M.J.Rosenberg: The Ills of Diplomacy Can be Cured by More Diplomacy (Middle East)
[MJ Rosenberg is the Director of Policy Analysis for Israel Policy Forum. In this position, MJ heads IPF's Washington, D.C. office and writes IPF Friday, a weekly opinion column on the Arab-Israeli conflict which is widely circulated throughout the United States and the Middle East. In addition, MJ has published numerous op-eds, in the national and Jewish press. MJ spent eighteen years with the United States government, fourteen on Capitol Hill as an aide to Representatives Jonathan Bingham (D-New York), Edward Feighan (D-Ohio) and Nita Lowey (D-New York) and Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan).]
I tend to read everything I can about Israel, including some of the far-right websites and columnists. They are always predictable. Israel is invariably right (except when it negotiates) and the Arabs are invariably wrong (no matter what they do).
Not surprisingly, the horrific war with Hezbollah has not led the far right to have any second thoughts about its worldview. On the contrary, it has confirmed its view that negotiations with Arabs are always a bad idea.
Overlooked, again not surprisingly, is that if it wasn’t for the successful negotiations of the past several decades, Israel’s situation would be infinitely worse.
Imagine if Israel did not have signed peace treaties in place with Egypt and Jordan. Instead of just worrying about the damage being inflicted by Hezbollah, Israelis would be contemplating the possibility that, sensing Israel’s current vulnerability, its two closest neighbors might enter the war. The IDF would be fighting Hezbollah but worrying more about Jordan or Egypt attacking and cutting the state in half.
The only reason that is not a worry is because of those treaties and the fact that both countries abide by their terms, as does Israel.
Of course, the far right opposed both agreements. President Jimmy Carter was libeled as an enemy of Israel for having pushed the treaty with Egypt to fruition.
And Yitzhak Rabin is condemned – in fact, he was assassinated – for signing the Oslo Accord without which there would be no treaty with Jordan.
Last week, I borrowed from Al Smith and said that the only cure for the ills of diplomacy is more diplomacy. Well, the main thing wrong with the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan is that they weren’t followed by treaties with Syria (Rabin came close) and the Palestinians (again, almost within reach).
An agreement with Syria failed because the two sides could not agree on who would control 30 feet of Sea of Galilee shoreline. If they had, it is unlikely the war with Hezbollah would be taking place at all because restricting Hezbollah (which Syria has successfully done in the past) was one of the terms of the proposed Israeli-Syrian agreement.
Had Israelis and Palestinians actually finalized an agreement, Hezbollah might still have attacked (it doesn’t give a damn about the Palestinians) but, lacking a pretext, would be utterly isolated rather than being lionized throughout the Muslim world.
But don’t expect opponents of Arab-Israeli diplomacy to apologize for being wrong. They don’t even admit that the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon was a blunder of colossal proportions, one for which Israelis and Lebanese both pay such a high price today
Some on the right, in fact, would rather blame Israel for its hesitation about fighting than consider how much better off Israel would be if it didn’t have to fight at all.
In a Washington Post column on Lebanon, Charles Krauthammer issued the threat that the United States might want to reconsider Israel’s “strategic value” if Prime Minister Olmert chooses not to engage in a ground war there.
Krauthammer wrote: “Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership. Foolishly relying on air power alone, he denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later.... Divisive cabinet debates are broadcast to the world, as was Olmert's own complaint that ‘I'm tired. I didn't sleep at all last night.’”
Krauthammer continued: Olmert’s “search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well. That confidence -- and the relationship it reinforces -- is as important to Israel's survival as its own army. The tremulous Olmert seems not to have a clue.”
And then there’s the mailed fist: the United States is not pleased with its ally. “The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed,” Krauthammer wrote.
Where to begin?
Factually, the piece is flat-out wrong. Neither President Bush nor Secretary of State Rice have given any indication that they want a full-fledged Israeli invasion (followed by an Israeli occupation of south Lebanon). On the contrary, they are trying to avoid a ground war by pursuing a United Nations resolution that will set up an international force instead.
The administration will support Israel if it decides to go ahead on the ground but the suggestion that it will reappraise its relationship with Israel unless Olmert invades – an invasion which his generals tell him will cost 300-500 soldiers – is Krauthammer’s threat, not Bush’s. But beyond the fact that Krauthammer is simply not telling the truth is the fact that he is so dismissive of an Israeli leader’s concerns about the lives of his soldiers.
Krauthammer, who lives in Maryland, does not have to see the faces of the boys he is so cavalier about sending into battle against fanatical terrorists. But Olmert does. And if he has a hard time sleeping because he is haunted at the thought of those already lost, more power to him.
Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told the Forward that he finds it "inappropriate" for Americans "who don't take the consequences of their advice, especially when it comes to issues of life and death, to become backstage generals, sitting in Washington or in New York, trying to manage Israel's war."
He also said that that neoconservatives may be making these critical remarks because they are trying to "vindicate" their general opposition to Israeli territorial withdrawals. Such criticism, at a time of war, he said, "leaves a sour taste" and is "counterproductive."
I shouldn’t waste anymore space on Krauthammer. He is one of those arm-chair General Pattons who rarely, if ever, indicates that he feels pain about the loss of soldiers whether in Lebanon, Iraq or anywhere else. Never having experienced war, he seems to lack the imagination most of us who haven’t served are able to conjure up to imagine what it is like to be a 19-year old on the front lines. I read the other day that the soldiers who were not immediately killed when the shell landed at the kibbutz were crying out for their mothers as they died. This is not unusual. But the Krauthammers of the world just view this suffering as a price they are willing to pay to advance their worldview. They are not the types to get sentimental about the loss of some kid soldier, whether in Lebanon or Iraq.
The rest of us, however, need to understand the dilemma Olmert and his cabinet face. A ground war would be costly in blood and treasure. (Actually, that phrase is not used in Israel; the only “treasure” Israelis agonize over is their soldiers). But the cost of allowing Hezbollah to win would be even higher. It would guarantee that this war, and these losses, would be followed by ones even more catastrophic.
That is why the Bush administration needs to work with our allies to devise a UN Resolution that will end both Lebanon’s travails and the threat Hezbollah poses to Israel.
But the United States should talk to Syria as well. The administration says that the Syrians “know what we think.” That is not enough.
Whether we like it or not, you can’t get anything from foreign governments by simply relaying messages through the media, through third parties, or through low-level contacts. Direct high-level contact from the world’s only superpower is a priceless commodity. It should be used, especially in a situation like this where so many are dying and US interests are imperiled.
One of the most prominent Lebanese journalists made that point yesterday. Speaking to Voice of America yesterday, Rami Khouri, editor of the Beirut Daily Star, said that “Syria is a key player in the Middle East and is linked to those issues that most concern Washington – Lebanon, Hezbollah, the Palestinians, Iraq, and Iran.” He said that even though “we can’t predict” what will come out of any discussions with Damascus, it’s “simplistic” not to talk with the most important players in the conflict because that’s just the way “normal diplomacy” works.
And, according to Israeli journalist Ori Nir (the Forward’s top-notch Washington correspondent), the Israelis want the Syrians engaged. Also speaking to VOA, Nir said that he had “ascertained for a fact” that Israel asked the United States to use its influence with the Syrian government after the first Israeli soldier was abducted by Palestinians into Gaza and again after two other Israeli soldiers were abducted by Hezbollah into Lebanon to bring about an early release. But, he said, Washington was unwilling to help, which was “quite a disappointment for Israel.”
This is no time to stand on ceremony or even principle. If talking to Syria, or anybody else, can stop this war and end the Hezbollah threat, once and for all, it’s time to do it. There are enough graves at the Mount Herzl military cemetery in Jerusalem. Krauthammer and company should visit some time.
The views expressed in IPF Friday are those of MJ Rosenberg and not necessarily of Israel Policy Forum. If you have colleagues or friends who would appreciate receiving this weekly letter, or you would like to unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: ipfdc@ipforumdc.org
Read entire article at Israel Policy Forum
I tend to read everything I can about Israel, including some of the far-right websites and columnists. They are always predictable. Israel is invariably right (except when it negotiates) and the Arabs are invariably wrong (no matter what they do).
Not surprisingly, the horrific war with Hezbollah has not led the far right to have any second thoughts about its worldview. On the contrary, it has confirmed its view that negotiations with Arabs are always a bad idea.
Overlooked, again not surprisingly, is that if it wasn’t for the successful negotiations of the past several decades, Israel’s situation would be infinitely worse.
Imagine if Israel did not have signed peace treaties in place with Egypt and Jordan. Instead of just worrying about the damage being inflicted by Hezbollah, Israelis would be contemplating the possibility that, sensing Israel’s current vulnerability, its two closest neighbors might enter the war. The IDF would be fighting Hezbollah but worrying more about Jordan or Egypt attacking and cutting the state in half.
The only reason that is not a worry is because of those treaties and the fact that both countries abide by their terms, as does Israel.
Of course, the far right opposed both agreements. President Jimmy Carter was libeled as an enemy of Israel for having pushed the treaty with Egypt to fruition.
And Yitzhak Rabin is condemned – in fact, he was assassinated – for signing the Oslo Accord without which there would be no treaty with Jordan.
Last week, I borrowed from Al Smith and said that the only cure for the ills of diplomacy is more diplomacy. Well, the main thing wrong with the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan is that they weren’t followed by treaties with Syria (Rabin came close) and the Palestinians (again, almost within reach).
An agreement with Syria failed because the two sides could not agree on who would control 30 feet of Sea of Galilee shoreline. If they had, it is unlikely the war with Hezbollah would be taking place at all because restricting Hezbollah (which Syria has successfully done in the past) was one of the terms of the proposed Israeli-Syrian agreement.
Had Israelis and Palestinians actually finalized an agreement, Hezbollah might still have attacked (it doesn’t give a damn about the Palestinians) but, lacking a pretext, would be utterly isolated rather than being lionized throughout the Muslim world.
But don’t expect opponents of Arab-Israeli diplomacy to apologize for being wrong. They don’t even admit that the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon was a blunder of colossal proportions, one for which Israelis and Lebanese both pay such a high price today
Some on the right, in fact, would rather blame Israel for its hesitation about fighting than consider how much better off Israel would be if it didn’t have to fight at all.
In a Washington Post column on Lebanon, Charles Krauthammer issued the threat that the United States might want to reconsider Israel’s “strategic value” if Prime Minister Olmert chooses not to engage in a ground war there.
Krauthammer wrote: “Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership. Foolishly relying on air power alone, he denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later.... Divisive cabinet debates are broadcast to the world, as was Olmert's own complaint that ‘I'm tired. I didn't sleep at all last night.’”
Krauthammer continued: Olmert’s “search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well. That confidence -- and the relationship it reinforces -- is as important to Israel's survival as its own army. The tremulous Olmert seems not to have a clue.”
And then there’s the mailed fist: the United States is not pleased with its ally. “The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed,” Krauthammer wrote.
Where to begin?
Factually, the piece is flat-out wrong. Neither President Bush nor Secretary of State Rice have given any indication that they want a full-fledged Israeli invasion (followed by an Israeli occupation of south Lebanon). On the contrary, they are trying to avoid a ground war by pursuing a United Nations resolution that will set up an international force instead.
The administration will support Israel if it decides to go ahead on the ground but the suggestion that it will reappraise its relationship with Israel unless Olmert invades – an invasion which his generals tell him will cost 300-500 soldiers – is Krauthammer’s threat, not Bush’s. But beyond the fact that Krauthammer is simply not telling the truth is the fact that he is so dismissive of an Israeli leader’s concerns about the lives of his soldiers.
Krauthammer, who lives in Maryland, does not have to see the faces of the boys he is so cavalier about sending into battle against fanatical terrorists. But Olmert does. And if he has a hard time sleeping because he is haunted at the thought of those already lost, more power to him.
Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told the Forward that he finds it "inappropriate" for Americans "who don't take the consequences of their advice, especially when it comes to issues of life and death, to become backstage generals, sitting in Washington or in New York, trying to manage Israel's war."
He also said that that neoconservatives may be making these critical remarks because they are trying to "vindicate" their general opposition to Israeli territorial withdrawals. Such criticism, at a time of war, he said, "leaves a sour taste" and is "counterproductive."
I shouldn’t waste anymore space on Krauthammer. He is one of those arm-chair General Pattons who rarely, if ever, indicates that he feels pain about the loss of soldiers whether in Lebanon, Iraq or anywhere else. Never having experienced war, he seems to lack the imagination most of us who haven’t served are able to conjure up to imagine what it is like to be a 19-year old on the front lines. I read the other day that the soldiers who were not immediately killed when the shell landed at the kibbutz were crying out for their mothers as they died. This is not unusual. But the Krauthammers of the world just view this suffering as a price they are willing to pay to advance their worldview. They are not the types to get sentimental about the loss of some kid soldier, whether in Lebanon or Iraq.
The rest of us, however, need to understand the dilemma Olmert and his cabinet face. A ground war would be costly in blood and treasure. (Actually, that phrase is not used in Israel; the only “treasure” Israelis agonize over is their soldiers). But the cost of allowing Hezbollah to win would be even higher. It would guarantee that this war, and these losses, would be followed by ones even more catastrophic.
That is why the Bush administration needs to work with our allies to devise a UN Resolution that will end both Lebanon’s travails and the threat Hezbollah poses to Israel.
But the United States should talk to Syria as well. The administration says that the Syrians “know what we think.” That is not enough.
Whether we like it or not, you can’t get anything from foreign governments by simply relaying messages through the media, through third parties, or through low-level contacts. Direct high-level contact from the world’s only superpower is a priceless commodity. It should be used, especially in a situation like this where so many are dying and US interests are imperiled.
One of the most prominent Lebanese journalists made that point yesterday. Speaking to Voice of America yesterday, Rami Khouri, editor of the Beirut Daily Star, said that “Syria is a key player in the Middle East and is linked to those issues that most concern Washington – Lebanon, Hezbollah, the Palestinians, Iraq, and Iran.” He said that even though “we can’t predict” what will come out of any discussions with Damascus, it’s “simplistic” not to talk with the most important players in the conflict because that’s just the way “normal diplomacy” works.
And, according to Israeli journalist Ori Nir (the Forward’s top-notch Washington correspondent), the Israelis want the Syrians engaged. Also speaking to VOA, Nir said that he had “ascertained for a fact” that Israel asked the United States to use its influence with the Syrian government after the first Israeli soldier was abducted by Palestinians into Gaza and again after two other Israeli soldiers were abducted by Hezbollah into Lebanon to bring about an early release. But, he said, Washington was unwilling to help, which was “quite a disappointment for Israel.”
This is no time to stand on ceremony or even principle. If talking to Syria, or anybody else, can stop this war and end the Hezbollah threat, once and for all, it’s time to do it. There are enough graves at the Mount Herzl military cemetery in Jerusalem. Krauthammer and company should visit some time.
The views expressed in IPF Friday are those of MJ Rosenberg and not necessarily of Israel Policy Forum. If you have colleagues or friends who would appreciate receiving this weekly letter, or you would like to unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: ipfdc@ipforumdc.org