An Exercise in Futility
Never in the field of Arab-Israeli conflict was so little expected by so many from so few. That is the accurate and near-universal verdict on the opening of the latest series in the longest-running soap opera in the world.
The three key roles are the same as ever. Two of them have been played with great consistency by a dozen or so bit-actors over the past three decades. Mr. Carter-Reagan-Bush I-Clinton-Bush II-Obama is the powerful, rich, yet exasperated sugar-daddy pretending to be even-handed in mediating the quarrel between his two infuriating mistresses. One of them, Miss Rabin-Begin-Shamir-Peres-Barak-Sharon-Olmert-Netanyahu, has him by the short-and-curlies back home—it’s a long and complicated story—making him look schizophrenic at some times, masochistic at others, ridiculous always. The other, played by the tried and tested tandem Arafat-Abbas, teases him endlessly by holding out the promise of granting him that which she knows she’ll never give. It’s a powerful drama, but it must never end. It is lucrative for the principals, and it is fun. There are lots of jobs for the extras, too—the maids and minders, consigliore and jesters, etc.—played by a long supporting cast of Foggy Bottom parasites, Euro-worthies, and other frequent-flying unemployables.
The Jerusalem Post offered a refreshingly value-neutral review of the new episode worthy of People’s report on an opening night in LA:
In the chandeliered, mirrored East Room of the White House, soon after the Israeli, Palestinian, Egyptian and Jordanian support delegations had filed in and taken their places Wednesday evening, a voice came through the speakers just before 7 p.m. announcing that “the program will begin in two minutes.” And, indeed, two minutes later US President Barack Obama led Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Jordanian King Abdullah II, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas walk through a center door onto a slightly raised, plant-bordered stage. And, to a large degree, the “program” felt like theater. All the actors wore dark suits; all looked rather stern. Each leader paid homage to Obama for shepherding through the diplomatic process over the last 20 months, and they all talked about bringing peace to future generations. Obama, like a director carefully watching his charges, stood by the lectern as each “actor” rose to recite his carefully prepared lines. The words were well phrased, the sentiments came across as deeply felt.
The rub, the reviewer noted, is that it was déjà vu all over again. Pity the script-writers: after so many decades of work, they are out of ideas. Looking grim and statesmanlike, Obama opined that we need to “ask ourselves what kind of world do we want to bequeath to our children and our grandchildren.” Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak—still alive, apparently, rumors to the contrary notwithstanding—advocated “seizing the current opportunity” and “not letting it slip through your fingers.” Jordanian king Abdullah said something about having “all eyes upon us”—absolutely no eyes were upon him, mind you—and revealed that it is necessary to “show results sooner rather than later.” Netanyahu spoke about a “new beginning that would unleash unprecedented opportunities for Israelis, Palestinians and peoples throughout the region.” Abbas pledged to “not wanting any blood to be shed—one drop of blood from the Israelis or the Palestinians.” On this form, the Peace Process network would see its ratings collapse, deservedly so.
The reality is that we are further away from Peace in the Promised Land than we were at Madrid or Oslo in the early 1990’s, or at Camp David a decade ago.
Netanyahu came promising nothing: “We left Lebanon, we got terror. We left Gaza, we got terror.” He will not make any concessions on the settlements, on Jerusalem, on the Fence, or on any other core issue, and he duly avoided mentioning them at all in his vacuous introductory remarks. He might, if Obama promises to hit Iran for him, which the latter cannot and will not do.
Netanyahu thinks that he is in no hurry, and from the vantage point of his domestic political calculus he is right. Strategically, however, he is mistaken: the time is running out, Israel cannot maintain her dominant position in perpetuity. The region’s demography is not on his side, and Israel’s society is increasingly polarized after a string of weak and non-authoritative governments. There soon will be more Arabs than Jews in the combined territory between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River. On current formArabs will account for close to two-thirds of that population—and one-third of Israel’s citizens!—by 2020. The only way for Israel to remain both Jewish and democratic is for it to pull out of the territories. But genuine separation requires dismantlement of Israeli settlements, which Netanyahu will not accept.
The Arab press took an unsurprisingly dim view of the show. “A television spectacle with no impact,” declared an editorial in the influential London-based daily Al-Quds al-Arabi. “The Americans think they can credit themselves with a big achievement for meeting between the two sides in front of the television cameras. They think that it broke a psychological barrier which cut the direct talks short two years ago, but the same difficulties are still alive and kicking.” Past experience, it added, indicates that the fate of the upcoming round of talks will not be different than those preceding it: “We don’t know what happened in the closed meeting between (Abbas and Netanyahu, but we remember well that previous talks between him and (former Prime Minister Ehud) Olmert did not result in any progress in the negotiations or stop the building of even one housing unit in the settlements.” At the same time, the editorial reflected an old Arab fear—that Abbas is a vulnerable and gullible leader who may be tempted to make far-reaching concessions to Israel without a mandate from the Palestinian street:
We are worried that all the leaks about the possibility for the failure of the negotiations are nothing more than a smoke screen meant to cover up what has been cooking below the surface in secret meetings in recent months and will only be revealed at the end of talks in another year . . . President Abbas is the weakest link in this process. He negotiates without being granted the authorization to do so by his people and surrenders to American and Israeli pressures. If they succeeded in bringing him to direct talks, why wouldn’t the influence him in the same manner to sign a peace agreement settled according to Israel’s conditions?
There are several reasons Abbas will do nothing of the kind, but the basic answer is as simple as it was five years ago: because he does not want to be killed, as he would be—within weeks, if not days—if he were to sign a peace agreement to Netanyahu’s liking. If he wants to live, let alone to prosper, Abbas cannot settle for less than a Palestinian state on the land that was occupied by Israel in the 1967 war. He has stated many times before that “we cannot accept an agreement which does not offer a fair and negotiated solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees.” Significantly, he avoids mentioning the “right of return.” He knows that, sooner or later, that “right” would have to be renounced in favor of some compensation formula—but he cannot settle for less than that formula.
THE MEANING, ANYONE?—In considering the seemingly never-ending Arab-Israeli conflict, we need to start by discarding the notion that Man is naturally good and ever improvable, or that human conflict is inherently unnatural. Accordingly, we need to resist the desire to make the world in general, or the Middle East in particular, as we want it to be, and look at it as it is: without clichés, ideological blueprints, or advocacy dressed as scholarship. We need to accept the existence of ethnic bonds and cultural and spiritual commonalities that are not global or universal, and that transcend what to most outsiders may seem logical or reasonable.
To that end it is necessary to reject neo-Wilsonian impulses in American foreign policy making, manifest in the successive administrations’ self-appointed “mission” to bring peace and democracy to the Middle East. American hyper-activism is not going to produce a solution now any more than Bill Clinton’s breathless efforts produced a deal at Camp David ten years ago.
Unlike back then, we can no longer talk about “the Arab-Israeli conflict” because it has morphed into a series of conflicts: the one between Israel and the West Bank Palestinians; the Israeli-Hamas dispute; the Israeli-Hezbollah dispute; the Iranian problem; the Israeli-Syrian dispute; the Hamas-Abbas dispute; and the growing internal Israeli-Israeli tensions.
Those Americans who contend that the U.S. has the “moral obligation” to bring an end to the conflict should recognize that—like in many other national, religious and ethnic conflicts around the world—it will go on if both sides are willing to pay the costs of what they regard as a just and necessary fight. No outside deus-ex-machina can save the parties from themselves. Not unlike other wars, the Arab-Israeli war will end when both sides grow weary of it and conclude that their interests would be better served at the negotiating table, with the outcome of such negotiations reflecting the balance of power between them. It is noteworthy that Washington’s efforts proved successful during the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace talks, but only when the two sides had agreed in advance to resolve their differences.
That, I submit, the parties in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute are unable and/or unwilling to do today.
A solution demands that all parties set aside their mutually incompatible metaphysical narratives. Most Israelis are committed to maintaining the Jewish identity of their country—but not to messianic projects of Eretz Israel from the Jordan to the sea, which is the domain of a minority. On the Arab side, more worryingly, Islamic exclusivism increasingly controls the mainstream discourse. In its paradigm no permanent peace is possible, because it would be against Allah’s will to cede any piece of land once controlled by the faithful to non-Muslim infidels.
Ten years ago both Israel and the PA agreed on the two-state model; today, by contrast, neither of them accepts it. Abbas claims that he does, but Hamas explicitly rejects any recognition of Israel. Netanyahu rejects a Palestinian state, and is under no real pressure to reconsider.
No progress will be made this year, or next, or the one after that. Only when both sides are exhausted by the conflict and ready to make peace should the United States mediate a settlement—but even then that role should not be imposed on the conflicting parties against their will. Both sides would be better off if they made peace, but ultimately it is their responsibility to do so, not that of the United States. Therefore, counter-intuitively, a “tough love,” hands-off U.S. policy would have the best chance of leading to a viable long-term solution of the dispute, a decade from now, perhaps, or two, or three…
A solution is desirable, of course: If peace in Israel-Palestine is possible, the misnamed “War on Terror” (in reality, war against an aggressive global jihad) will become more manageable. This is not to say that, if there is a settlement in the Holy Land, the seething anger that fuels Islamic militancy would abate; but the essence of the problem of Jihad will be seen with greater clarity: without the ever-present jihadist excuse of U.S. bias in Middle Eastern affairs, animosity towards infidels and propensity to violence will be finally perceived as fatally inherent to Islam’s orthodox mainstream, and not a fringe pathology nurtured by external causes.
The contours of that final status settlement do exist. They’ve been there for decades. In the curious dialectic of the Middle East, the American administration will need to be engaged to make that settlement a reality, in order to be able to creatively disengage from the region thereafter. But not as yet. They seem to have time, and therefore so have we.
Entries(RSS)
"we need to start by discarding the notion that Man is naturally good and ever improvable, or that human conflict is inherently unnatural. Accordingly, we need to resist the desire to make the world in general, or the Middle East in particular, as we want it to be, and look at it as it is: without clichés, ideological blueprints, or advocacy dressed as scholarship. We need to accept the existence of ethnic bonds and cultural and spiritual commonalities that are not global or universal, and that transcend what to most outsiders may seem logical or reasonable."
Brilliant. A succinct thought that can be used in any setting to trash the malcontent ideology of "left liberalism". love it, love it, love it. Welcome back Dr. Trifkovic!
Fine piece. The first paragraph had me chuckling. Thank you
Dr. Trifkovic.
What must be faced is that the U.S. and Israel are now dealing with Iran as much as with the PLO government. Behind Hamas(which still insists that Israel must be dismantled)and Hizbollah and, for that matter, alongside Syria and Lebanon lurks the government of the Ayatohlas as fronted by Ahdiminijad. That elephant in the room must be named, confronted and undermined; and the undermining can possibly be managed by the strong potential revolutionary force in Iran IF the U.S. were to give a believable signal that this time American backing would be there and would remain constant.
But what if it really does cool away Islamic anger against the West for a fairly long period of time? The innate dislike of the West notwithstanding?
Just like helping Izetbegovic, Haradinaj & Co. in Bosnia & Kosovo (Sanjak pending) "cooled away their anger," right?
... The program [sic] will begin in 2 minutes
And I thought Carol Moseley Braun's senate seat replacement was a puppet. Now I find out he's a robot. Who's the foreman for the programmers?
and don't forget Camp David with Jimmy in the late 70s. Carter should host another peace chinwag in Georgia, but with his lastest prejudices against Israel he'd probably be considered more of a hindrance than a help. Pity, but if the elite ever change their minds then' I recommend Athens as host city -- on game day of course.
Why bother? The Israelis will just shake us down for another few billion and then build the settlements and kill more Moslems anyway. Everybody knows how this game works. The American taxpayer is an idiot, there to be fleeced by neocons and their Israeli masters.
Mr. Rosenberg @ 3
How could the U.S. successfully back a revolutionary force in Iran? How could the U.S. guarantee that it would remain constant? Would not such a move simply be seen by many Iranians as the support of a faction as in the days of Soviet and British intervention or in the American intervention which brought in the Shah? We certainly did not sustain that intervention. How could the U.S. and Israel trust the new people which we put in power or who came to power by our aid? How could they trust us?
Elephants are said to fear mice, not eagles and lions.
"The reality is that we are further away from Peace in the Promised Land than we were at Madrid or Oslo in the early 1990’s, or at Camp David a decade ago". How true!
This essay is as well crafted a commentary on the Arab-Israeli dilemma as I have ever seen--as well as our (limited) role in any proposed resolution thereof. Thank you, Dr.Trifkovic.
@ 3 Rosenberg
a.) "What must be faced is that the U.S. and Israel are now dealing with Iran as much as with the PLO government."
100% agree.
b.) "That elephant in the room must be named, confronted and undermined"
Yes, we all know "Baby Daddy" is Iran and it should be named, but it won't. Problem: Can't get proof. Iran never leaves a paper, money, or meeting trail, hence, their response of "We had nothing to do with it." Some of the best coverts in the biz, and they are extremely loyal to their cause and not easily dissuaded.
c.) "undermining can possibly be managed by the strong potential revolutionary force in Iran IF the U.S. were to give a believable signal that this time American backing would be there and would remain constant."
Pre 1979: possible. Today: never. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard / Quds Force is way too powerful.
To those who responeded to my comment, above: Various knowledgable commentators--including Fouad Ajami--have noted that the government was almost toppled by Iranian protestors about a year ago (after the stolen election) and that a strong signal of support from the U.S. might have made all the difference. The model is not the CIA plot to unseat Mossasdegh and restore the Shah; rather, it is the sort of protests that toppled the Communist dictatorships in eastern Europe. Those had backing not only in the streets but in the universities, business sectors and even from many legislators. There is now a strong and persistent reform movement in Iran led by former ministers and some number of "moderate" (read, less eschatologically beguiled) clergy.
Iran poses no threat to the United States. Their nuclear option will be for deterrence only since they have no rocketry capable of reaching North America. David Frum had no qualms labeling Persians as part of an "axis of evil," and silly Bush Junior believed him, but more intelligent folks wisely maintained a healthy level of skepticism over such saber rattling.
However, false flag operations are another story all together.
The Iranian regime supports and funds a large portion of the jihadist campaign against the "West" to which the U.S. still belongs. Hizbollah is an arm of the Iranian regime and, while its threat to Israel may not concern many readers of this journal, one cannot imagine that America's interests would be served by Israel's obliteration whether commanded by Ahmadinijad or his Lebanese Shiite proxies.
Mr. Gervaise might profit from a closer examination of the Iranian version of Shiite "Twelver" theology which looks forward to--and aspires to speed along--the return of the occulted Imam by an Armageddon-like "vernichtigung" of Israel. Religious extremist ideas do have consequences.
@ 13 Etienne Gervaise wrote:
"Iran poses no threat to the United States."
With all due respect, this is confirmation that Iran knows history better than most Americans.
I think one can agree with Dr. Rosenberg that Iran will do what it can to harm American interests, but our proper response to their machinations is not at all clear. We are in no position to open a war on a third front, and it would be nice to see an American government dealing effectively with such rogue states, without the foolish saber-rattlings of Ms Rice or Ms Clinton. In the public debate between the various sides in America, I see no coherent presentation of where America's interest lies and how it can be secured. And, I would add, the issues have been clouded by the disgraceful support given by many neoconservatives and zionists to the Islamic terrorists in Kosovo and Bosnia. Until we agree to stop the Islamic terrorist advance into Europe and, by way of immigration, into the US, I think it would be very premature to consider additional military actions in the Middle East.
Religious extremist ideas do have consequences.
Yes, they do
indeed, Mr. Rosenberg.
A few problems, though.
Iran has been retrogressing for thirty years since the Islamists took over and it is more backward than it ever was. It is comparable to retrogression in countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
It barely has enough uranium to enrich to make even a functioning nuclear weapon. At most, it could only make one and test it, and that would be the end of all its nuclear capabilities.
An Indian nuclear scientist admitted that India never successfully tested a nuclear weapon, and bluffed to the world that it did. Similar things have been said from the Pakistani side, which says that the nuclear weapon never created a crater or even a fraction of the energy it should have released. India's and Pakistan's nuclear weapons probably don't even work, and we should think Iran's would?
As it is, Israel has enough capability to finish off Iran if it makes one single move, without America's help. Back in the day when it bombed Osiraq nuclear reactors, its planes cross hundreds of kilometers on extra fuel and finished Saddam's nuclear program. Now, they can reach the periphery of Iran.
Intentions and capabilities are not the same thing.
"Various knowledgable commentators–including Fouad Ajami–have noted that the government was almost toppled by Iranian protestors about a year ago (after the stolen election) and that a strong signal of support from the U.S. might have made all the difference."
Mr. Ajami, who is Arab not Persian, is no more knowledgeable about Iran than you or I Mr. Rosenberg. This is his opinion, nothing more. It also happens to be the opinion of the neocons to whom Ajami now answers to as their pet Arab. A strong signal by the U.S. government is what exactly? A statement on a piece of paper by the State Department? Words by the President from the Oval Office? Why would such things have any influence on those who could have decided the regime's fate, the mullahs, the military or the Revolutionary Guards? This is not 1979 nor is Ahmedimijad a dying Shah backed only by a few wealthy elites. The regime has shown it is quite prepared to shed blood to stay in power and still has a substantial powerbase among the populace. If some Iranians wish to fight against it more power to them. But for the U.S. to make a meaningful contribution to the fall of the regime would require military intervention which would make the dissidents look like U.S. stooges and ultimately destroy them in the eyes of most ordinary, apolitical Iranians.
This notion that U.S. is pretty much powerless these day when it comes to influence over Iranian affairs may come as a shock to Mr. Roseberg but its something he should get used to. The nation's hard power has been wasted both by economic clamity and the folly of our intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. A third war is simply not on the table and everyone around the world knows it. As this piece clearly demonstrates, there is only so much the U.S. can do short of theatrical production to bring about a peaceful settlement of the Middle East. There are options yes but the one's Mr. Rosenberg has in mind are about 20 years out of date.
Sean Scallon says that Fouad Ajami is "Arab, not Persian." In point of fact the name "Ajami" means non-Arab or, more particularly, Persian!
He was, to be sure, born in Lebanon and into a Shiite family who trace back to Persian immigrants who came to the Levant in the middle years of the 19th century.
As one who might possibly be designated by Chronicles readers or editors as a "neo-conservative" and (shudder!)a "zionist," I offer the assurance that I well understand that Kosovar Islamic excess against Serbs was fully equal to Serbian excess against Bosnian Muslims.
And, Pace Tom Fleming, I fully agree that direct American military action against Islam would be mad, stupid and, in the Washington jargon, surely "counter-productive." But between that and economic sanctions there are yet other modalities of response that are conceivable and probably being conceived and examined. One clue might be to examine the intentions and capabilities of the Sunni middle eastern states all of which (except possibly Syria) have reason to feel threatened by Iran.
Correction: In the first line of the last paragraph, above, I mistakenly wrote "Islam" when I meant "Iran."
As a Professor of Psychology I am constrained to admit that this error could be viwed as Freudian. But if the thought-police come after me I would have to assert that it was a slip of the finger and not of the unconscious mind.
I don't think this conversation is really about the extremes, and I am happy to endorse any just and effective action against a regime of thugs. I do see, however, that Dr. Rosenberg is still in the dark about Islamic terrorism, connected with Bin Laden, in the Balkans and supported by the Us government, though a little more evenhanded than when he cut me off, when as a guest on his program, I tried to explain things about which I can speak with some authority. But let us let bygones be bygones, since at least he has given up his one-sided attack on the Serbs as the perpetrators of all mischief in that part of the world. Ironically, I know more than a few Jewish scholars, some of them Zionists, both in Israel and elsewhere, who agree with us that US support for the Islamic terrorists in Bosnia and Kosovo was a mistake. By the way, the use of bogus terms like kosovar and bosniak belong the the language of political propaganda and not honest discussion. If kosovar were to mean anything, it would mean the various peoples who inhabit Kosovo. In fact it refers to the genocidal Albanians and their campaign to extirpate all traces of Christian presence. By the way, they don't like gypsies either or Slavic Muslims, or Jews. Nice people.
In writing my hasty response to dr Rosenberg, I was too curt, I think he has been quite sincerely wrong about the Balkans. There's no point in rubbing salt on the wounds. As I have said repeatedly there are practical reasons for a US Israel alliance against Islam, but, while I entirely sympathize with Israelis who would make their country the senior partner I naturally take the opposite position.
My apologies for not being aware Mr. Ajami's deep family background, but point remains that options for Iran are limited outside of Dr. Trifkovic's recommendation to wean Syria away from Iran's influence and basically wait out the mullah and the revolutionary generation until they croak. Only then will the U.S. and Iran be able to have a normal relation once the baggage of history and ideology pass in the course of time.
@15 SB
At least Iran knows what's best for Iran, something Foggy Bottom cannot grasp on behalf of the taxpayers.
@14 Mr Rosenberg
What happens to Israel concerns me not in the least because it's halfway around the world. What happens in my county carries much greater weight.
But with the right advertising, I'm certain the US will be suckered in to allying with a pariah state. The State Separtment's failure to condemn the Gulag Gaza disgrace should be the lesson to bear in mind.
@ 12 Milton Rosenberg wrote:
" There is now a strong and persistent reform movement in Iran led by former ministers and some number of “moderate” (read, less eschatologically beguiled) clergy."
With respect (confrontation not intended), I agree with much of your points, but I encourage you to look beyond the traditional wool that Iran is so accustomed pulling over western eyes.
In capitalizing upon the most recent opportunity to back a new revolution in Iran, I respectfully disagree for the following reasons:
a.) We cannot afford another war and colossal loss of life. Supporting a revolution would have grown to a large scale operation beyond comprehension. Needless to say, it would have never worked. As I mentioned earlier, the IRG and Qud's Force are too powerful. After 1979, the IRG has grown, in essence, into a state of its own. In addition to having their own police force, Air Force, Navy, ground forces, arrest power, and prisons, they hold billions in country assets and own numerous companies. As we both agree, these forces have covertly expanded throughout the mid-east. Supporting a mass revolution would not only have caused greater insurgencies (on a mass scale) to our troops, but our government knew Iran was strategically positioned to win Iraq (and has essentially done so) and control approx. 50% (exact amt. is debatable) of Iraq's southern oil reserves. The House of Saud is shaking right now.
b.) Agree on the "Twelver" ideology, however, I also believe Iran leverages well-crafted "rhetoric" through mouthpiece Ahmadinejad to divert western attention from something (internally) on a much greater scale. There is no doubt that if backed into a corner, Iran may revert to extremist actions. However, I also believe that western media is quick to "take the bait." Let me state: Before people take my comment out of context, I reiterate that Iran is very dangerous and their actions should not be taken lightly. But let us not forget that they are the big rhetoric opportunists and behind-the-scene covert operators that will manipulate their Shiite beliefs if it serves their interests (e.g., building Sunni partnerships to thwart common enemies).
c.) IMO, the biggest flounder American's (and westerners in general) make with Iran (and Islam ) is that we continued to look at regimes through the old Cold War paradigm of fascism, communism, liberalism, etc. This is a huge blunder that has allowed Iran to secretly build an empire (as we both agree) by strategically using proxies (and other means). Iran is very patient, covert, and over the years, it has learned to leverage the mistakes of its enemies to gain ground. This all leads to the question: How does one fight an ideology? All this is intertwined with the fact that Iran rationalizes strategies / interests on ancient roots / history.
"The use of bogus terms like kosovar and bosniak belong to the language of political propaganda and not honest discussion." My thoughts exactly as to the term "palestinian," which appears to mean roughly "those Arabs who live on land won by the Jews in the wars of 1947/48 and 1967" or to go back a bit further "the Arabs of southwest Syria." I find nothing to the contrary in the histories of Baruch Kimmerling, Ilan Pappe, and Rashid Khalidi ("Palestinian Identity: The Construction of National Consciousness" indeed!) that would support the claim that there is a Palestinian people or (in the sense that the term is now used) a place called Palestine.
Someone's sleeping Lord, koomb-allah ...