Brzezinski: Obama Must Press Agreement on Israelis and Palestinians

In order to get beyond the stunningly superficial analyses of the Israeli-Hamas conflict one might find on MSNBC's Morning Joe, I called up Zbigniew Brzezinski -- former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, Obama supporter and eminence gris of American geostrategic thinkers -- to offer him a serious opportunity to talk about the challenges to Obama in facing this Middle East mess. We also talked about Obama's other immediate test: the mounting tensions between India and Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks. Finally, in light of these conflicts, we assessed the "clash of civilizations" thesis propounded by Havard's Sam Huntington, who died last week.

Here are excerpts of the interview:

Nathan Gardels: As President-elect Obama prepares to enter the geopolitical fray, he faces two looming crises -- the war between Israel and Hamas, and the mounting tension between India and Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks. First, Israel and Hamas.

How can there ever be a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians with an armed, hostile and rejectionist Hamas in Gaza?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: There will never be a deal unless there is on the table a comprehensive outline of a solution that is attractive to the majority of the Israelis and Palestinians, particularly if such proposed solutions stand in clear contrast to the consequences of the failure of either side to accept such an agreement --- in other words, the relentless cycle of violence we are witnessing yet again today in Gaza.

By now it should be quite evident that the two parties to the conflict will never reach an agreement on their own. The Palestinians are divided, which complicates their ability to negotiate effectively. The Israelis are reluctant to move forward with a compromise deal because some feel comfortable with the status quo while others aRE quietly using the stalemate to expand settlements in the West Bank.

The only way, therefore, to move forward is for the international community, led by the United States, to put on the table the framework of an eventual agreement. This agreement should be based on four fundamental points:

-- No right of return for the Palestinian refugees. This is a very bitter pill for the Palestinians to swallow, though it can be sweetened by an international acknowledgment of their suffering.

-- Jerusalem has to be equitably shared as the capital of two states, Israeli and Palestinian. Admittedly, this is a bitter pill for the Israelis. But the fact of the matter is that no peace will be viewed as equitable without this.

-- An equitable territorial arrangement based on the 1967 lines, with some changes permitting the incorporation into Israel of some heavily urbanized communities beyond the 67 lines. In return, the Palestinians would be compensated with other territory, perhaps in Galilee and the Negev.

-- A demilitarized Palestinian state with the deployment of American troops along the Jordan River, thereby insuring Israeli security XXX by providing "strategic depth."

Such an agreement would, in my view, be supported by the majority of Israelis and Palestinians, and would isolate the extremists on both sides, both THE settlers and the right wing of Likud in Israel as well as Hamas.

Gardels: Khaled Mishaal, the Hamas leader, has often said that while Hamas won't accept the existence of Israel, they will accept a "long term truce" -- he told me 20 years in one interview. Must Hamas recognize Israel's existence as a condition for the US to talk with them, or, pragmatically, can the truce idea lead somewhere?

Brzezinski: I doubt a truce is sufficient. After all, If there is to be a peaceful settlement based on territorial arrangements, I don't see how those arrangements can be conditional, as they would be in such a truce. The notion of a truce precludes some of the elements of a comprehensive agreement. A truce, as such, would only preserve the status quo, which is untenable.

Gardels: During the Bush administration, there has been very little daylight between the US and Israel. If Obama is to leverage his "soft power" in the Arab and Muslim world to regain American presitige, musn't he put some daylight between the US and Israel?

Brzezinski: Doing it in this fashion would not be productive. It would create great insecurity in the American Jewish community and in Israel itself. What is needed, is a serious and determined engagement in the peace process. That in itself makes the US a constructive mediator instead a passive participant -- as the US has become during the Bush years.

Gardels: India has said they have the right in self-defense to strike militant sanctuaries in Pakistan if Pakistan can't, or is unwilling, to do the job. This is what Bush has done; it is what Obama has promised to do. Why should India not do the same?

Brzezinski: Theoretically, from a debater's point of view, the argument you have laid out is correct. However, any sane person has to ask "what has the US gained" by attacking these sanctuaries other than inflaming Pakistani public opinion? Have we destroyed the Islamist networks? Why would India be able to do any better?

The real risk of any Indian attack on Pakistani territory, which otherwise might be morally or internationally justified, is that it could lead to a major war between nuclear powers. Any major war between the two--even if Pakistan is defeated -- could unleash tremendous internal turmoil in India, with its large Muslim population that is increasingly resentful and restless. That would threaten the very integrity of the Indian state.

So, yes, India would have the right to attack the sanctuaries. But, so what?

Gardels: In other words, it wouldn't be wrong, but stupid.

Brzezinski: Precisely.

Gardels: Last week, Harvard political scientist Sam Huntington died. He was most noted for his controversial thesis of "the clash of civilizations." The conflicts we have been discussing -- Israel vs. Hamas; Hindu India vs. Muslim Pakistan -- run along civilizational lines. Was Huntington right in the end?

Brzezinski: He was more right than wrong. He was certainly more right than his critics. He clearly put his finger on something. I had reservations in the beginning, even though he was one of my closest friends. Huntington's analysis made the clash of civilizations seem inevitable, but I think it was avoidable. I fear that historians will think that the US, Bush particularly, made a very substantial contribution to proving Huntington right.

Comments

[Synoia]

The best solution is a secular stae. Like Turkey. I'm not holding my breath.

[AdamWykle]

Protests Grow As Many World Leaders Condemn Invasion

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/04/protests-against-israel-g_n_155133.html

[Fein]

The Israelis evidently didn't notice what happened to Georgia when their little fiasco turned south. Their
Neocon sponsors were nowhere to be found.

[bigbadsam]

Ther can never be agreement between the Palestinians and Israel. Israel will never agree to anything that is not to the absolute advantage of Israel. The only thing the Palestinians can do is to fight on to the death rather than to give in . It's better too die than to remain concentration camps for several lifetimes.

[amyeom]

You can't have two states on one land. Call it Israelestine and this will be the only way to give peace and democracy a chance; and hold Israeli accountable for their antiquated apartheid.

[maddogbitesback]

Before there is any discussion re what Palestinians must do it must be stated Israel has no borders. The ever increasing settlements, the use of aquifers, the encircling wall which cuts through backyards and fields of Palestinians and the strangulation of Gaza, means the Israelis have no intent whatsoever to stop expanding into new areas. The Palestinians can just lie down and let it happen - relax and enjoy it - or they can fight no matter what the cost.

[noneIn2008]

Obama has a plan, he can change. It will be interesting to see how the "let's sit and talk" aspect works with people who hate each other and even those who deny the right of a people to exist?

[sherbug]

He lost me at American Troops along the border of the Jordan River. We are all having our problems today and I am tired of being the peacekeepe­rs/traffic cops of the world.

If the U.S. can facilitate a peace by bringing all parties to the table, then great, but no U.S. troops should be sent to babysit and make sure all the toys are being shared.

[ApolloSpeaks]

NO RIGHT OF RETURN

Bzezinski does well to exclude the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees from his plan as they have no such right in reality except under Islamic Law. The Palestinian refugees fled Israel believing that they would return to lands that were free of Jews and be able to seize Jewish homes, cars, farms and businesses-the promise made by the Arab League for leaving and getting out of the way. Once they left Israel the refugees forfeited any right of return as they were then and still remain the uncompromising enemies of Israel.

[Fein]

According to your specious argument, the 500,000 'refugees' of last years fires in Southern California would now be in refugee camps since fleeing our homes means we forfeited them.

As for the Palestinian's 'right of return' "only existing in Islamic law" perhaps you should take a look
at a few hundred of the UN resolutions concerning that right. Start with No. 190.

[NotesFromME]

That argument has been effectively refuted by many historians­--includin­g a number of key Israeli scholars in recent years, who had access to Israeli archives. First of all, refugees NEVER give up their property rights just because they fled a war. Second, th vast majority of Palestinians fled their lands not because of promises by by "the Arabs", but as a result of systematic attacks on them by Israeli forces. The British noted it in 1948, They were therefore ethnically "cleansed" in 1948, 1967 and subsequently. There is no evidence whatsoever for the Israeli derived story that they left "voluntarily."

Some will have to be allowed to reunite with their families in Israel, most should receive compensation for the land after their expulsion.

International law does not allow a colonial power such as Israel to keep the lands obtained through war.

[scipio7]

"There is no evidence whatsoever for the Israeli derived story that they left "voluntarily."
Yes there is. Benny Morris's book states 200,000 to 300,000 Palestinians left due to Arab military leaders telling them to. Not all the refugees but thats different then none at all.

[Synoia]

This would of course apply to the jews who left Isreal in AD 70. Right? No right of return?

[chombo]

"American troops along the Jordan River" sounds like a really bad idea to me. Would they have targets painted on their chests to make it that much easier to pick them off? Why not UN troops from countries other than the US?

[rizvisa1]

I think, he said so, because messing with American troop will come with a heavy price in term of military, and financial, as well as disappearance of any other form of support that any potential attacker may have. UN is only collection of nations that is pulled and pushed by countries that carry stick and weaker nations are not relevant there. Till collective will to make UN successful exists, it will remain a good idea but with not much to show for.

[ApolloSpeaks]

BRZEZINSKI'S UNREALISTIC PLAN

The problem with Brzezinski's well meaning plan is that it ignores ideology-something the more realistic George Bush to its credit hasn't done. Brzezinski plan is oblivious to the fact that the Palestinian people have been heaviliy Islamicized and that Israel's very existence sickens them with revulsion, hatred and fear because it is a stinging refutation of many fundamental Islamic truths: truths about God, revelation, prophecy, Islam's place in the world and destiny. In fact, for these very reasons the the vast majority of Palestinians cannot envision themselves as living normal, peaceful, productive lives so long as Israel exists. This is why all peace initiatives, land for peace deals, and plans based on a two state solution have failed and will continue to fail. Any Pali-Israeli peace plan that downplays the importance and centrality of ideology is unrealistic and undoable.

[Synoia]

Nonsense. Go and read about "People of the Book".

[betz55]

The core is the Israeli – U.S. “good conduct” preconditions that qualify Palestinians to be partners to peace negotiations.

These 'preconditions' are outdated, irrelevant, and biased towards Israel. Palestinians must agree to first recognize Israel, second to end all violence, third to accept past agreements? Try to find a mention, ANYWHERE, of the fact that Israel rejects all three of those. They don't recognize a Palestinian state, they certainly don't withdraw the use of violence or the threat of it,in fact they insist on it,and they don't accept past agreements­,including the road map.When will Israeli leadership come to the table accept intl law and make the concessions necessary for peace? Israel rejectionism has been the greatest deterrent to peace the last 60 years.

Demiliterized Palestine ? Only if Israel is also demiliterized. The Palestinians have every right to defend themselves against Israeli aggression which is a true a valid defense as Gaza has proven.

Quit favoring Israel. We'd start gaining credibility again with a world that has condemned Israeli behavior with almost 200 UN resolutions Israel chooses to ignore, with US backing.

Why on earth is Israel, a rogue nuclear state allowed to lay waste to every international law and convention without criticism and their "enemies" are not entitled to raise a hand in their own defense ?

Cut the billions of dollars we give them each year, we need the money here at home, not financing wars and subsidizing a country for the 'security' of our biggest welfare client.

[biabouman41]

Makes no sense. How can the Palestinians accept a "no return" policy when Israel has the right to bring Jews from all parts of the world, who have nothing to do with the state of Israel, ever. If we respect the Palestinian rights we cannot say they can't do certain things that Israel can do. The Idea that because an area occupied by Israel is "urbanised" its status cannot change will encourage the settlers to continue doing what they have been doing. A demilitarized Palestine guarded by US troops is a joke, that is the fox guarding the hen house. Unless this demilitarised status is for a specific short period there will be no chance of success. We need an agreement that all States and interested parties in the area put everything that they (1) want and (2) are willing to give up, on the table. There can be no superior and no inferior parties to this agreement.

[Milferd]

the last part of your post is good but disagrees with the above part of it. You state two preconditions that will stop any peace talks. A Israel with a greater population of Palestinians than Israel destroys Israel. The right of return must be sacrificed if there ever to be peace (payment for lands should be made and remember the Jews have the same right of return to the land just because the injustice to them is 2000 years old does not remove it). Second a well armed Palestine could decide to try to destroy Israel it may be fair for Palestine to be well armed but that is a fair that the Israeli cannot allow to continue to exist in peace. Thus the Palestine territory must be protected by the UN and world pressure but the reality of the past Israeli victories make a change in the balance of forces something that prevents peace being a possibility.

[lollylolly]

that 2000 year old 'birthright' is absolute nonsense. Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Saxons, etc...

[ApolloSpeaks]

Jews emigrating to Israel support the Jewish State while Palestinian refugees are sworn to its destruction. Moreover, the Palestinians fled because of an unjust war that was stated by the Arab League which makes the refugee problem the responsibility of the Arabs, not Israel.

[NotesFromME]

The Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948, as was noted by many observers at the time--including serving British officers. The Israeli Palmach systematically terrorized and attacked villagers in the lands they wanted to add to the original partition plan. They even went through with loudspeakers threatening that the Palestinians would all be killed if they did not get out NOW. This is well attested even among recent Israeli scholars who had access to Israeli archives, and it was stated outright by Israeli leaders.

The myth that the Palestinians just pulled up roots and did what the Arab League told them is patently ridiculous. Pure Zionist propaganda that seems to have been very effective.

During the Civil War, did ANYONE lose their land in the South because they fled from General Sherman? They very idea is ridiculous.

[BethA]

Very insightful, but frankly I am very much against American involvement. We have never been able to get the two sides to get along. Instead I would prefer we stop supporting Israel when they attack and pull out of the region altogether. There are many other countries in the region who sit back and do nothing, let us Americans put our money in a region that just burns it with no return. We can't fix the middle east, no outsider has been able to do anything but make it worse. Let the countries in the region fix their own problems. Yeah, I know that's not popular, but NONE of our attempts have done anything but make the Muslim world hate us.

[Ciganka]

Amen to that BethA. One reason that we need to stay out is because we really have very little moral capital left in the eyes of the rest of the world at this point. We need to get our own internal compass straightened out before we stick our nose in elsewhere.

[PKSSK]

The problem is that America struck a strong financial relationship with one country, which has tainted the perception of both countryies in the region, instead of working with all countries, specifically Iran. When the American gov't implanted a corrupt dictator (Shah) in Iran to take control of Iran's oil they destroyed any possiblitiy for meaninful relationships in the region and the same has come true for their closest ally, Israel. The Israeli-American pact has jeopardized any possibility for future peace in the region, as both countries are now percieved as the dominant occupying bullies of the world.

[alifilee]

Obama knows the right people to hire, no doubt. I don't hear yet of him choosing Brzezinski as an adviser. His judgment and expertise are fine. Truly, I wish he were Secretary of State. I trust him.