Posted By William B. Quandt Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 3:14 PM Share
Has President Barack Obama really committed himself to
Arab-Israeli peacemaking? Some seem to
think so. On April 13, 2010, the
President said that Middle East peace was
...in the interest of the United States. It is a vital national security interest of
the United States
to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a
dominant superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get
pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both
blood and treasure. So I'm going to keep
on at it.
Coming just shortly after General
David Petraeus had told a Senate committee that his missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan would be well served if Arab-Israeli peace could be achieved, the
President's comment led to a spate of excited commentary that the administration
was about to launch its own peace plan. Some would welcome such an idea, believing that the parties on their own
are incapable of reaching peace, while others express fears of an "imposed
settlement".
My own reading of this administration is that it really has
not yet made up its mind what to do about Israel, the Palestinians and
Syria--and this far into a new administration, that is reason for concern. On the one hand, there are frequent references to a major national
interest in Arab-Israeli peace. That
helps to explain Obama's early focus on this issue, his selection of Senator
George Mitchell to be his special envoy, his speech in Cairo last year, his tough stance on Israeli
settlement activity, his frostiness toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, and the recent leaks about a peace plan.
But look more carefully at Obama's April 13 comments and the
other side of the picture comes into focus:
It [peace between Israelis and
Palestinians] is a very hard thing to do. And I know that even if we are applying all of our political capital to
that issue, the Israeli people through their government, and the Palestinian
people through the Palestinian Authority...may say to themselves, we are not
prepared to resolve this--these issues--no matter how much pressure the United States
brings to bear. And the truth is, in
some of these conflicts the United
States can't impose solutions unless the
participants in these conflicts are willing to break out of old patterns of
antagonism. I think it was former Secretary of State Jim Baker who said, in the
context of Middle East peace, we can't want it
more than they do.
This last sentence--part of a mantra that many observers of
the "peace process" unthinkingly utter--always catches my attention because it
is such a pointless and misleading comment.
(And I honestly do not believe that Secretary Baker was the author of
this phrase, or at least he did not act on it in 1991. It was Bill Clinton, Dennis Ross and George
W. Bush and his team that repeated this phrase ad nauseum during the past
15 years.)
If Arab-Israeli peace is truly in the U.S. national
interest, of course we can want it as much, or even more, than the conflicted
and divided protagonists. That doesn't
mean that we can force peace down their throats, but it certainly is possible
for us to be clear minded about why peace would be in our interest. In any event, it is foolish to believe that
Israelis or Palestinians either do or do not want peace in some binary
sense. We have plenty of evidence that
both communities--and the Syrian regime as well--are of at least two minds
about peace. On the right terms, they
would be prepared for it, and have shown that by engaging in serious diplomacy
in times past. But they remain skeptical
about the intentions of their adversaries, they fear that the price of peace
will be too high, they look over their shoulders at anxious domestic
constituents, and they feel vulnerable to the actions of spoilers and intensely
committed ideological minorities in their midst. Can anyone honestly say that they know in the
abstract which party does or does not want peace? The only way we will ever know is when the
whole package of tradeoffs and mutual concessions has somehow been put together
and then leaders and publics will have to decide if the gains outweigh the
losses.
If we really adhere to the "we can't want it more than they
do" slogan, we are giving the most intransigent party a veto over any
progress. We may as well throw in the
towel right now, as some
former U.S. officials seem to be recommending. But if President Obama really believes that
Arab-Israeli peace is in the U.S. national interest, he should calmly and
forcefully move ahead, spelling out what those interests are to the American
public, seeking to mobilize international consensus on the broad principles for
peace, engaging all the parties in a sophisticated diplomatic dialogue, and helping
each of the major players in the Middle East see what is in it for them if they
decide to take the plunge, and what the costs will be of holding back.
Arab-Israeli peacemaking is not for the faint of heart. The U.S. has done best in this difficult business
when it was led by presidents and secretaries of state who had a clear notion
of what was at stake, and who did not give up when they encountered resistance
from the reticent and quarrelsome parties to the conflict. If the Obama Administration does decide to
follow in the footsteps of Team A--Nixon-Kissinger, Carter-Vance and Bush
I-Baker instead of Team B--Reagan, Clinton and Bush II--they will have to
anticipate sharp criticism, complaints from the parties that we are being
unfair or one-sided, and, in today's political environment, probably strong
partisan criticism. So why do it, since
there is no guarantee of success?
The answer lies in the first quote from Obama's April 13
comments--it is in the U.S.
national interest, and therefore we should get on with it, despite the
difficulty. Time is not making it any
easier, and it may already be late in the day for the much-vaunted "two-state
solution". But in all honesty, we have
never really put the parties to the test by helping to fashion the outlines of
a balanced agreement. If we do go down
this road of energetically trying to broker peace, the administration should
ban the phrase "we can't want it more than they do". It is a silly and misleading way to talk
about the serious diplomatic challenge of working toward a settlement of the
Arab-Israeli conflict.
William
B. Quandt is Professor of Politics at the University
of Virginia and served in the Middle East office of the NSC staff during the Nixon and
Carter Administrations
I generally agree--Obama is too preoccupied with domestic issues to address the peace process seriously. There are too many legislative fights that he wants to finish before he loses his big majority. My guess is he will focus more on foreign policy once the electorate constrains him domestically. But there are other reasons why he shouldn't show his hand publicly until he's got a ton of time to do it. The Palestinians are divided, obviously. Obama has already driven Netanyahu into a corner--it wont be a shock when he says "no" to Obama's plan. Finally, there are the elections: he wants to lose as few seats as possible. I think it's pretty obvious that Obama wants to be on your "A" team. He just hasn't found time to really invest in it. I totally agree with you on the we can't want peace more than the parties pseudo-truism. I'm pretty sure that if the parties ever wanted peace more than us, it would be done.
"in all honesty, we have never really put the parties to the test by helping to fashion the outlines of a balanced agreement."
Really? Because I thought that at camp david II the parties were put to the test, with Israel making unheard of concessions in every category and Arafat simply balking according to the President of the United States..
I also thought that during the Annapolis process again the parties were put to the test in secret negotiations, and once again the Palestinians this time under the so called moderate Abbas balked, making it two tests they have failed in 8 years.
I'm sorry sir, but your statement is fundamentally dishonest. Instead of acknowledging realities, the now typical attitude of the liberal left in America simply absolves the Palestinians of all responsibility on every topic ad nauseum. This includes every agreement they have ever committed to, including changing their charter, including the road map, including Oslo agreements. Non of the PA responsibilities have been filled, not one. No problem, here's another free pass.. This one courtesy of Bill Quandt.
Why should they compromise for peace? The Palestinians have learned that irrespective of what they do, someone will absolve them of it or offer up another lame excuse on their behalf. This has actually become formal policy now under Obama, and then FP magazine wonders why Israelis no longer trust the USA.. It's a real head scratcher!
During the Oslo peace process in the 1990’s Israel confiscated 40,000 acres of Palestinian land, constructed 250 miles of connector and bypass roads, doubled the number of settlers, and built 30 new settlements all the while 'agreeing' to a complete settlement freeze. Israel also walked out of the Taba talks.
Palestinian leadership, which was democratically elected, has expressed time and time again the willingness to accept the pre-1967 borders as basis for negotiation.
This is a fact. So your tiresome rhetoric and poor attempts to deflect the blame is not working.
The real question is: when will there finally be an Israeli leadership ready to come to the table, accept international law, and make the concessions necessary for peace?
Because the truth is, Israel rejectionism has been the greatest deterrent to peace over the last 40 years.
And as for your constant reference to Camp David: Barak made no real, viable concessions at Camp David. Again, more rhetoric and revisionist history on your part - because you know the majority of people will not fact check
I would encourage people to do research on Camp David to see that the “offer” made to Palestinians was nothing more than subjecting them to live on bantustans, like those of South African Apartheid.
“We offered them everything and they refused” has long-since been discredited, and not just by the Palestinians.
But also, among others, by former Israeli Foreign Minister and negotiator at Camp David, Shlomo Ben Ami, who said: “if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well”.
It is no surprise that israel has tried to rewrite it and to shed the Palestinians in a negative light.
It should first be noted that Palestinians have conceded their claim to 78% of historical Palestine, and agreed to form a new state on the remaining 22%, which is comprised of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
• Israel proposed that 69 settlements, populated by 85% of West Bank settlers would be annexed by Israel. These settlements would reduce the Palestinian state by 10%, not to mention severely disrupt travel and daily life in the West Bank.
• Israel proposed “temporary control” of yet another 10% of land that housed the most extreme of settlers. Essentially this means that a foreign power would control the land of another sovereign nation.
• The remaining areas would be broken up by Israeli bypass roads and checkpoints, forcing Palestinians to live on bantustans or reservations (like South Africans or Native Americans), in a non-contiguous state.
• Palestinians were also expected to relinquish land considered most essential for trade and tourism.
• Israel would maintain very vital controls over Palestinian water, Palestinian borders, and Palestinian airspace.
Anyone in their right minds would not have accepted such a ridiculous proposal that would continue to force millions of people to live as slaves.
And as we see with this latest news, Israel is continuing to expand into Palestinian territory, in complete violation of international law - illegal and immoral actions.
It is a matter of record that Mahmoud Abbas participated in 18 years of direct negotiations with seven Israeli governments; all without a settlement freeze.
In which time the settlements and their associated infrastructure grew exponentially. What do you suggest, that Abbas sit down for another 18 years of negotiation while Israel continues it's apartheid rampage? He has wised up to the problems of his previous approach. More power to him.
While he declines negotiations the world is now seeing the it's not the Palestinians that were the problem as defined by the Israeli's but the Israeli's themselves.
As Bunk gets at, Camp II was nothing more (???) than a PR write-off by Israel of the misbegotten Oslo Accords so as to unload its failure on Arafat, which in terms of how the general population (and Saus) still view it, was accomplished brilliantly.
No, the problem with finding a peace is a lack of good faith, which cannot POSSIBLY be reconciled until BOTH sides feel sufficient pain to genuinely come off their underlying agendas and attitudes. Everything about the last 40+ years has been a charade to hide the underlying bad faith, which appears in slightly different forms from each side. By simply observing the evidence, it is clear how the Israelis have NEVER, EVER used negotiations for anything other than to advance the consolidation of their control over the WB, and to extract more money for the US. From the other side, negotiating on land and recognizing Israel's right to exist have never been more than expedient "concessions" on the way to a larger objective of taking back all of what was theirs. Let's face it: every self-respecting thief knows there is no way they can return part of what they stole and expect their victims to be satisfied with that "gift"; they'll accept it and then keep on coming until they have full satisfaction. There are moderate elements on both sides, but the situation is dominated by the above reality.
Sorry Israel, this is the bed you made when you decided to TAKE the land you wanted instead of dealing with the locals as full Human Beings, deserving of simple fairness as neighbors it they ever hope to live in some semblence of peace. This attitude must have something to do with that Gods Chosen People Thing.
It truly is a shame that a President who's mantra was made with the promise of 'new politics' has to spend his time solving the oldest, most daunting act of diplomacy ever attempted. I am a believer that this is a critical time for US-Israeli relations given the recent media hoo-haw made about the timing of settlements during the Biden visit and it's been pointed out in FB that this is not a NEW or SCANDALOUS development, but one of habit and tradition. So I believe Obama may have got the message finally that with Israel playing by their own rules in the occupied territories, expansion will continue without a final status agreement and without that you can kiss the two state solution goodbye. So absolutely, the premise of your argument is spot on - Obama has to move forward with his BOLD rhetoric to really set the table for negotiations and as you so accurately pointed out, this kinda of defeated narrative this to this complex issue cannot be helpful coming from the "leaders" of the process. The Israeli leadership has lost its sense of statesmanship and it must demonstrate as part of having a 'special relationship', your national security interests are linked and this is one occasion where that is the case.
Boycott Israel. It worked for Apartheid South Africa and now the South Africans are free.
Only war or boycott will work with Israel. Talking politely or even aggressively works with the Jew. They are past masters of deception and double-talk.
EU is the biggest trading partner of Apartheid Israel. So EU’s hands are bloody with the Occupation of Palestine; EU must stop trading with Israel to force the end of apartheid against the Palestinians.
America is the biggest donor of “aid” to Israel. This American aid is mostly in the form of military jets, bombs and bullets to be used against CIVILIAN Palestinian children as most of the Palestinians are under 15 years of age. And the thinking man should be reminded that Palestine does not have any army, navy or air force and has certainly no tanks or jets etc. America must stop its criminal and immoral military aid to the most immoral army the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) known in modern history. And thus force the end of apartheid against the Palestinians.
Boycott Israel and free the Palestinians from the Occupation of East European, Russian, Polak and American Jews.
TRANSTRIST: What fine language and logic you display.
By the extension of your own logic, pathetic as it may be, perhaps the Roma, the gays, the short people, the fat people, the ugly, the socially inept, the over-greedy, also deserve bloody "spirtual" and "secure" homelands at the expense of some other hapless innocent people like the Palestinians.
So Professor Quandt thinks it's time for Obama to "get off the fence." That's easy to say from his comfy perch in Charlottesville with a long, restful summer away from the travails of teaching undergraduates in prospect.
He says: "My own reading of this administration is that it really has not yet made up its mind what to do about Israel, the Palestinians and Syria--and this far into a new administration, that is reason for concern."
What nonsense. Let's face it--no American administration has ever really decided what to do about Israel and the Palestinians except on a tactical level. From Johnson (or should I say Wilson) onward, it's always been a confused muddle of domestic politics, energy policy, the imperatives of the Cold War--all generally considered in their most short-term aspects. There's really no politically realistic answer to the dilemma at this point for Obama, so the fact that he has made no decision is ho-hum at most.
This is not to deny that the Is-Pal issue is absolutely critical--it certainly is. It is slowly, year by year, undermining US policy in the region, deepening anti-US sentiment and creating the conditions for a peer competitor to take full advantage some time in the future. But no crisis is yet at hand that will change our ruinous policy. Even though the Israel Lobby is wounded, its demise is exaggerated. Organized US Jewry tacitly supports Jim Crow Israel. Nothing yet compels change--Petraeus's remarks notwithstanding--so nothing will change. We will just continue deeper into the cul de sac. Quelle tragedie!
TRANSTRIST: What fine language and logic you display.
By the extension of your own logic, pathetic as it may be, perhaps the Roma, the gays, the short people, the fat people, the ugly, the socially inept, the over-greedy, also deserve bloody "spirtual" and "secure" homelands at the expense of some other hapless innocent people like the Palestinians.
Read More
(12)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE