Advice on the Arab-Israeli Front: Try Pursuing Peace, Just Don’t Fail
Opinion
By Aaron David Miller
By January 20, President Barack Obama will, no doubt, have already received a tsunami of recommendations on what to do about the Arab-Israeli issue. At the risk of adding to the flood, let me offer up some observations gathered from almost 20 years of traveling the negotiator’s highway. Following this advice will not guarantee success, but it would give the new administration a chance to succeed.
First, keep in mind that there are no deals to be done on the cheap. In the Clinton administration, we never really understood what was required to reach a deal. Nor were we forthright enough with the Arabs and the Israelis about the price they’d have to pay. If Obama wants to succeed, he must free himself from any illusions that Israel can give much less than the West Bank and all of the Golan Heights, or that the Palestinians and Syria can evade their responsibilities when it comes to offering Israel meaningful peace and real security.
Second, keep the process honest. Arab-Israeli peace may not be the administration’s top priority, but if it wants a chance to succeed, it better make clear to Arabs, Israelis and to their domestic supporters that it won’t be pushed around or taken for granted. Neither Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush ever got this quite right. Obama should make it clear that his administration will not be part of a phony or self-destructive process in which Israeli settlement activity or Palestinian incitement, violence or half-hearted security efforts undermine the environment for negotiations.
Third, be Israel’s best friend, but not its lawyer. America has a special relationship with Israel. That will not change. Israel is a tiny country in a dangerous neighborhood. It deserves America’s support. That said, the new administration can’t allow its friendship with Israel to dictate its peace process tactics. Nor can it agree to every Israeli idea. (That’s what happened in 2000 when President Clinton agreed to Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s request that he host the Camp David summit, a move that didn’t serve American interests and didn’t end well for anyone.) We have to show that we can be both Israel’s best friend and an honest and effective peace broker.
Fourth, manage the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but don’t think you can immediately solve it. It’s a sad reality that while Israeli-Palestinian peace is key to an overall Arab-Israeli peace, there is no deal on the table now. Weak Israeli leadership, tough issues like Jerusalem and, most important, a dysfunctional and deeply divided Palestinian national movement are all deal-breakers. Unless Palestinians can create one authority that controls all the guns and has a unified negotiating position, chances of a conflict-ending agreement are slim to none. This leaves the next administration with the task of trying to manage the mess in the hope of creating better circumstances. That means maintaining the Israeli-Hamas ceasefire, building up Palestinian Authority security forces, aiding Palestinians economically in Gaza and the West Bank, and quietly trying to help close the gap on final-status issues.
Fifth, go for an Israeli-Syrian deal. Two cohesive states, fewer settlements on the Golan Heights and no deal-breakers like Jerusalem make an Israeli-Syrian agreement more doable than an Israeli-Palestinian deal, though still a challenge to achieve. For the United States and Israel, a Syrian-Israeli accord would have the benefit of potentially rearranging a regional situation that has given too much influence and power to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. But to get an Israeli-Syrian agreement, Obama will have to understand that he will need to push Israel and Syria beyond where they are now willing to go on the core issues. Israel is going to have to withdraw from the entire Golan Heights, and Syria will have to come up with real content to normalization with Israel and meaningful security guarantees.
Sixth, pay attention to history. A new day may dawn in America on January 20, but not for Arabs and Israelis. They have long memories, and for them the history of their conflict looms large. Our policies can’t simply be measured in terms of administrations. That’s not how our friends and enemies think. Instead, they think in terms of generations. We also need to pay attention to where we’ve succeeded over the years, and where we’ve failed, and why. For this reason, Obama should pay attention to the past peacemaking of the three Americans who did serious and successful Arab-Israeli diplomacy — Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter and James Baker.
Seventh, and above all, try to avoid failure. This is the diplomatic equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath. Trying and failing, rather than not trying at all, is a fine approach — if you’re a college football coach. It’s not, however, serious foreign policy. We have been failing now for 16 years — eight under Bill Clinton in peacemaking, eight under George W. Bush in war-making. We need to pick our battles and create a policy toward Arab-Israeli peacemaking that is tough, smart and fair — and based upon realistic expectations. High-wire successes would be wonderful, but avoiding high-wire failures is imperative.
Aaron David Miller is a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the author of “The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace” (Bantam). He served as an adviser on the Middle East to six secretaries of state.
Advertisement
Every usage of the word "we" in this article, without exception, is meant as "we, the Americans". There is never any indication that "we the Jews" are observing events or analysing issues. Obviously, as an adviser to six secretaries of state, Aaron Davis Miller has made a career of viewing events from the perspective of the American national interest. But here, he is writing an article in the American Jewish press for a Jewish audience. Surely, he could "change hats" for just a moment and "we" could be "we, the Jews". All in all, that is the very reason for having a Jewish newspaper.
"We the (American) Jews" should learn from and appreciate Miller's pragmatic expertise and his concern for the best possible outcome for all. Our role is to support American diplomacy in trying to "do it right" -- so that fear of our electoral disapproval won't impede that effort: it's an important and serious responsibility.
The Arab need for violence against Israel needs to end.Israel wants peace but the Arabs want land that does not belong to them.Israel cannot give enough land to pacify the Palestinians unless they self destruct.America is a friend but is to much under the thumb of Arab oil($$$$) to be an honest friend and broker to any peace deal.
This so called "solution" gives the Arabs everything and Israel nothing. It would entail uprooting and evicting 250,000 Jews from their homes at a cost that would bankrupt the State of Israel and does not require the Arabs to give up their dream of inundating Israel with refugees or mention Jerusalem. The only pressure wpuld be on Israel and every concession by the Arabs would be totally reversible for any pretext. A better solution would entail telling the Arabs that they can not get everything they lost back and must make compromises that would entail losing territory.
I was with you through the fourth principle, but you violate your own first two (and sixth) when you push for a deal with Syria. In Israel's best interest, Syria can wait until after an accord is reached with the Palestinians. To reverse the order of these, Syria will throw in demands in behalf of the Palestinians (e.g., pulling back from the Jordan Valley, admitting Palestinian refugees from Syria to the West Bank and/or Israel proper) as part of her bargaining. You would only weaken Israel's position without the Palestinians having to surrender any of their cards. As you said in your first obervation, nothing comes cheap.
Mr. Kaine- I am very much open for dialogue. What I'm not open for is vilification or being invalidated because I don't think my committment to Judaism should cause me to be xenophobic. For the record I'm not sure withdrawing from the West Bank would lead to peace either but I won't castigate those who do with all of the vitrol the "Arutz 7" crowd is sure to throw at anyone who questions the wisdom of maintaining those settlements.
Great op ed. thanks for publishing it. I think some of the commentators think even beginning to understand a Palestinian perspective is equivalent to the destruction of Israel. That's a shame, because neither Israeli Jews, Palestinian citizens of Israel, nor Palestinians in the Occupied Territories can be pushed out. Miller is correct, that the US has basically functioned as Israel's lawyer. We can all see how well that has worked. All US administrations inevitably get drawn into the conflict. It's time one of them functioned in a more even handed way for the sake of the entire U.S. to say nothing of the Israeli and Palestinian civilians who have lived with the consequences of the "special" relationship of Israel and the U.S.
Mr. Kaine- I would agree with you that the Gush Katif Relocation was handled terribly. I have had my co-workers, who as children saw their family homes demolished to make way for the University of Illinois Chicago Campus, and as traumatic as that was the City of Chicago helped with the uprooting in every way possible. This did not occur in 2005 when Gush Katif was evacuated. Obviously, any future withdrawal requires better planning of how Israel will handle those who must be removed to new areas. Frankly, though the peace rejectionist camp has always been vitrolic, long before Gush Katif. It's not like Arutz 7 lost its sense of civility after August, 2005. I'm old enough to remember when members of the Chicago Cherut Zionists would routinely try to physically break up Shalom Achshav meetings in the Windy City. I am tired of this sort of behaviour and sick of Shabbat guests who feel empowered to walk out of my house if I dare suggest Israel needs to be fairer towards the Palestinians. Not even Ian Smith z'l showed this kind of ultramontaigne foolishness with all of his dealings as Premier of Rhodesia. Now for the record, if I was voting in Israel in February, I'd reluctantly support "The Jewish Home", not because I agree with their position on the settlements but because I feel there has to be a non-charedi Religious Zionist presence in the Knesset and this amalgamation of the NU & NRP is the best way to accomplish that. All the best!
I am amused by ds and sephardiman calling themselves open to dialog when the rest of their comments construe foam coming out of their mouth as they are writing their responses. I voted for McCain, and wish Obama well now that he has been elected. I hope for the sake of our country that he doesnt make the same mistakes as Jimmy Carter did. I would support a withdrawal from the West Bank if I thought it would lead to peace. I base my opposition to the withdrawal from any territories, based upon the historical precedent that withdrawal from territories has led to an increase, not a decrease in violence. You will say that Israel must take risks for peace. In fact, it already has-81% of the residents expelled from Gush Katif have not found permanent homes. If Israel plans to relocate hundreds of thousands of residents from Judea and Samaria, it should demonstrate its ability to resettle 10,000 from Gush Katif. Not to do so is utter callousness. Sderot has also taken great risks for peace, and Israel has not adequately protected Sderot. Aaron Miller, Kurtzer, Rob Malley and others have made a profession of putting the entire onus of the conflict on Israel. Their spirit runs thru the Kadima party, which promotes a society of haves and have nots, and can only define Israel as a "fun place". Despite your exultations to the contrary, it is likely that they will be swept from power on February 2009. In my opinion, the activities of Miller, Malley, etc have done the US and Israel grave harm by not pushing the Arab countries to self examine their culpability in this conflict and strengthens Hamas. I ask Sephardiman and ds to prove me wrong. I would be happy to be wrong
To Sephardiamn I appreciate your openness to dialog. Part of the reason that the Arutz Sheva crowd is so vitriloic is that Israel has not upheld its promises to the refugees from Gush Katif. If Israel were truly interested in making sure that a withdrawal from the West Bank was a moral interest, it would make sure that the withdrawal from Gush Katif went smoothly, and that the residents had permanent homes and economic support. I believe that the Olmert and Livni government does want to withdraw from the West Bank and leave 250,000 Jews homeless. The way they have treated the Gush Katif withdrawal and Sdeort leaves much to be desired. I think that the upcoming election will be a major repudiation of the Oslo process, and a repudiation of the philosophy of let the UN defend Israel, which has not prevented Iranian nukes nor Hezbollah rearmament
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.