Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
The upshot of the conversation resulting from my recent post on the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations was that skepticism is running high about their chances of success. So high that some readers believe it’s a waste of time even discussing the subject. “Eyes glazing over” were mentioned. The failure of talks from the Kennedy administration on down were invoked. The spectacle was referenced, so sadly familiar, of Secretaries of State and special envoys and special negotiators and regional experts racing to the region like eager puppies and then slinking home with their tails between their legs. The peace treaty with Egypt and subsequent murder of Anwar Sadat were remembered.
And hey, let’s be honest. In this instance too, the odds are low that we’ll get to an agreement of any kind before 1) Hamas successfully spoils the party or 2) Abbas chickens out or 3) the PA is encouraged by the Americans/Europeans to make suicidal demands of the Israelis, effectively ending the talks or 4) the settlers are invoked as the ultimate spoiler or 5) Hezbollah/Iran steps in to kill some Israelis, force a response, and explode the talks that way (since Israeli retaliation is, of course, ipso facto evidence that they don’t really want peace in the first place).
And yet. As Katharine Hepburn said to Humphrey Bogart, Nevertheless.
Let’s break down the main arguments, as put forward by our good members here at Ricochet. (I've taken the liberty of paraphrasing a bit.)
1. Peace agreements never work. Look at Egypt.
Response: What do you call Jordan? Chopped liver?
Israel signed a peace treaty with Jordan in 1994 that defined and opened borders, established diplomatic relations, provided provisions for economic and other forms of cooperation, and set in motion an anti-terrorist security alliance that has saved lives in both countries. It's not the cuddly warm peace many Israelis were hoping for, but it's not a frozen wasteland of a peace, either. It's often forgotten about because for all its flaws, it's largely working.
2. Palestinians are born and bred to believe that Israel is the enemy. It’s in their schoolbooks, for heaven’s sake. A piece of paper signed by Abbas and Netanyahu isn’t going to change the way Palestinians think. You keep saying it's a good thing that Hamas is outside the process, but who cares? They all believe the same thing.
Response: Young Palestinians are indeed educated to hate us, and the poison in their textbooks will have to be addressed, preferably as part of the treaty itself. But it's absurd to say that the populations of Ramallah and Gaza City are exactly the same. To Ahmed and Dalia Ramallah, non-fundamentalist, educated Muslims who want to expand their growing business outside the confines of the territories, Hamas is a lot worse than the Jews. Construction is booming in the West Bank; life is improving, and it can only improve more if Israel becomes a friend and not a foe. Ahmed and Dalia can see not only that, but also how the standard of living in Gaza -- never Paris in spring, even at the best of times -- has gone completely to pieces since Hamas took control. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the West Bank is not Gaza, and its residents are not the same people. Two Muslims cannot be assumed to be interchangeable any more than two Jews or two Episcopalians.
3. A broader point, linked to #2: It’s pointless to talk peace with the Palestinians since the entire Muslim world wants Israel’s destruction.
Response: As Claire succinctly put it, "It's as inaccurate and dangerous to US foreign policy to believe that there are no peaceful Moslems as it is to believe that there are only peaceful Moslems." If only as a safeguard against radical Islamism, much of the Muslim world tacitly blesses Israel's existence. You might argue that the "tacitly" is the problem -- what good is support you don't offer out loud? -- and that it's only self-interest that's prompting unprecedented (if discreet) expressions of common ground with Israel. To both objections, I say, so what? Any statement that even acknowledges that there is an Israeli side to the conflict, let alone a statement of allegiance with the Israeli side over the Muslim one (as we have seen in the case of the Saudis and others encouraging Israel to oppose Iran), would have been unthinkable in the very recent past. We're all acting out of self-interest here -- the Saudis granting us flyover permission, the Jordanians working side-by-side with us to stop Islamist terrorist attacks in Amman and Tel Aviv, the Arab diplomats quietly telling the Americans that they'd welcome an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Tacit or otherwise, self-interested or not, any expression of Arab sympathy with Israel is historically significant and gives the lie to the myth of the monolithic Muslim world.
4. Okay. The Muslim world might be splintered, but it’s unified on one subject: the Palestinian problem. The Arab street is not going to support any agreement that requires recognition of the Jewish state.
Response: With all due respect, let's focus a little more on the leadership of the Arab countries and a little less on the "Arab street." At Hamas rallies, the people are not screaming "Death to Israel!" because they thought of it; they're screaming it because their leaders told them to. They might agree with the sentiment, they might not; but Ismail Haniyeh is not running polls of the Gaza street before setting the agenda.
We're not dealing with democracies here, Jimmy Carter's protests notwithstanding. Those countries with elections are democracies in name only (I believe Bashar al-Assad squeaked by with 97% of the popular vote in Syria, running unopposed). There's something simultaneously fawning and fearful about Western hand-wringing over the views of the "Arab street."
What's called for is leadership. Leaders lead their people; they don't follow them. Abbas has a historic opportunity to be the leader the Palestinians have desperately needed for sixty-two years. They have been spectacularly ill-served by their leaders, particularly Arafat. If he's smart, Abbas won't care a damn what Arabs are saying about him in Tripoli. Once the money starts flowing and real exchanges begin between the PA and Israel, the opinions of distant nay-sayers will be irrelevant. And who knows -- once the Arab street sees how much better the status quo in the territories becomes after the treaty, it might even change its tune.
5. You're dodging the issue, Levy. "Money talks" is a Western, American approach to problem-solving. We're at war with a tyrannical theocracy bent on global conquest. Do you seriously think a fundamentalist imam's mind is going to be changed by a peace treaty and some Palestinian-Israeli joint ventures?
Response: Probably not. But that's even more of a reason to push for peace between two peoples who have fundamentalist Islam as a common danger. It's the reason why Americans should care about the peace talks. The imams are going to be everybody's problem sooner or later, and they'll be as hostile to secular Muslims on the West Bank as they will be to Christians in New York or Jews in Albuquerque. It's in our interest to be a united front.
An Israeli-Palestinian peace would be a Jewish-Muslim peace. I know we're strongly for peace over here. The open question is whether it's possible to be a true believer in Islam and want peace at the same time, and I don't know enough about Islam to answer. But what I do know is that religions evolve. (All right, the Jews haven't much, but I suspect that's largely because Judaism is not a proselytizing religion. We'll save that for another conversation.) It's self-defeating to argue that any attempt at peacemaking by the Israelis should be stifled at birth because Islamic extremists won't like it. Frankly, what I'd like to see happen is for Israel and Palestine to make peace and to tell the disapproving wider world, from the fire-breathing imams of Teheran all the way to the salon anti-Semites of London, to pipe down and clear off; we've got some nation-building to do. You might view that as the height of hopeless idealism. I view it as not only practical but possible.
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
We must try, I suppose, to keep hope alive in the world; so we can say we never gave up. But it would require a miracle for something good to come out of this. The so-called Palestinians are a modern pirate band, and pirates are hot these days. Now more than ever the Robin Hood and His Merry Men story resonates with the world's narcissistic youth culture.
Does anybody remember the Camp David Summit of 2000 when Bill Clinton, Barack of Israel, and Arafat of the so-called Palestinians hammered out an agreement? Clinton pleaded with Arafat to sign. The Israelis gave Arafat 95% of everything he ever asked for, but Arafat rejected it. He knew his fellow pirates would have him assassinated - just as Anwar Sadat of Egypt was - if he made peace.
The Palestinians have a fabulous cash cow/world sympathy racket going. They'll lose it if tensions end. This is their whole occupation, wringing cash and material goods from the civilized world. We spend almost a billion dollars a year on them, and the world pours in much more. Arafat had well over a billion dollars in a Swiss bank account when he died.
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
It's interesting, isn't it, how the Ricochet Jews who live in that part of the world are much more willing to believe that it's not an undifferentiated mass of Islamist lunatics and much more confident in asserting that some people there are fairly reasonable?
Great post, Judith; splendidly written and I agree with every word. Let's keep hoping.
May '10
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
Claire - please, God, let them be right! Because once you are living at peace with people you hate, and trading with them, its a heck of a lot harder to keep the hate going.
Jul '10
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
Great post, Judith. Yes, on some level one has to keep negotiating but let's see who the "other" side is. The logo of Fatah, or "Palestinian National Liberalization Movement" is a grenade and crossed rifles superimposed over the map of Israel. The word fatah, incidentally, means conquest by jihad. Hamas, which means zeal, is an acronym for Islamic Resistance Movement, an organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the imposition of Islamic caliphate. So if one is to sit down with these chaps, shdn't one clarify a few things first? And no, the issue of more Jewish construction in Jerusalem is not one of them. There are far more fundamental matters to sort out because unexamined premises and false assumptions lead to bad conclusions and disastrous outcomes.
Edited on Sep 14, 2010 at 6:56amSep '10
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
I read your post carefully, Judith. Each of your points was plausible. But taken together, all those points highlight another problem. The quest for peace in the Middle East is knotted up in a great, tangled ball of intrigue, treachery, cynicism, double-dealing and dissimulation that is utterly alien to the American psyche. That by itself is enough to make the average American shy away from the problem. It makes me dizzy just trying to sort it out.
Nowhere in your post do you mention Obama. He is the Wild Card - the real fly in the ointment. Does he favor Israel or the Palestinians? Which way will he jump in a Mideast crisis? No one knows his mind. And that is dangerous. It is likely to encourage our enemies (and Israel's enemies) to do something rash. If Iran destroyed Israel, would Obama be moved to retaliate? Would he even shed a tear? Who knows?
And I have a question for you: I have heard that, in fact, the Arab World hates & despises the Palestinians for being the wretched scum they are, but finds them useful as cat's-paws against Israel. Is there any truth to that?
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
I'm not Judith, but many do, yes.
May '10
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
Irrespective of the chances for success in these efforts, the best reason to remain talking, or at least willing to talk, is to define who you, the Israeli people are. You are the people actively pursuing peace. When the other side fails to engage or rejects all offers, we will know who they are.
Of course, we knew much of this already (except for Time Magazine, apparently) but it's important to keep on being that people. Otherwise the pursuit of peace becomes just a gesture, and not a true expression of the Israeli nature.
I mean this in terms of how it speaks to the Israelis themselves, not to the rest of the world, who rarely notices. They are the ones who must remain clearheaded under constant threat, and who will bear the cost of a return to war. They need to know themselves as the peace-seekers, and I admire them for it.
May '10
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
In the words of Hans Solo, "Never tell me the odds." As long as there remains the slimmest possibility of hope, peace should be strived for.
But peace can only be established during the presidency of Obama without his help. He is so plainly untrustworthy that treaties involving him would be empty.
Sep '10
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
Aaron Miller:
But peace can only be established during the presidency of Obama without his help. He is so plainly untrustworthy that treaties involving him would be empty.
True enough. But Obama's loyalties (or perceived loyalties) must inevitably inlluence (in some degree) the actions & decisions of the parties involved in the peace process.
Edited on Sep 14, 2010 at 11:55amMay '10
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
But what I keep wondering is, does Netanyahu(sp?) want to give the credit for a peace treaty to Obama?
Also, it seems like he is only paying lip service to this process to get permission to, or persuade us to, bomb Iran?
Jul '10
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
Aaron Miller:
But peace can only be established during the presidency of Obama without his help. He is so plainly untrustworthy that treaties involving him would be empty.
David Parsons and Aaron Millers's point about Obama's trustworthiness begs the obvious question: how meaningful would a treaty with homicidal maniacs like Hamas, or homicidal enablers like Abbas be?
Sep '10
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
Ragnarok
The Palestinians are utterly faithless (even among themselves) and cannot be trusted at all. But the opinion of the POTUS (and his own trustworthiness) matters. During the Yom Kippur War, President Nixon's unqualified support for Israel prevented the Soviets from interfering on behalf of the Arabs. That was no small thing.
Edited on Sep 14, 2010 at 1:47pmSep '10
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
Claire Berlinski
I'm not Judith, but many do, yes. · Sep 14 at 7:17am
Thank you, Claire. For the record, let it be noted that I support the Israelis 100%. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has made anything of itself, and I see no reason why they should feel obligated to negotiate with the Palestinians, who have the dubious distinction of being the only people in history to become a Failed State, without even achieving statehood first (an insight I owe to Mark Steyn).
Edited on Sep 14, 2010 at 2:32pmMay '10
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
Even in marriage, sometimes you can accomplish something useful- "peaceful coexistence"- if you skip the basic philosophy and try to move past the big barriers. Get on with little things and ignore the elephant in the room. Over time, the elephant may go to sleep or even die- or simply become irrelevant as we wear paths in the rug around it.
In the Cold War, the US and USSR were never going to philosophically see the same way. Both sides were going to keep nukes pointed at each other and compete for primacy in different territories all over the world. But they knew that we would sail the open oceans and keep RFE live on the air, we knew that they recognized the folly of sending tanks through West Germany and Belgium.
There is no down side to talking about economic development, passages, and border security while simply ignoring the elephant known as "the right of return." The key is the existence of smart and flexible people like Salam Fayyad who will focus on providing good governance and economic development on the West Bank. Not every leader is hopeless- boost the good ones, help them. It's good for everybody.
May '10
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
Well said, Duane, as usual.
May '10
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
Absolutely wonderful post and I agree with you with all my heart.
But I must admit that these decades of failure have left me cynical. Failure seems far more likely than success.
In my brighter moments, though, I do believe that peace will come someday if only when bone-deep weariness of constant war finally wins out. That is probably as close as I get to idealism when it comes to this issue.
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
I’ll say this for the time difference: it’s nice to wake up in the morning and find a fully formed conversation waiting for me!
Thank you all for your close reading. I'll answer your points below.
River, you bet we remember Camp David. I recall it particularly well: I moved here at the end of 2000, when Arafat responded to our unprecedented offer by starting the second intifada. The Palestinians are fully capable of blowing yet another chance to pull themselves out of permanent victim status (with all the tolerance for bad behavior that that entails, at least in their case) and to take some responsibility for themselves. The reason I’m hopeful now – well, hopeful might be too strong; let’s just say I’m not completely pessimistic – is that on the West Bank, they’ve been moving in a healthy direction for a while now. They’ve created something of value that I doubt they want to lose. Duane invoked Salam Fayyad, who almost singlehandedly restored my faith that we can make peace with these people. The West Bank Palestinians deserve some credit, and they deserve a shot at a real future.
Edited on Sep 15, 2010 at 3:18amRe: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
Ragnarok, you make an important point: Fatah is not exactly Habitat for Humanity, and Abbas ain’t Albert Schweitzer. But look, that’s who we’re dealing with. They’re at the table, logo or no logo. Let’s make peace first and change the symbols – the elephant Duane referred to -- later. If we insist on cleaning up the imagery before letting them sit down with us, we might as well just head back to our respective bunkers now.
It sticks in the craw, but we must -- to an extent -- turn our backs on the ugly past and create a new set of facts, a new narrative. If the Palestinians agree to two states, the simple fact is they are relinquishing the dream of conquering the land all the way to the Mediterranean. The treaty will invalidate the logo. Yes, it’ll have to change, and ideally it will change in the treaty itself, but let’s not overemphasize symbols over substance in the initial stages of negotiation. Let’s create some facts on the ground first.
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
And as to your question about the validity of any treaty made with Hamas: we’re not negotiating with Hamas. And as for Fatah, they’re not enabling Hamas at all; quite the opposite. So much so that Hamas has essentially declared war on Fatah. It’s important that we focus on the current reality. In this charged atmosphere and with our messy history, it’s too easy to allow the past to hamstring the future and to miss critical changes that have taken place.
Re: Israel-Palestinian Peace Talks: Why Bother?
David: I’m worried about Obama. He showed his hand by raising the settlement issue, thereby handing Abbas a face-saving dealbreaker. Honestly, I can’t figure Obama out. He’s not an anti-Semite; if he were, he would hardly place David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel in such lofty positions. (And it doesn’t wash to say, well, they’re self-hating Jews. I don’t buy that.) Obama is obviously interested in impressing the Muslim world, and he’s taken that interest to some pretty zany lengths (NASA’s mission is now Muslim outreach?). Any peace agreement will require concessions from both sides, not just ours, and I’m concerned that Obama will shy away from making congruent demands of the Palestinians.