The NYT has a short look at “Baker’s Boys” the Middle East peace processors who worked through the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations, From Experts on Mideast, No Shortage of Advice . The article is about Dennis Ross (not Rose), Aaron David Miller, Martin Indyk and Daniel Kurtzer. It’s not a terribly enlightening article, but it has some interesting insights.
They bring three decades of experience in one of the most politically booby-trapped parts of the world. But they have been sidelined for much of the Bush presidency, which has relegated the Middle East peace process to secondary status.
Of course they don’t acknowledge that giving the peace process primacy didn’t get it done either. Still Rick Richman argues (effectively) that President Bush didn’t exactly ignore the peace process.
Mr. Miller’s heroes are Henry A. Kissinger and James A. Baker III, secretaries of state who he says dealt with Israel in a tough but fair manner. He argues that Mr. Clinton’s embrace of Israeli leaders, while well intentioned, undermined the ability of the United States to seal a deal with the Palestinians. Nonsense, says Mr. Indyk, who argues that Washington’s close relationship with Israel is crucial because it assures the Palestinians and other Arabs that the United States has leverage with Israel.
“The school of beating up on Israel is fundamentally wrong because it just causes Israel to dig in its heels,†said Mr. Indyk, whose book, “Innocent Abroad,†praises Mr. Clinton for his unflagging commitment to a deal but is unsparing about the flaws in his approach.
Of course Indyk’s argument that the United States needs to have “leverage” with Israel, suggests that he also believes the United States should pressure Israel, just not beat up on it. And none of them explain how it is that when Clinton favored Arafat over Netanyahu that it somehow advanced the peace process. Clearly from 1996 to 1999, when Netanyahu was Israel’s PM, it wasn’t clear the United States favored Israel.
I think that perhaps the most astute observation comes from Miller.
Mr. Miller speaks the most freely of the former advisers because he is the one with virtually no chance of another government job. Mr. Clinton, he said, was so stung by his public criticism that he refused to talk to him for his book, “The Much Too Promised Land.†Anyway, he said, Middle East peacemakers ought to have term limits.
Well yes, if they don’t have any record of success, they shouldn’t be asked back.
Still what’s missing from this short profile is any admission that they made a mistake counting on Arafat or that they failed to ensure that Hezbollah would be disarmed. These guys think that if they just did something a little differently they would have been successful. They never acknowledge that maybe they got some of their premises wrong. None of them possess the requisite humility to admit mistakes. And that’s probably the main reason they should not be allowed anywhere near Middle East diplomacy every again, though, they are now being sought again as experts.
Pity.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
pity, maybe, but when the voice in Obama’s other ear is that of Susan Rice I find Ross’ tendency to wishful thinking a very minor flaw.
The people advocating the “peace process” and “Arafat/Abbas/new Pali thug of the day here is a real partner for peace” remind me of myself in a way. I tried very hard to learn advanced mathematics. Several times I tried to take the courses in advanced calculus that taught one real analysis, or the algebra course on abstract algebra. Each time I failed to succeed. Each time I told myself that, if I just worked a little ahrder I could master the material. Nope. I don’t have the right kind of brain for abstract mathematics. What kind of idiot does not learn from his own experience?
A diplomat involved in the Muslim-Israel Peace Process, that’s what.
These guys are doing the same thing, battering their heads against the brick wall of Muslim rejectionism, confident that if they just speak the right words, or lean on Israel a little more, or get Israel to give up this or that bit of land, suddenly peace will break out. Nope. Israel’s enemies want Israel destroyed and its Jewish population massacred. At best the Jews could expect the sort of treatment the Serbs were giving the Bosnian Muslims back in the 90s. More likely they’d all be killed if they did not get out of Dodge City fast enough, by means simlar to the early German efforts at genocide of the Jews.
When the Muslims say “Peace in the Middle East” what they mean is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews. When they whine for “American evenhandedness” what they mean is that we should help them do this. No, nay, never.
That is all anybody needs to know to understand the Middle East problem of Israel and her enemies. It’s really very simple and uncomplicated after all. It’s not a problem of land and maps, it’s a choice between Israel’s survival and genocide. Anybody who takes the Palestinian Arab side is advocating genocide, whether or not they are smart enough to realize it.