Forcing Israel to make peace the Chicago Way

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s op-ed in Sunday’s Washington Post sounds like he’s picked up on the Obama Administration School of Foreign Affairs. The plan he offers is long on showmanship and pretty speeches, but short on realism (and by “realism,” I do not mean the Walt & Mearsheimer definition of “realism,” but the word that means acceding to the demands of the real world).

Here’s what Brzezinski thinks will cause both sides to agree to the plan:

Similarly, President Obama should travel to the Knesset in Jerusalem and the Palestinian Legislative Council in Ramallah to call upon both sides to negotiate a final status agreement based on a specific framework for peace. He should do so in the company of Arab leaders and members of the Quartet, the diplomatic grouping of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations that is involved in the peace process. A subsequent speech by Obama in Jerusalem’s Old City, addressed to all the people in the region and evocative of his Cairo speech to the Muslim world in June 2009, could be the culminating event in this journey for peace.

Such an effort would play to Obama’s strengths: He personalizes politics and seeks to exploit rhetoric and dramatic settings to shatter impasses, project a compelling vision of the future and infuse confidence in his audience.

Obama does, indeed, personalize politics, but not in a good way. Friends are treated like enemies; enemies are given the benefit of the doubt, and the result is nearly complete failure in foreign policy. So sure, let’s make it even better by trying to ram an agreement down Israel’s throat. I suppose the best news in this fantasy is that there’s no way Arab leaders would agree to go on Obama’s barnstorming tour. The Saudis won’t even let one of their clerics go to Jerusalem to “prove” Muslim claims to the city. There is about zero chance that Arab leaders will accompany Obama without an agreement already delivered.

The anti-Israel crowd is going to love this. Brzezinski’s plan has the illusion of even-handedness, but his bias is clear. What about Hamas? Well. Hamas doesn’t even get mentioned until the next-to-last paragraph of the op-ed.

Brzezinski downplays Hamas’ involvement in the peace process, but how can there be one without it? And how will a genocidal terrorist regime that colludes with Iran and Syria—which also controls the Gaza Strip—go along with its enemy Fatah? Why would Hamas cooperate with the group from which it took control of Gaza? These are important questions, but bypassed in Brzezinski’s plan. Apparently, we shouldn’t allow the facts to get in the way of his opinion. Here’s all he says about Hamas:

Similarly, although the Palestinians are divided and the extremists of Hamas control the Gaza Strip, the majority of Palestinians favor a two-state solution, and their leadership in Ramallah is publicly committed to such an outcome.

Even more clear than his downplaying of Hamas is his biased recollection of the first time Obama tried to move the peace process.

If the Israelis or the Palestinians refuse to accept this basic formula as the point of departure for negotiations, the Obama administration must be prepared to pursue its initiative by different means — it cannot be caught flat-footed, as it was when Netanyahu rejected Obama’s demands for a settlement freeze and the Arabs evaded his proposals for confidence-building initiatives.

Note the language: Netanyahu rejected Obama’s demands, but the Arabs evaded his proposals. The fact is, Netanyahu did not reject Obama’s demand for a settlement freeze—only for one in Jerusalem. And how telling the use of “demands” in relation to Israel and “proposals” in relation to the Arab efforts. The Arabs did not “evade” Obama’s proposals. They rejected them out of hand.

To sum up: Brzesinki effectively wants Obama to force Israel to accede to a peace plan that the United States will dictate. Though he says there will be consequences for both sides if either refuses to go along, that will never happen. Consequences will fall only on Israel’s head; the Palestinians will, as always, be excused. If Obama does follow a plan like this, the road to a UN Security Council condemnation of Israel will not be far behind.

Yet another one-sided peace plan, but the really frightening thing about it: I’m sure Obama will love it. After all, it’s the Chicago Way.