom former Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh recently described as "the most courageous partner we have had," cannot manage any significant achievements via diplomacy, it is difficult to imagine a new, even more moderate Palestinian leadership emerging in his place. Rather, it is more likely that Hamas or other more radical factions would work to fill the void. The United States cannot afford to gamble against such a possibility. But quitting now - even for a short time - would be the equivalent of doing just that.
Indeed, we have seen this movie already.
Friedman writes that "This peace process movie is not going to end differently just because we keep playing the same reel." In this regard, he is absolutely right. We have already seen an ineffective U.S. laissez-faire approach to Arab-Israeli peacemaking--it was called the George W. Bush administration.
But don't take my word for it. In January 2004, Friedman wrote:
"These two nations are locked in an utterly self-destructive vicious cycle that threatens Israel's long-term viability, poisons America's image in the Middle East, undermines any hope for a Palestinian state and weakens pro-American Arab moderates. No, you can't draw any other conclusion. Yet the Bush team, backed up by certain conservative Jewish and Christian activist groups, believes that the correct policy is to do nothing. Well, that is my definition of insane."
On that I couldn't agree more.
Cross-posted from the The Mideast Peace Pulse Blog
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A Palestinian (Arab) Nidal Malik Hasan,
using his American citizenship, infiltrated the US Military as an Army Psychiatrist, where he committed an act of terror by mass murdering his fellow soldiers in what was an ultimately unsuccessful suicide attack, as he lived.
If a Palestinian or any Muslim had committed this same act in Israel, Iraq, India, Pakistan or Afghanistan, this would have immediately been labeled an act of Terrorism and Hasan a Terrorist.
It still seems unbelievable to me. The Obama administration apparently thought that if they simply ASKED Netanyahu to stop building and expanding settlements, that he would say yes. When he said no, they panicked, because they apparently could not imagine what else to do.
Strangely enough, with Pakistan, The moment that it became clear that they were not adhering to conditions that help US security in the region and at home, we sent secretary Clinton to inform them that we would withhold all aid to them if they did not comply immediately. That worked.
The occupation that is necessary to maintain and grow the settlements is crushingly expensive. We subsidize that occupation by giving Israel more foreign Aid and loan guarantees than any other nation on earth, more in fact than the entire continent of Africa receives.
In the mean time, The Iraq study group, members of the 9/11 commission, the CIA, and most past (and apparently current) presidents believe that the existence of the occupation and especially the settlements is a primary marketing tool for terrorist recruiters in the middle east who threaten the US.
So, Tom Friedman REALLY wants is for the US to abandon the Palestinians, but continue to pay for the settlements and occupation, and wait for the next terrorist attack on US soil. Sounds like just about as good an idea as supporting the Iraq war, which he did vociferously.
"The Obama administration apparently thought that if they simply ASKED Netanyahu to stop building and expanding settlements,"
Return to reality.
Netanyahu explicitly committed to not build new settlements or expand Israeli towns on disputed territories.
Like East Jerusalem? Thats about as disputed as it gets, yet the Israeli government is actively ethnically cleansing it by tearing down hundreds of Palesinian houses, issuing NO building permits to its Palestinian owners, while issuing many hundreds of new housing permits to Israelis, and subjecting the palestinians that remain their to the worst possible apartheid.
Your full of it.
Arabs governments, Israelis and serious commentators agree: a comprehensive deal is not possible while Palestinian people are in a de facto civil war with each other-- Secular Palestinains are supported by the West and their enemy, militantly religious Palestinians are supported by Iran, Syria and Oman.
The rift is complicated by the fact that Iran and Syria are totally uninterested in a peace deal between Israel and Palestinians.
Syrians are using Hamas to try to get Golan Heights back, and Iran is using Hamas in a proxy war with Israel on religious grounds.
Even when Palestinains were united behind Arafat they couldn't bring themselves to negotiate in ernest,
And now, divided and at wart with each other facing a right wing Israeli government
Senator George Mitchell is about as useful as Tony Blair. They are only there to create an illusion.
Israel and AIPAC have thus rendered him, period, because their intention is that the status quo is just fine. And this is why what Friedman suggests is a non starter, for Friedman has made himself the (American?) spokesman of Netanyahu, who would, of course, want us to do absolutely nothing. In the coming months we may well see how much Israel does, in fact, control the United States of America. Israel might just have a big surprise coming, and it could be our answer to its tossing the likes of Netanyahu on us.
I disagree with your conclusion, the USA should lay low now. The USA has had its' finger on the scale long enough. It's time to cut the apron strings and let the kids duke it out themselves, talking would be best but neither side has demonstrated an aptitude for diplomacy. It doesn't seem that Israel is very interested in Peace.....
After 4 months of Palestinians holding rocket attacks to its lowest number in years , israel couldnt stand it so they attacked Gaza as soon as they saw McCain wasnt the new president, but noo that still makes it the palestinians fault . Blockaded since democratic ellections , homes destroyed by bulldosers , and kids shot playing in sight of the ghettos walls are not justification for fightin but rockets that killed less than 5 in a year was reason to kill 1400 . When does Israel get it that we see thru them now ?
Rocket attacks shouldn't have been happening at all. They are indisputably illegal, especially when they are aimed at civilian populations. Just because Israel is better at protecting her citizens than Hamas is at killing them doesn't mean Hamas hasn't been trying. And Israel has every right to defend her citizens, even from only one rocket attack. The fact that Israel sat there for years allowing 8000 rockets to fall on Israeli soil is a testament to how unwilling Israel is to use violence.
Also, those 5 Israeli dead were civilians, people who were not legitimate military targets. Of that "1400" number of Arabs dead (which is somewhat exaggerated), how many of those were combatants? How many were terrorists? You cannot lump every Gazan dead together: that is not distinguishing between civilians and combatants. If you don't distinguish between them, how do you dare accuse Israel of not distinguishing between them?
Brilliant!
During that same period when 8000 rockets came FROM Gaza, Israel shot 13,500 Extremely accurate Mortars into Gaza, killing hundreds of innocents. They also sent in mryiad assasiniation squads who had a VERY high Civilian death ratio.
During the period of the 9000 Gaza rockets, Israel shot 13,500 mortars into Gaza. Killed hundreds of innocents. They also sent in many assasination squads who also had a shockingly high Civilian casualty ratio.
This same tired charade has been played again and again.
You'd think by now folks would have caught on.
One judges what people want by what they do. Not by what they say.
The goal is not peace.
It's piece. Nailing down that last bit of the Holy Land.
Creating facts on the ground so that whatever bits of land are eventually given to the Palestinians are going to be little more than Bantustans.
That requires time.
One gets the time by:
(1) engaging in the peace process - the goal of which is a lengthy process not peace. The journey that never reaches its destination.
(2) whenever there is a small bit of dangerous progress, one discovers that one has no credible partner for peace. It also helps to undermine that partner as just happened to Mr. Abbas. You will notice - unless you're completely oblivious - who did the most damage to this guy. (Hint: It's not a country in the Middle East).
Presto, no partner, no peace.
And more time for building those facts on the ground.
All the more reason Arafat should've taken the deal.
Prince Bandar told Arafat to take the Barak/Clinton deal because it was the best Palestinains ever going to get Arafat and his team decided to improve the offer using ye olde MO utilized in Lebanon and Jordan. With the same disastrous results for Palestinains and everyone else.
Bandar was right. No way current Israeli right wing government and Hamas can agree on a deal even remotly as good as Barak's. Any opportunity wasted, again.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
