Soccer Dad

Lacking Humility

David Ignatius was none too impressed with President Bush's statement supporting Israeli PM Sharon last week.

But Bush ignores the fact that there can be powerful reasons not to say the obvious -- and that studied ambiguity is an important part of successful diplomacy.

But "studied ambiguity" was not a highlight of his predecessors' approach to the Middle East. President Bush's father was famous for complaining that he one "lonely little guy" fighting the powerful influence of the Israel lobby. President Clinton sided with Yasser Arafat's interpretation of the Oslo Accords when they clashed with that of the Israeli government. (Certainly in the case of Netanyahu; I believe it also may have happened when Rabin was PM.)
As an example of the Clinton administration's approach to Middle East diplomacy we have this:

In Middle Eastern diplomacy, where symbolism is as important as substance, the message of the day was loud and clear. Clinton convened a high-profile ceremony and luncheon with the two Labor icons the same week that he said he was too busy to meet with the current Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.

"It's clearly a message that this administration wishes that things were different and that the players in Israel were different," said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "If nothing else, the luncheon was a very clear statement that the president had four hours to spend on nostalgia, and no time to meet with the prime minister," said Foxman, who attended last Friday's celebration.

And this was his reward in 2000

The refusal of Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, to negotiate away his claims to Jerusalem may have dashed American hopes of a Camp David peace agreement today, but it allowed him to return home with his credibility among Arab and Muslim leaders intact, Middle East analysts said. . . . During the last few days, a number of Arab leaders like Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudia Arabia and President Mubarak have joined with Mr. Arafat's domestic opponents in Islamic militant movements to weigh in on the issue. They all but threatened Mr. Arafat with political excommunication if he accepted Prime Minister Ehud Barak's proposals for administrative control over parts of the city and access to -- but not sovereignty over -- the major Muslim sites.

(In fairness, David Bernstein, who linked to the above article also linked to this one.)
The following statement was particularly bothersome:

What makes Bush's abandonment of long-standing U.S. positions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so unfortunate is that it was unnecessary. The Israelis have powerful security reasons for withdrawing unilaterally from Gaza and dismantling their settlements there. It's not a concession that the United States should have to buy by sacrificing its own negotiating leverage; it's something most Israelis want because it's in their country's interest.

The problem with this statement is that just because something is good doesn't mean that it is without cost or that it is not dangerous. Most Israelis may support a withdrawal from Gaza but as the Oslo Accords demonstrated, giving ground to a terrorist is a recipe for disaster. Will a withdrawal from Gaza lead to more terror? It's a real possibility. (It will happen unless Israel has so degraded the capabilities of the terrorist groups in Gaza that they are incapable organizationally of launching a sustained campaign against Israel.) Ignatius is so certain he is right. But given previous experience there is no reason to assume that he is.
Amnon Dankner, editor of Maariv, for one, knows from bitter experience that:

Even supporters of the disengagement plan, like myself, should not have the hubris to accept it with complete confidence, belittling and ignoring our opponents. The fact that we believe that we are right does not mean that we should totally disregard the fact that they may have valid points. We need look no further than Oslo to see the results of false pride, when one side believes it and it alone has a monopoly on wisdom and prescience.
In the gay, optimistic days of the Oslo Accords, the vast majority of the media lauded Oslo and its initiators, giving them unrestrained support, and assisting them in convincing the Israeli public that any mines along the path were either duds or small ones easily defused. In the end those duds exploded in our faces, taking the life out of the process and leaving us to mourn hundreds of Israeli victims of terror.

Given Mr. Dankner's onetime status as a member of Israel's "peace camp," it might be appropriate for Mr. Ignatius to demonstrate a little humility when he proclaims he knows what's good for Israel.
Crossposted on IsraPundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at April 20, 2004 5:37 AM