Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
The following is somewhat related to the post “You Can’t Negotiate with Barbarians” by @SusanQuinn, except with focus here on what the push for a “deal” between Hamas and Israel says about United States politicians.
In her interview with Dana Bash, Vice President Kamala Harris emphasized multiple times that her top priority in the war between Israel and. Hamas is to get a “ceasefire deal." Vice President Harris and President Biden have both, on many occasions, pushed the importance of a “ceasefire deal.” I heard they were pushing the idea again even after Hamas had killed several hostages a few days ago.
Does it matter what the “deal” includes? Does it matter what the “deal” accomplishes? Does it matter whether the parties are both likely to comply with the terms of the deal? That the emphasis is always on getting to “the deal” and never on the after-deal practical results leads me to suspect that just getting a deal (any deal?) is the important matter, regardless of whether the Middle East and the world become less violent, or whether there are fewer deaths.
It reminds me of the Obama administration’s obsession with “getting a deal” with Iran. It has seemed to me President Obama was more interested in bragging that he got a deal with Iran than in what results the deal actually achieved, or even whether Iran actually became less of a threat to world peace.
Yes, former president Trump can also be criticized for at times seeming to emphasize the deal process more than the practical results. Although the results of the Middle East deals during his presidential administration actually appear to have accomplished peaceful results.
We all know from our experiences buying cars that the party most desperate to get to a deal is going to concede more and get less than the party less obsessed with getting an immediate deal. The prospective buyer who must have that particular car in that color and with those exact features, and have it today, is going to get less of a deal than the prospective buyer who is more flexible, or willing to wait or even forgo a new car altogether. The car salesman who has several prospective buyers lined up for a particular car in the middle of the month is less likely to make concessions than is the salesman who’s been trying to sell the car for months and has no other prospects on the line, or who on the last day of the month is one sale away from hitting his quota to qualify for a big bonus.
Longer term, if there’s a low probability the other party to the deal will actually comply with the terms of the deal, what is the point of doing it at all? During my career as a corporate lawyer, I reminded my clients many times that if they didn’t trust the other party in a proposed business deal to do what he says he’ll do because the other party has broken prior commitments, a new written contract will do little to make compliance more likely. At least not by itself, without some pretty heavy mechanism of enforcement.
The Biden-Harris presidential administration seems so fixated on “getting a deal” between Israel and Hamas that they seem unconcerned about whether the likely end result will be a more peaceful world with fewer deaths and sustainable peace.
Discussion (14)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I saw the Reagan movie yesterday. There was a man who knew how to walk away from a "deal" to great effect.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
They couldn't care less.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
You're right, FST. They are concerned with getting the deal and want to get it before November. It's clear that they couldn't care less whether the deal makes sense, whether the parties will comply or if good outcomes result.
Just get the deal.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
For most people, getting a cease fire in which there is an actual ceasefire where people stop killing each other would be more important than a ceasefire "deal." And a pause in the killing is usually considered the means to another end, not an end in itself.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Actually - I think do care: they want Israel to fail and to be defeated and to surrender and submit before elimination. I believe they know a deal (so called) can only be detrimental to Israel and Jews everywhere just by having given in and thereby weakening their standing and resolve. They do not want a healthy successful Israel and a defeated Hamas or Islam. I think they are focused on moving Israel to a position of inevitable defeat.
You're seeing five of 14 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.