| Diplomacy and Foreign Affairs From The Amateur's Armchair |
Briefly |
|
| September 2008 | Click here to see Jordan's Foreign Minister's comments to the UN on the needs for the Middle East Peace Process. The comments are extremely one-sided, with messages to the Palestinians that are subtle, but there. |
| July 2008 | Click here to see Martin Indyk's thoughts on the impact of a Syrian-Israeli peace process. Such a process would not only drive a wedge between Syria and Israel, it would also blunt such terrorist organizations as Hamas and Hezbollah. It would also create the right conditions for a peace with Lebanon, and moving the Palestinian process forward. |
From Idealism to Realpolitik in 60 Seconds Flat
The New York Times had an editorial regarding surprising statements made
by Ehud Olmert, the departing Israeli prime minister.
The editorial states that Olmert said that
“in
exchange for peace, Israel should withdraw from “almost all” of the West
Bank and share its capital city, Jerusalem, with the Palestinians. He
also said that as part of a negotiated peace deal with Syria, Israel
should be ready to give up the Golan Heights”.
The
piece goes on to say:
“It’s frustrating that Mr. Olmert, who is stepping down as prime
minister after being accused of corruption, waited so long to say these
things. And it is tragic that he did not do more to act on those beliefs
when he had real power.
His statements in a farewell interview with the newspaper Yediot Ahronoth
were unlike anything any Israeli political leader had dared to say — at
least publicly — before. He also dismissed as “megalomania” any
suggestion that Israel should act by itself to destroy Iran’s nuclear
program.
There always has been far too wide a gap between Mr. Olmert’s belief that
Israel’s security and demographic survival depends on a two-state
solution and what he has been
able to achieve to get such a deal through. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, also has not shown nearly enough
political courage. The result is that while the two men have been
negotiating since the American-led Annapolis peace conference last fall,
very little progress has been made.”
A
One Man Laboratory
On the surface, Olmert’s statements show how
candid a former politician can be once freed from the yoke of public
accountability.
He is leaving office discredited, and no
longer has to concern himself with future electability.
This puts him in the unique position having
nothing to lose by airing his true opinions of the Middle East situation
in a view from the Prime Minister’s seat.
Years of fruitless negotiations with the
Palestinians, coalition building with the Knesset, and balancing the
need for short term security by strength with long-term security by
diplomatic means makes his worldview valuable for many reasons.
It also a Petri dish in which to examine how the dichotomy of the Middle East peace prospects in the embodiment and thought process of a single politician. What has happened here is that Olmert has turned from idealism to a kind of Realpolitik almost overnight.
Olmert needed to publically
appear as an ideologue if he was going to keep his mandate to lead
Israel into negotiations with the Palestinians.
Ideologues view diplomacy as a means to
forward an ethical or moral set of principles or ideals.
Further, fellow ideologues will frown on
anything that calls for compromise on those ideals.
Olmert’s frank statements speak the need to make
sacrifices that may very well bend the vision of Israel’s founding
fathers.
It demonstrates that the experience of
trying to negotiate a peace (with a weak and ineffective negotiating
partner) reveals the necessity to step back from idealism and take a
pragmatic look at a bad situation that will not go away.
The new course of diplomatic action
requires a calculus that takes in the
realities of the situation on the ground along with Israel’s existential
state interest.
The next course of diplomacy may be determined by
a new incoming Prime Minister, Tzipi Livni.
Livin has been leading the peace talks with
the Palestinians for the last two years.
She has demonstrated that pragmatic
approach with a balance of principle and flexibility.
It is being said in Israel that “she is not
left, she is not right, and she is not a general”, which may be exactly
what Israel needs to extract itself from the current quagmire.
And this is the first paradox under which the
incoming Prime Minister, Tzipi Livni, will find herself.
In order to keep her, she will need to
create a coalition government. Are there enough pragmatists like her in
the Knesset to give her the mandate to negotiate the peace in the way
that Olmert prescribes?
If not, it will be at Israel’s peril.
And it will be the fault of the steadfast
idealists who ignore the practical considerations require compromise.
Ironically, holding on too tightly to those
ideals on which Israel was founded will keep her from realizing them.
How Do You Compromise and Stay True To Principles?
Israel’s founding principles revolve around the
creation of a democratic Jewish state.
A steadfast, unbending posture, or the
rejection of a two-state solution based on moral grounds, would threaten
Israel from achieving that goal by hanging on to a demographically Arab
slice of land.
This is the second paradox.
In order to preserve the Jewish state,
Israel needs to shed the West Bank and Gaza strip once and for all.
And negotiate on Jerusalem.
The rate at which the Palestinian
population is growing makes the timing of this as urgent as it has ever
been.
[Further, ignoring a two-state solution is
ignoring the opportunity afforded when you deal with the Palestinians as
a separate state.
A separate state can change status.
They can be treated as a partner, or they
can be treated as a hostile state when required.
That is far more difficult when it is a
portion of your own state that you are dealing with.]
Even if Livni can cobble together the majority she
needs to move negotiations forward, the time may have sadly passed where
the realist approach can be successful.
The US pushed for democratic elections in
the West Bank and Gaza.
The Palestinians voted in Hammas, a
terrorist organization whose own steadfast adherence to ideals are
destructive. Mahmoud Abbas is a politically weak negotiating partner,
and he gets weaker by the day.
Gone may be the time when Israel would have
had the maneuvering room afforded when negotiation is based on interest
as opposed to positions.
This brings us back to Olmert.
Olmert’s sudden turn to liberal realism
demonstrates that even those politicians who publicly profess that they
will not compromise on ideals privately understand the practical
considerations that make this folly.
Livni has this to look forward to.
It is up to her to see that Israel can get
out of its own way and negotiate itself into a secure position.
When Negotiation Is A Misguided Policy
July 13, 2008
On Wednesday, July 16th, Israel will receive the presumed dead bodies of two soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah. These are the bodies of the two soldiers whose capture in a cross-border raid in 2006 led to a month-long war. Israel is also said to be receiving the body parts of other captured soldiers.
In exchange, Israel will free prisoner Samir Kantar, among other terrorists. However, Kantar is not an ordinary militant, not an ordinary guerilla fighter, not an ordinary prisoner of war. He is not you’re your run-of-the-mill terrorist. Kantar is serving several life sentences for what can mildly be described as a notorious homicide. Read More
The Silence That Concerns Me
February 16, 2008
When I was in high school, I remember an arms deal that caused considerable controversy at home and abroad. The administration of then President Ronald Reagan had brokered a deal that would be the largest foreign arms sale in US History: the sale of AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia. I recall strong opposition (as much as I understood it) from Congress, the American public, and Israel. It was a pretty big deal.
Fast forward 27 years later, and the United States has brokered another deal to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, this one part of an overall $20B arms package to allied Arab nations. But history is not repeating itself. Israel did not oppose the deal. The House Foreign Affairs Committee will not to consider a resolution of disapproval. And with the exception of a couple of Reps in the House, crickets. Read More.