My Uncle Moishe is a retired kosher butcher in Montreal. His passions are the Montreal Canadiens, and Middle East politics, and not necessarily in that order. He can and does talk about them both at great length, but more than a decade ago, during Benjamin Netanyahu’s first premiership, he succinctly explained to me how the man operates.
“Bibi has three political principles,” Moishe told me. “First, divide and conquer. Second, divide and conquer. And third, divide and conquer.”
So this week’s developments are hardly a surprise to me. In fact, I pretty much predicted it a year ago. But they point to the central problem in modern US-Israel relations: they rest upon a premise that is demonstrably false, viz., that the way to Middle East peace lies in direct negotiations between the parties.
This premise originated because Israel was concerned that in an international conference, it would be outnumbered and face pressure from the United States. Moreover, an international conference would not force the Arab states to take the political risk of negotiating it. This political risk was necessary because Israel was going to trade tangible land for intangible promises, so it had to know that Arab leaders had skin in the game. Anwar Sadat demonstrated this both literally and figuratively.
But the operative factors behind this assumption are no longer true. Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel. In any event, the issue now is no longer Arab-Israeli relations, but Palestinian-Israeli relations. And that relationship now matches a weak and dysfunctional Palestinian leadership with a weak and dysfunctional Israeli leadership. There is simply no way that these parties can make the concessions necessary for peace -giving up settlements and achieving genuine compromise on Jerusalem for the Israelis, giving up the right of return for Israel.
So instead of hemming and hawing about what Hillary Clinton should say to AIPAC next week, or how George Mitchell will start “proximity talks”, the time has come simply for the United States to go around the various leaderships, and adopt Sari Nusseibeh’s brilliant proposal to demand a referendum in each population on an American Plan, which should resemble the People’s Voice accord. My own preferred addition is push the People’s Voice through as a Security Council resolution, although whether it could attract a non-vetoed majority is anyone’s guess. Maintaining the current posture of endless attempts to bring the parties together is degenerating into farce.
The direct talks approach has worked in several iterations for more than three decades. It’s time to give it a decent burial.
The day when the US really puts pressure on Israel all the obstacles will be out of the way. The best solution would I agree, rely little on direct negotiation between the parties, unless and until Israel is willing to negotiate away nearly half its territory, its various illegal security measures and practices, a large proportion of its wealth in reparations, the illegal settlements, allow the right of return etc. Only with justice will there be a solution. Only then will the people of region be able greet each other on the streets as they pass. The great thing is that most Palestinians are willing to contemplate a substantially smaller measure of justice than injurylawyers4U (a UK company with endless ads on TV) would seek to secure, given the level of grievance. People who talk about the problem the way Jonathan does are the people who aren't willing to admit the massive scale of injustice status quo.
The U.S. should take the same measures that it would with any other nation that seeks aggression against its neighbors, like Iran. Stop funding it and stop supplying it with weapons of war. Since the country of Israel was given back to the Jewish people and not taken back by themselves it really has no significance in the prophecy of the bible and only remains as a geographical reference in the history of the bible.
Israel is like a spoiled child whose parents let it get away with murder. How many billions do we give Israel in money and weapons every year? All Obama needs to do is stop ALL aid to Israel, effective immediately. He doesn't have to DO anything - he just has to STOP writing the checks. When the "settlements" are dismantled and Israel has pulled back to wherever Obama unilaterally decides he wants them to pull back to, resume the aid.
Voilà. You get Israel's respect. You get the Arabs' respect. You get Americans' respect. No blood is spilled. Then you increase the aid to Palestine so they can get their economy on its feet.
Netanyahu is just a balloon full of hot air. Stick a pin in him and watch him fizzle.
Likewise the Republicans. Obama is giving his enemies power that he doesn't need to give them.
Okay, the first three responses place the blame squarely on the US. Really? Now, I would never say that the US cannot be an active partner in the pursuit of peace (or, for that matter, has done things that have hurt the process), but placing the US as the sole obstacle is a bit over the top.
"They could get back to the business of peace if the US would only do X or Y."
As if there were no issures prior to the US involvement that caused generations of turmoil. No one agitates the Palestinians? No one funds their less-than-honorable organizations? America does X and *poof* the obstacles are gone. I think folks need to examine the issue a bit more closely.
That aside, the proposal looks reasonable on paper. I wonder, though, how easy it would be in execution. For one, the political apparatus for the Palestinians has a good share of corruption. So, there are some forces within that structure that may be resistant to a future that may not be as lucritive. How much faith will participants in the process have if they can't trust that the person across the table or next to them at the table isn't hedging his bet?
The sad reality seems to be that many in the Middle East exploited the Palestinians for personal and political gain. I am skeptical, at this point (but remain hopeful as time passes and elections pass), that the Palestinian people can hold their officials as accountable as they need to be held.
Am I saying it is hopeless? Heck, no. I think the situation is more complicated than some view it, though. I think there is long-term strength to be gained by continued elections by the Palestinians (and Israelis, and pretty much everyone free to exercie self-government). Until the systemic corruption is controlled, the level of trust will not be high around the table. We should also look for ways to make it unprofitable (politically, at a minimum) to support the conflict as a Middle East leader.
¨The direct talks approach has worked in several iterations for more than three decades.¨
Missing ¨not¨?
"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be known as the children of God." If American Christians would take those words into their hearts that would go a long way to creating a political climate for real progress.
God may work His will through evil hands and deeds but we are not wise enough to devine that and should be humble enough to follow the straight path.
That's not going to happen. The Palestinians might - might - be able to fight and win a South Africa-style fight (although they have the disadvantage of not having a massive majority vis a vis the Israeli Jews), or they might be able to get some type of statelet in the West Bank and/or Gaza, but they won't get both, and they won't get everything they want.
If they try to get everything, then what they'll find is that a combination of declining Israel proper and West Bank Palestinian birthrates, economic pressure inducing migration, extensive Israeli settlement, and the like has left them a permanent, second-class minority in the area in question, with the only remaining Palestinian "state" being a de facto independent Gaza.
They're also the people pointing out that you have to find a solution in the real world as opposed to acting as if we're living in some type of fantasy world where the Israelis somehow just dump their distrust of the Palestinians and accept politically and economically painful requirements for the mere possibility of peace.
I think you under-estimate the power in the Legislature backing support for Israel. Obama could veto the next bill with funding for Israel, but Congress might very well pass it right over his head - and his power to impound funds is limited. That same Congress would be backed by a number of interest groups, including ones from the defense industries (most of the aid given to Israel basically consists of money allocated to buy US weapons).
Brett says, “That same Congress would be backed by a number of interest groups, including ones from the defense industries (most of the aid given to Israel basically consists of money allocated to buy US weapons).”
But the recent stories about Gen. Petraeus’ memo to Adm. Mullin could give Obama some leverage if he wanted to pursue a policy change, could it not? The reports I have seen suggest that the Petraeus memo boils down to an assertion that Israeli intransigence costs American lives. I don’t know if that is a game-changer; however, the ramifications of Israeli policy on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan could make it easier for the US to distance itself from Israel’s expansion of settlements.
Brett is no doubt correct in saying that Congress would face pressure from several interest groups, including defense contractors. The Petraeus memo has yet to work its way through the chambers of power. Whether this has any bearing on the prospects for the Nusseibeh proposal will take time to reveal. But it does seem that a new factor has entered the equation.
Rock Throwing Peasant says:
"Okay, the first three responses place the blame squarely on the US. Really?"
We can not make either side do anything they do not want to, we can only change how we deal with them.
With the government of Israels want for peace and five dollars you could buy a Big Mac.
I think the referenda (did I spell that right? I didn't take Latin.) are a great idea, and they should be held every year until something actually happens.
Of course, I hope that neither side would vote "no."
We can not make either side do anything they do not want to, we can only change how we deal with them.
Absolutely! I'm not suggesting the US cannot be a partner in the process. I've also stated that I think some past US actions may have harmed the process. However, if the "solution" to the problem seems to rest on the action(s) of the US (as the first three posts stated), then you're pretty much saying that only the US is stopping the peace process. I can't buy that, given the complexity of the situation and the actors involved.
With the government of Israels want for peace and five dollars you could buy a Big Mac.
Perhaps the leadership of the PA can throw in a couple bucks and their want for peace and they can super-size it.
Netanyahu isn't my favorite Israeli politician, and Lieberman even less so. And Israel's electoral model doesn't make things any easier. But to equate the leadership and operation of a long-functioning democratic government with the epicly politically pusillanimous leadership of the Palestinians, their virtually non-functional governance mechanisms, when on top of everything else they are engaged in an actual, not virtual, civil war, is just ridiculous.
I haven't looked at the proposal in detail, but suppose it's reasonable. Suppose further that it's approved in some way or another — referenda, the UN, whatever. Then what? What're the implementation mechanisms? Hamas just says, hey, great, we're on board with this? Israel withdraws and hands the territory over to — well, to whom exactly? It's policed and enforced by — whom? And how? Any further claims on Israel by the Palestinians are deemed illegitimate and quashed by — whom?
15 years ago, I was sure this conflict would be resolved within ten years. Now I have no idea. But somewhere early along any credible path has to come Palestinian political reconciliation, and I don't see how either the current path or this idea can help make that happen.