The No-Peace Process
Tom Friedman thinks the Middle East Peace Process is over. I read his last paragraph to say that we should stop subsidizing both sides. Is that a message Obama can deliver to Netanyahu when they meet in Washington tonight?
“If we are still begging Israel to stop building settlements, which is so manifestly idiotic, and the Palestinians to come to negotiations, which is so manifestly in their interest, and the Saudis to just give Israel a wink, which is so manifestly pathetic, we are in the wrong place. It’s time to call a halt to this dysfunctional “peace process,” which is only damaging the Obama team’s credibility.
“If the status quo is this tolerable for the parties, then I say, let them enjoy it. I just don’t want to subsidize it or anesthetize it anymore. We need to fix America. If and when they get serious, they’ll find us. And when they do, we should put a detailed U.S. plan for a two-state solution, with borders, on the table. Let’s fight about something big.”
Joe Klein last week also called for a freeze on US aid to Israel, which I thought striking and worthy of comment. Similarly, Gordon Robertson, son of Pat and promoter of Messianic Judaism, is coming to NYC next week to talk about how Evangelicals are Israel’s best friends. That may be true.
PS: Peggy, I wanted to make the Nostra Aetate talk with Dolan and Eisner (who is also pretty brilliant, in my book) but missed it. is it online someplace? Worth the price of admission? Israeli hardline policies on visas for priests and travel for Bethlehem U students, among other things, are winning them no fans among Catholics of varying stripes.
I can certainly understand Friedman’s frustration. I wish he had also mentioned a freeze on aid to Israel, something that would not go down well in the corridors of power in Washington, however. There is also the Iran issue. If the U.S. were to financially and diplomatically pull out of the Arab-Israeli quagmire, would there be any check on Israel’s stated (and believable) intention to interfere militarily if need be with Iran’s nuclear weapons program?
William Collier: I stopped at this sentence and wondered if Friedman wasn’t suggesting a freeze on aid to Israel.
“I just don’t want to subsidize it or anesthetize it anymore.”
I’ve long thought that US involvement with this had long ago turned into a tragicomedic co-dependency. It’s not unlike the extremes of the abortion divide: these people need to do a ninety in ninety and admit they’re addicts. For any sane person to engage in Israel-Arab junk risks the same harm done to family members of drug addicts or alcoholics or sex abusers. A full pullout financially and diplomatically is the way to go. Accept any refugees, certainly. But end the enabling of the violence.
Some futher considerations.
The threatened resignation of PA President Mahmoud Abbas: “Collapse Feared for Palestinian Authortiy if Abbas Resigns”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/world/middleeast/10mideast.html?hp
And PM Netanyahu’s meeting with President Obama
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126798.html
I wondered about that same sentence, Peggy. Friedman captures the weariness many Americans feel about what has seemed an impasse for so long. I wish he’d been a little more explicit about funding, however. Todd Flowerday raises a good point when he says we need to “end the enabling of the violence.” Still, I can’t help wondering what kind of vacuum would develop if Friedman’s advice were to be effected. Would the area become a flashpoint for something worse?
This perhaps borders on trite, but the Arab-Israeli conflict sometimes reminds me of the episode on the original Star Trek series where two races are destroying themselves on the planet below. Eventually, only two people are left alive, and they are transported to the starship, where they continue their efforts to kill one another. Despite its best efforts, the Star Trek crew can’t seem to do anything to resolve the enmity between the two individuals. Finally, as the two foes face off against one another on the bridge of the starship, the starship captain (Captian Kirk) asks one of them (played by Frank Gorshin) why he hates the other man so deeply. Gorshin replies, “Look at his face! Don’t you see it?” Kirk is perplexed because he sees no significant difference in the men’s faces. (I didn’t pick up on any significant differences either.) Gorshin screams, “He’s black on the right side of his face and white on the left, and I’m white on the right and black on the left.” (Perhaps it was the other way around; it’s been years…) The two men then attack one another. Kirk finally realizes that he can’t resolve this deep hatred, and he sends the two men back to the burning planet, where they continue trying to kill one another as the starship leaves orbit and pulls away from the planet.
This episode played during the civil rights era in the 60′s, and I remember thinking it was a powerful reminder of the inanity of racial prejudice. Unfortunately, the Arab-Israeli conflict often seems to me to have the same elements of hatred, distrust, and intractability as does this fictional sci fi story. Perhaps, as Friedman suggests, it’s time for the U.S. to leave the Arab-Israeli conflict behind, at least for a while. As he notes, the parties will know how to find us.
Thank you, William, for the comment and example. I think a withdrawal isn’t a step to be taken lightly. Perhaps Mrs Clinton or somebody knows of some reason why we shouldn’t. But I don’t see it.
I will comment that it’s tragic that the Palestinians didn’t have a Gandhi or a MLK in their midst. Their situation, being embedded in an Israeli state, was nearly ideal for non-violent non-cooperation. A pacifist-driven minority could have brought the Israelis to their political knees without initiating bloodshed on their part. That’s not to say a military Israel wouldn’t have exacted a cost, but really: they’ve already done that in spades.
A spouse might well ponder that her or his departure might trigger something worse in the addict left behind. Any a number of addicts play on this feeling to maintain support for their habit. I saw it many times in my family of origin. Speaking of which, I was present when some of my Jewish relatives presented an offer to my dad to emigrate to Israel–it was in the early 70′s I think. They painted it as a Mediterranean paradise.
Without resources getting poured into militarism, Israelis and Arabs alike might have constructed a paradise for tourism. Think of it: three billion-some Muslims, Christians, and Jews coming from all over the world to visit religious sites in peace and comfort. A Holy Land in peace would be a capitalist’s dream, a lure for half the population of the planet. They’d be building hotels halfway to Baghdad, Ankara, and Mecca to cram them in.
Let’s face it: even by the world’s standards, these people are crazed with war and violence.
Realize that foreign policy is the arena of the possible, suggestion, and back door leverage. But, Obama needs to level the playing field from the US perspective…..we have had a Road Map out there for many years – both sides will not play ball.
It is long past time to call the APIC bluff and reduce, stop, or make public a trigger mechanism to both sides that negotiation must start now; everything is on the table; and resistance, delay, or continued actions as is will result in immediate reprecussions.
Obama needs to link this to his Cairo speech; to his Berlin speech, and to the Iranian threat. If he goes this way, he also needs to be prepared to cut off Saudi Arabia if they do not support this initiative – again, he will have to bend over backwards to play this fairly.
Realize, again, this is not how foreign relations are done. But straight talk can be done – Eisenhower in 1956; Kennedy in 1962; etc.
I don’t think there would be a problem selling Israel down the river; we did it to South Vietnam and no big deal. And it’s not like Israel is an ally now, is it. But it would have to be done with a great deal of finesse, since, when the unrestrained slaughter of Jews by members of “The Religion of Peace” would be somewhat of a downer. But the mainstream press can, with a few exceptions, be counted on to sell it the American people, so, hey, no problem.
If you find my post negative and not usefull to a nuanced and balanced discussion of the “Middle East Peace Process”, you’re absolutely right. I am so angry about what some of you are subtly suggesting that I want to punch someone’s lights out.
Bob–
How would you handle the Gordian knot? Seriously, I’d like to know. I’m not defending one side or the other. I think there’s plenty of blame to go around.
Here’s the Joe Klein column that David Gibson cites: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/05/middle-east-clarity/
And here’s Glenn Greenwald commenting on both Freidman and Klein:
“For so long, it’s been an unchallengeable given that we are required to continue to lavish Israel with aid and diplomatic protection even if they do things that our own government believes (or at least claims to believe) is directly harming the United States. Perhaps Friedman’s implicit (if unintended) call for that to change — and Klein’s explicit call that it change — signals a long-overdue erosion of that taboo.”
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
And here’s Andrew Sullivan: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/leverage-against-netanyahu.html
Bob Schwartz: What exactly do you think some on this post are subtly suggesting?
Fascinating show on Sunday morning with a group of historians including Robert Cato (three volume work on LBJ and growing).
Some insights: domestic policies and bills by LBJ changed the face of America; civil rights, equal education, Medicaid/Medicare, reducing poverty (funny how some today say that Obama is trying to achieve too much). What happened – why did these programs not reach their potential?
foreign policy – left LBJ with a negative evaluation as president. He “reluctantly” bought into the China as Truman loss and the Domino Theory – the cost of the Vietnam war; US backing of repeatedly illegitimate governments; not fulfilling the Geneva Convention elections of 1956 resulted in a funneling of US dollars to a war effort that saboteuged his very aggressive and democratic domestic reforms.
Look at the situation 40 years later – Vietnam is one of our trading partners; no longer seen as an enemy; LBJ’s advisors have revealed their mistakes in advising a larger war; they have revealed the utter bankruptcy of US Vietnam policy.
Yes, it takes guts to change policy in midstream but the pending decision and context is frighteningly similar to 1963/64. The issue is more than Afghanistan – it is Pakistan; it is Iran; it is completing the Iraq withdrawal; it is moving the Middle East into the 20th century.
We did not sell South Vietnam down a river (no reputable historian, foreign policy wonk, or government official holds that line today)….we sold ourselves down a river built on assumptions that were completely wrong and it cost us 50,000 US lives; 30 years of hate in the Far East, and a continuing suspicion that we need to overcome.
William & Margaret: My view of this conflict is radically different than either of you. You both seem to believe that, “well, both sides are wrong, both sides need to give it up, plenty of blame to go around”. I don’t see it that way at all. At the risk of being didactic to an insufferable degree, here’s my take. Starting in 1947, when the U.N. offered both sides territory for them each to build a nation, the Jews said, “Hey, we like it, we accept.” The Palestinians said, in effect, “f*** off with your territory, we want it all. Not much later, Israel was attacked, and the “Middle East Situation” was off and running, and still is. From everything I have seen and heard, the only thing the Palestinians want is a decimated Israel and lots of dead Jews.
Margaret: What I think many of the posts are subtly suggesting is, “Lets do to Israel wahat we did to South Vietnam: Abandon and forget. Thanks, but no thanks. I will stand with Israel and to hell with the Palestinians…
Correctio: Should have said,
Margaret: What I think many of the posts are subtly suggesting is, “Lets do to Israel what we did to South Vietnam: Abandon and forget”. Thanks, but no thanks. I will stand with Israel, and to hell with the Palestinians…
Unfortunately, you leave out huge parts of history – why there was an Israel in 1947; the Balfour Agreement after WWI; Zionism; the conflict between a political nation, Israel, and the religious concept of a Jewish state; you skip over 30 years of growing conflict – early massacres, etc. British reneging on promises made to Arabs nations; confusing Arab nationalism with communism, etc.
The 1948 UN action was not the starting point of the history of Palestine/Israel.
In similar fashion, the history of Vietnam did not begin in 1963. In fact, the US partnered with the Vietnamese to fight the Japanese during WWII – the Vietnamese expected US support of their national aspirations. Instead, US gave in to the resumption of the “old” French colonialism that ultimately led to the division of Vietnam; the loss of neutral Laos, the murderous massacres of millions in the killing fields of Cambodia. We lost South Vietnam because we did not support the aims and goals of WWII – self-determination for all peoples. This ultimately led to the demise of the British & French colonial empires but it took heroic action by folks such as Ghandi to change India and even then religious hatred led to the on-going India-Pakistan differences that continue today – almost 70 years later.
Your starting point condemns Palestine and Israel to a no win situation of hatred and continued self-justified killing and religious hatred. What is needed is a two nation solution and a joint truth and reconciliation committee along the lines of South Africa.
My starting point is that the only thing the Israelis want is to be left alone to continue developing their country, and, that the only thing the Palestinians want is to kill Jews and exterminate Israel. The Palestinians have condemned themselves by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah thuggery and indulging themselves in hatred of the Jews. Therefore the proper course for us is to support and defend Israel, and if and when the Palestinians decide to act like civilized human beings we can talk. Until then…
I guess I’m the only other person who agrees with Bob Schwartz in that I don’t think we should abandon Israel. I can’t say I have any great plan of how to resolve the conflict, but given the awful history of what everyone has done to the Jews, I think they are in something of a unique position. That doesn’t make the wrongs they are doing right, but I think we and everyone else owe them the continued effort to help fix the problem.
Having Jewish (read: Zionist) relatives and having Palestinian friends (read: here in the US and also in Israel and Jordan) and having spent time in Israel, I am always less sure of solutions after each visit and family/friend exchange.
Oh, if only it were so easy to stay with the broad stroke on this issue. I’m sorry the old canard of “Israel good, Palestinians bad” is not useful and the opposing thought is equally weak.
Bob Schwartz, with all due respect (and yes, I just read unagidon’s post and I know where you stand) it is too easy to just go with the quaint notion that Israel was just fine in ’47 and happy to go with what was. That is not accurate and I would redirect your attention to the year ’67 for clarification. Understandably, Israel was not satisfied until Jerusalem was established as part of Israel. I don’t necessary disagree with this, by the way, I just think it shows that Israel was not fine with what was.
And yes- there were attacks on Israel and responses – appropriate or not, that were part of the context of the years.
However, we also have the settlements and other “beyond the green line” issues, Golan and other matters to contend with.
And as unpopular as it is to say this in certain groups, can we not at least pause to consider scale? It is wrong for the the citizens of Sderot to have to live in constant fear and it is wrong for the citizens of Gaza to live in desperation. That said, if I am living in shack at the edge of your mansion’s property line and toss my trash over the wall, do I deserve the full force of your guard dogs? Wrong is wrong but scale does matter.
I heartily believe in Israel’s right to exist and for many reasons. One only need to look at last week’s demonstrations, with photos of bodies stacked at Dachau used as props for a position on health care to understand that. There are many more compelling reasons to believe in Israel.
The reality is that both sides would really have to surrender a tremendous amount to progress and neither is willing to do that. I am not always in agreement with Friedman on things, but this time I am.
Bob Schwartz: I’ve read the same books as Bill DeHaas it would appear, so our number one problem here is we don’t agree on what happened in the past, and we don’t agree on what’s happening now in Israel/Palestine. But what about the future? Do you think the current situation will go on ad infinitum? The West Bank settlers will continue their march to Jordan? Hamas and Hezzbolah will take up again rocket launches on Israel? Gaza will continue under siege? Israel will gradually continue to lose its moderates and be left in the hands of religious fanatics–as fanatic as Hamas?
I leave for further discussion U.S. policy that facilitates the Israeli view that they don’t have to come to terms with their existential threats because the world’s only superpower supports them.
“We did not sell South Vietnam down a river (no reputable historian, foreign policy wonk, or government official holds that line today)….we sold ourselves down a river built on assumptions that were completely wrong and it cost us 50,000 US lives; 30 years of hate in the Far East, and a continuing suspicion that we need to overcome.”
It is hard to comment on phrases like “sell down a river” and “reputable” so I want to preface my remarks by saying that I am inferring they are being used in their common form. That being said, I do not think it is accurate to describe the body of the recorded history of American involvement in SE Asia in the way you outline. I believe your definition of reputable is based on a subjective judgment, but there are many historians who I would consider reputable who take the view Mr. Schwartz seems to be articulating. I have even studied with some of them both in my time in the Marines in the 1990′s and afterwards. I would also add that it is still much too recent for a truly decent treatment of the war in Indochina – or WWII for that matter for similar reasons. Many historians who you seem to be familiar with are much too emotionally leveraged to a certain conclusion in their writings having lived through the events in question (or in the case of WWII, recollections of their parents). In addition, they ignore much of the events of the region from 30 April 1975 to the present due to changes in the structure of the Academy as they attended school.
I agree with much of what Bob Schwartz says, and would add further that the intransigence and overt tribalism of other Arab nations is as much a stumbling block to peace as anything the Palestinians have done or could do themselves. They truly are pawns at this point, and have been for some time.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that, at least right now, the Israeli government has departed from basically pro-peace positions it has agreed to even in the recent past, and it is aiming for a point of no return on the issue of settlement, and perhaps other strategic and tactical issues as well, in ways that are not necessarily beneficial to U.S. interests in the region.
I am not in favor of abandoning Israel, but significantly scaling back material commitments to it and Egypt does not strike me as either impractical or unfair.
Margaret:
The “Situation” cannot go on infinitum; history, like nature, always tends toward movement and a new stasis, which will endure until the next perturbation occurs, initiating a new period of conflict. It’s sort of like Hegel’s thesis, antithesis, synthesis process, where the “synthesis” in the present case is the new period of conflict, becoming the new thesis. Or something like that.
All we can do is to do the right thing, devil take the hindmost. I know, I know, what is the right thing? Standing by your friends, enduring, soldiering on…
Bob, I share your sense of impending hopelessness. However….
What if we’re standing by our friends in a wholly destructive way? What if our support encourages their worst practices, ensuring the worst possible outcome?
My analysis comes from more than just books; or historicans; or the politicians involved. I lived through the Vietnam war; had classmates go, die, return – some never whole again. Did my masters in history on the complex decision making of the government that went into US policy decisions – month spent at the LBJ library; time spent in Israel, remember listening to Ellsberg speak at SLU; remember the publishing of the Vietnam papers.
Sorry, but much of that information is Primary Sources – you may not agree with McNamara today or a few years ago; you may not agree with Ellsberg or the vote of the Alaskan senator against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. But, facts are facts. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was based on misinformation and lies as much as Bush’s justification to go into Iraq.
US War Colleges; military think tanks, etc. should use primary sources – you seem to indicate that it is too early to do a justifiable history. That may be true but the facts are in – how each generation interprets them will be different.
One story to show the emotion – the same nite/day that LBJ made the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution decision; he was also spending time on the phone calling the families of the three young men found murdered in Mississippi because of his civil rights act.
Palestine/Israel is complex – religious hatred; deep ethnic/relisious differences; no single unified Arab/Muslim front/nation/tribe/government (that is the reality). But Israel is almost as fragmented but the media lacks the ability to capture that fact. In this context, it behooves the US to take a step back and alter its long standing approach – no one said give up on Israel or Palestine – we are suggesting a more balanced approach that favors reconciliation and truth.
Margaret:
I do not have feelings of impending hopelessness, and I look back at all the misguided blame directed at Israel’s response to the missiles being lobbed over the border by the Palestinian thugs (I’m sure you remember that) not as evidence of worst practices but as very straightforward measures of self defense. But I fear we’ve been over this ground before, and at that time I think I may have realized that my disagreements with the majority of Commonweal bloggers kind of mirrors the conflict itself. That’s life.
I tend to think that we need a bit more isolationism i.e., less tinkering with other nations and trying to tell them what to do, and more focusing on this nation. At the very least, I would prefer that we keep our attentions in our own hemishpere.
However I am always told that is unreasonable at best, and I know Israel is our only fiend in the Mid-East, and the only funtioning democracy in that area.
Alll the while, the American Left seems to favor our abandoning Israel.
And the Pope says we should try to better understand Muslims.
Still, I think we spread ourselves way too far.
My problem with understanding Muslims is, that the more I understand them, the more alarmed I become.
Bob (if I may) at 6:09 pm: Are you referring to the invasion of Gaza? The Goldstone Report? Misguided blame? Straightforward? Measures of Self-Defense? I guess we’re further apart than I thought. If the U.S. did to Mexico what Israel did to Gaza, there would be an uproar, moral and political in this country. Wouldn’t there?
Ms. Steinfels – you might be interested in this new book (even if the author does live in Waco, TX): http://www.newcatholictimes.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=1&aid=1326