For Middle East Peace, Dennis Ross is Not the Change We Seek

The advent of the Obama Administration presents new opportunities for talks with Iran and negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The policies and personalities that will shape the Obama Administration's approach to achieving peace in the Middle East are being determined now. Some reports indicate that former officials like Dennis Ross, who directed failed policies in the past, are angling for top positions. Allowing such officials to direct U.S. policy could compromise U.S. efforts and send a signal to the region that U.S. policy is not really going to change from the failed policies of the past. A recent report suggests that campaigns by women's groups have helped remove Larry Summers from the short list for Treasury Secretary. A similar campaign by folks concerned about peace in the Middle East could help remove Dennis Ross from short lists for top positions supervising our diplomacy in the Middle East.

Obama has proposed to make an early and sustained push to support peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and has pledged to talk to Iran without preconditions. A sustained push by the United States for Israeli-Palestinian peace would force on to the table fundamental issues that must be resolved, like Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. Even Israeli Prime Minister Olmert said recently that Israel must withdraw from nearly all the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem to attain peace with the Palestinians. And an early push for talks with Iran could help establish security in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But we can't assume that this is the direction that U.S. policy will move.

A November 3rd article in the New York Times noted that a report from the "Bipartisan Policy Center" explores blockading Iran's gasoline imports - an act of war - and says that "a military strike is a feasible option." The article notes that the report's authors include Dennis Ross, a "top Mideast adviser to Obama." Ross served in the first Bush Administration as well as the Clinton Administration, where he played a leading role in U.S. negotiations with the Israelis and Palestinians.

Daniel Kurtzer, also an Obama adviser, has written that American and Arab negotiators saw Ross as biased and not "an honest broker." One Arab negotiator said, "The perception always was that Dennis [Ross] started from the Israeli bottom line, that he listened to what Israel wanted and then tried to sell it to the Arabs." Aaron David Miller, who also served on the U.S. team, has written that under Clinton U.S. negotiators acted as "Israel's lawyer," rather than focusing on what would enable both sides to reach agreement.

The Jewish Chronicle reports that Palestinian leaders are optimistic about Obama, but they are looking for "new faces" on the U.S. side. Walid Awad, spokesman for the Fatah Central Media Commission, called on Obama to immediately devote his attention to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy when he takes office in January. "Bush did not deal with the conflict until it was too late and he did not pressure Israel enough to bring about a solution," Awad said. He voiced concern about reports Obama may appoint Dennis Ross to a senior foreign policy position. "He's never been fair with the Palestinians so bringing him back into the fold would be counter-productive. Obama has to bring in new faces."

As a former Clinton official told Time, if President-elect Obama wants U.S. efforts to help achieve peace in the Middle East to succeed, he must break not only with the policies of President Bush, but also with the policies of President Clinton. Ask President-elect Obama to turn a new page.

Comments

[baffy]

You are exactly right. All we heard was that Arafat turned down 95% of the West Bank and Gaza. As he responded it was that 5% that was critical to a viable Palestinian state.
Dennis Ross would be a disaster. How about Rachid Khalidi? He is more knowledgeable about the situation than almost anyone, he is very even-handed and Obama knows him well.

[Justtellthetruth]

Thanks for this article. From your lips to Gods ears.

[papapj]

Israel's Camp David proposal, brokered by Ross but never set forth in writing, denied the Palestinian state viability and independence by dividing Palestinian territory into four separate cantons - effectively batustans - entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel. The Camp David proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water resources while legitimizing and expanding illegal Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory. Israel's Camp David proposal presented a 're-packaging' of military occupation, not an end to military occupation.

It was an insult. Arafat would have been a fool to accept it, and knew there was no way he could take it back to his people.

You can bet the Palestinin didn't think much of Ross for trying to sell them such a bill of goods...

[EspressoAtNoon]

How about George J. Mitchel or Samantha Power? They'd be perfect for even handed, objective Sr. Foreign Policy Advisers.

[RickyJ]

So if Ross is the wrong guy for American facilitator for Israel-Palestine, who is? Jimmy Carter?

[chaos4700]

I would think so, although in the current climate I have a hard time imagining that the mainstream Democratic Party would extend that to him. I haven't seen any evidence that Dems have given up that meekness that allows Republicans to push them around on choices like this with sound bites and spin. Carter has a lot of credibility with the credible on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides of this issue. But like I said, Republicans would try to sabotage this choice from square one, and Democrats will probably acquiesce. I'd love to be proven totally wrong in that regard, though.

[cheforacle]

How could the Repubs sabotage the choice. If 2 Repubs, like say Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, refuse to filibuster a nomination of a confirmable post, Obama's choice goes through. You are still living in a pre-11/4/08 world.

[EspressoAtNoon]

It's not Republicans who slander and protest Carter - it's neo-cons, AIPAC, Alan Dershowitz, and all the Israel-firsters.

They don't like Carter because his opinions aren't written or approved by AIPAC and the Israel-far-right (which is rare in this country amongst present and former politicians). They fear Carter, because he exposes the obvious and actually wants to resolve the problem. Most of those on the far-right are still lobbying for more illegal settlements and consider Palestinians as animals. Anytime talks of peace arise they start more targeted assassinations to inflame the Palestinians and keep things the way they are.

[kentj]

Please NO NO NO Dennis Ross, or anyone else with hate talk. Period.

We want peace and justice for both Israel and Palestine!

[zaz33]

Dennis Ross would love to trash the peace process again.

Time may be running out for Israel.
The majority of Israelis want a two state solution.
Demographics and expanding settlements have become a freight train towards a one state solution.

Israel and all the pals (Hamas & Fatah) may be serious - The world doesn't need a Dennis Ross to screw it up.

[chaos4700]

I'm not sure a two-state solution is practical anymore. The Israelis have invested a lot of effort into isolating the Palestinian territories from the rest of the world, economically and otherwise. Heck, they've isolated Palestinians from each other. I think the only viable, honest and fair solution now would be to negotiate a single state that puts both Israeli and Palestinian citizens on equal footing. Israeli's "border" wall might not truthfully be on the border, but even as an exaggeration it's a practical demonstration that Israel would never permit a Palestinian nation to develop.

Yeah, it's not a popular solution but it's the only fair one I see. The "inherent Jewish character" that Israelis tout and want to protect are leading them further and further down the road of being a militant, oppressive and racist society and the Middle East will never be a safe place for anyone while those policies and attitudes persist.

[cheforacle]

He attempted to get a peace deal not trash it. The contours of what most believe will be a deal are substantially the same as what was negotiated in 2000. The problem was not the details of the deal but the lack of political will by Arafat. Ross is perceived as pro-Israel by many Palestinians and Arabs but he worked his butt off to achieve it. What have you done?

[zaz33]

Ross is perceived as pro-Israel by many Palestinians and Arabs - You've confirmed what I said about Ross. Many have stronger feelings than your statement.

I read and post on Haaretz news in Israel. Many of my posts are pro peace and pro dialogue.

[samwisegamgee]

Ross is way too pro-Israel to be of assistance to Obama in hammering out an agreement. He only looks moderate and reasonable when compared to the real zealots like Daniel Pipes and Alan Dershowitz.

[kentj]

samwisegamgee:

So very true.

[mmmd]

If the Obama administration can broker a viable Middle East peace treaty, it will go such a long way towards making America safe for our children. The Bush Doctrine has failed. Nobody likes the bully with the big stick who tries to bludgeon everybody into submission.If Obama can make everybody stand down in the Middle East it surely will be remembered as his crowning achievement.

[Newworldwaiting]

A large reason Obama was elected was to change the way our foreign policy has been conducted. There is no greater benefit to the U.S. than to move the Middle East to peace. This is critical to our interests. Either get Israel back to the '67 lines or there will be no peace and the U.S. will bear the responsibility for it.

[aofh]

No, the US will not bear the responsibility. The responsibility is and always will be Israel's. We have not been an honest broker in this process and we bear responsibility for that.

[BillZBubb]

Agreed, Ross would be a disastrous appointee. His handling of the Middle East issues during the Clinton Administration was terrible. His comments made as a pundit during the Bush Administration have been just as bad.

Either Ross has no conception of what difficult steps the Israeli's must take for a real peace or he just can't bring himself to tell them the tough news. Either way, he's not the man for the job.

[GZLives]

What silly naive posts here ...

Here ... fix this and maybe there'll be peace. This is what the majority of Palestinians voted for:

"Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. "

JIHAD ... are you listening ? JIHAD ... and you think this has something to do with Israel? What a laugh.

"The Islamic Resistance Movement consider itself to be the spearhead of the circle of struggle with world Zionism and a step on the road.

Islamic groupings all over the Arab world should also do the same, since all of these are the best-equipped for the future role in the fight with the warmongering Jews."

Hamas is an out and out anti semitic organization like their sister group Hezbollah in Lebanon and you can forget any peace until these thugs are eliminated. No peace is possible. Only recently did Hezbollah turn their guns on the Lebanese population after always promising they'd only use their weapons on the so called enemy. It may not be PC to say it, but for these groups the enemy is the INFIDEL" - why have most of the Christians left Lebanon?

The enemy here are the Islamist groups NOT Islam, Islamism which is a whole other story.

[chaos4700]

Yeah, and I'd love to hear what sort of enlightened view you have on the "whole other story" of Islam. Wait, then again, no I'm not interested.

First off all, how can Arabs be antisemitic? Do you know what "semitic" actually means? Because it's not a synonym for Jewish.

Second of all, "jihad" doesn't mean what you think it means "struggle" not "war." Taking it out of context like you're doing is just as incorrect as Muslims take it out of context when Bush uses the word "crusade."

Lebanon used to be regarded as the "France of the Middle East" because of its moderate stance. Things only went completely to pot in Lebanon in 2006 after Israel tried to bomb it back into the bronze age. Hezbollah actually gained power because it stepped in with humanitarian assistance where the war-torn government couldn't. Hezbollah gained popularity because Israel proved them right -- to many of them, it looks like the Israelis are a proven threat to Lebanon's existence and the Lebanese needed an armed force to defend themselves where their own army had failed them.

I don't endorse Hezbollah but at least I understand why it exists -- it's not some nihilist cult bent on mass murder, it's a militia that evolved in response to Israel's militaristic advances. Hezbollah and Hamas have used reprehensible tactics to be sure, but to absolve Israel of its sins is hypocritical while condemning the groups that arose in reaction is hypocritical.

[aofh]

Several years ago I read an essay by an Israeli author who wrote that there would be no peace until the Israelis wanted peace. What I realized upon reading that was that the power differential between the Israelis and its neighbors, particularly the Palestinians, is tremendous. The Israelis have tanks, jet fighters, nuclear warheads; the Palestinians have khalatnikovs and some short-range rockets, the modern equivalent of bows and arrows. That's been true since the mid-60s. What makes this fiasco so mind boggling is the perception that the Israelis are militarily threatened by the Palestinians. Somehow, we've missed the point that David is Goliath and Goliath is a runt.

[cheforacle]

You fail to make where he made mistakes. Have you read any of his books on the subject? I commend them to you. He firmly believes we will not see peace in the region until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved. I look forward to seeing your specific criticisms rather than your character asssassination. And what do we do with the fact that Gaza and the West Bank are under rule by different parties?