Soccer Dad

The wrong horse

Aaron David Miller is at it again. Recently cited for a mistake in a couple of op-ed columns, he wrote a new op-ed column a couple of days ago in the Washington Post, "Israel's Lawyer." His thesis is:

I'm not a lawyer by training, but I know one when I see one. For far too long, many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as Israel's attorney, catering and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations. If the United States wants to be an honest and effective broker on the Arab-Israeli issue, than surely it can have only one client: the pursuit of a solution that meets the needs and requirements of both sides.

He goes on to write that he understands why the United States favors Israel but says that it undermines America's ability to act as an honest broker.
It's easy to quibble with that argument. I hardly think that President Clinton was more favorably disposed toward Binyamin Netanyahu than he was toward Yasser Arafat. In fact it was during that time the Mr. Miller came up with the idea of politicizing the Holocaust museum by suggesting that Arafat visit it.
The problem wasn't that America (or the world) acted as Israel's lawyer. The problem was that Arafat wasn't interested in peace. No matter how much Mr. Miller and his fellow peace processors tried to finesse the issue, Arafat stubbornly refused to change.
Nor was Arafat alone. In the year 2000 Israel, under Ehud Barak, tried to make peace three times and was rejected each time. Early in the year President Clinton flew to Geneva to make a peace offer on behalf of Israel to Hafez Assad. It was rejected. A few months later Israel withdrew its troops from Southern Lebanon. The Lebanese government refused to fulfill its obligation to take control of its southern border and Hezbollah didn't disarm. And finally Israel made a significant offer to Yasser Arafat at Camp David that Arafat rejected. A few months later he started a new intifada. All this shows that what's really needed is for Israel's enemies to change their outlook. Until Miller and his ilk realize that it is not Israeli actions but Arab attittudes that are at the center of the Middle East conflicts there is no hope for progress.
The question as far as the Palestinians are concerned is whether those attitudes have changed under Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas came to power with the qualification that he wasn't Arafat. Is that enough to mark a substantive change in attitude? Caroline Glick's conclusion: unfortunately not.
For over a decade Miller and his pals put their money on Yasser Arafat. Arafat never changed from his belief that terror paid. By showing him respect and giving him a veto they ensured that the peace process would not be successful. The problem was not the wrong client but the wrong horse.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at May 25, 2005 06:47 AM | TrackBack