Owning the Mideast Peace Process
There's an Arab proverb that goes: When an enemy extends his hand to you, cut it off. If you can't, kiss it. Who do you think this applies to today? In contrast to the "empower-our-enemies" approach, two of the best Middle East journalists have just written from different perspectives on the real Middle East.
The results are refreshing, as elsewhere throughout the media the odds are fixed at about four to one against sanity.
At one think tank, Khaled Abu Toameh has published "Ramallah vs. the ‘Peace Process.'" He tells the story of two Israeli Arab businessmen who wanted to open a Fox clothing store in the West Bank, like the one I like to shop at in Tel Aviv's Dizengoff Center.
Although given Palestinian Authority permission and having already made a big investment, they found themselves the target of attacks and calls for store to be firebombed.
The assaults were even organized by PA journalists. So they gave up - costing West Bank Palestinians 150 jobs.
I could easily give another half-dozen such examples. As Abu Toameh concludes: This incident is an indication that the same "anti-normalization" movement which [PA leader] Abbas supports will be the first to turn against him if he strikes a deal with Israel. But of course, both because this is a powerful radical movement and because he himself is one of the leaders of the anti-peace camp, Abbas ultimately won't make a deal.
Journalist Aaron David Miller asks: "Does [US Secretary of State] John Kerry's Peace Process Have a Chance?" In subtle terms, he answers: "No."
Neither Abbas nor Netanyahu wants to say no to America's top diplomat and take the blame for the collapse of negotiations.
This proved sufficient to get them back to negotiations, but more will be required to keep them there, let alone to reach an accord. Right now, neither has enough incentives, disincentives, desire or need to move forward boldly.
Unfortunately, right now, the US owns this one more than the parties do. This is not an ideal situation. It would have been better had real urgency brought Abbas and Netanyahu together, rather than John Kerry.
In other words, Kerry wants and needs these talks; Netanyahu and Abbas don't.
I mean it literally when I say that there are only three sensible people on the Middle East given regular access to the mass media. One is Miller, the other two are Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic and Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post. (If I have left someone out, please remind me. But remember, I said "regularly.") If you want to know the real attitude in the Middle East, consider this recent exchange in Israel's Knesset: Jamal Zahalka of the Arab Communist Party, Balad: "We, the Arabs, were here before you [the Jews] and we will be here after you!" The prime minister asked permission to approach the podium and said: "The first part isn't true, and the second part won't be."
Remember that the Communist Party is the most moderate of the Arab parties.
Fatah and the PA are more radical, and their leaders would not hesitate to repeat Zahalka's statement. Note that Zahalka wasn't afraid to invoke genocide, because he knew he was protected by Israel's democracy and freedom of speech. That's the real situation. The Palestinian leadership's goal of wiping out Israel has not changed. Only if it ever does will there be any chance of a two-state solution.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the equation, The Washington Post printed no less than four op-eds in one week on why the United States should support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Robert Kagan's "American Aid Makes the US Complicit in the Egyptian Army's Acts" gives the realpolitik version. His analysis is ludicrous: was the US thus complicit in the doings of every ally, including Egypt, from 1978 to 2011? Should one dump good allies because of things they do? This debate stretches back to the onset of the Cold War.
Anyway, US support for the army would be popular. Indeed, US policy was "complicit" with the army coup against Mubarak, and also with the Morsi Islamist regime, which it also helped install.
Then we have the liberal human rights/democracy project view from Michele Dunne: "With Morsi's ouster, time for a new US policy toward Egypt." She says this is because a US policy supporting human rights must ensure that... the totalitarian Muslim Brotherhood is part of the government, no doubt encouraging stability.
Reuel Marc Gerecht writes: "In Egypt, the popularity of Islamism shall endure." He gives a supposed conservative version for why we need the Brotherhood in power. But just because the enemy can endure is not a reason to refuse to fight them. On the contrary - it is necessary at minimum to ensure it doesn't become stronger.
Finally we have an editorial. The Post's view? Egypt's military should hear from Obama administration. This demands that the Obama administration also pressure the military. Let's be frank: the Egyptian army did a great service not just to Egypt's people but also to the US government, because it saved its strategic balance in the Middle East.
Only one op-ed in the Post - Jackson Diehl's "Egypt's ‘democrats' abandon democracy" - made a salient point: the moderates themselves stopped supporting the status quo and begged for a coup. They support the government now; they want the Obama administration to back the military regime.