The Gods and the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Irving Kristol memorably took the Latin proverb, Quem Iuppiter vult perdere, dementat prius ("Whom Jupiter wishes to destroy, he first renders mad") and changed it to "Whom the gods would destroy they first tempt to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict."

I first quoted Kristol in March 1991, dismayed by George H.W. Bush's hubristic statement that "the time has come to put an end to Arab-Israeli conflict." And the quote was apt, for the "peace process" that the first President Bush launched after the Kuwait war led not to a resolution but to the spiraling downwards that finds that conflict in far worse condition today than when he spoke nearly fifteen years ago.

	Irving Kristol

I am calling Kristol's aphorism back into service on reading today that Ariel Sharon announced something similar, if a bit more tentative:

I have resolved, as one who had the privilege of participating in all of Israel's wars, to make an effort - a true effort - to try to lead to security and peace. It is not easy, it is trying, but I have decided to attempt to resolve this problem once and for all, and that is what I intend to do.

Well, good luck to the prime minister, but I predict his efforts will likewise do more harm than good. (December 13, 2005)

Sep. 21, 2007 update: Two years have passed and, of course, nothing has changed. Here is Max Boot on the subject of U.S. secretaries of state being obsessed with the holy grail of Arab-Israeli peace:

Pretty much every Secretary of State since the Truman administration has devoted considerable energy to brokering peace between Israelis and Palestinians. None succeeded. In fact, the most recent and ambitious attempt—the Oslo Peace Accords—backfired badly. But there seems to be something about the Secretary of State's job that forces its occupants to keep on undertaking this Sisyphean labor regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

And so now we have Condoleezza Rice regularly journeying to the Middle East to arrange another peace conference later this year. It is hard to know why she thinks the climate for a breakthrough is propitious now. Hamas, an organization devoted to Israel's destruction, has taken control of the Gaza Strip, making it what the Israeli government rightly calls a "hostile entity." Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority (or what remains of it), is an ineffectual figurehead. Syrian President Bashar Assad is working full-time to destroy Lebanese democracy and possibly to acquire nuclear arms. He has shown no interest in negotiating peace. Instead he is working hand in glove with Iran to support Hamas and Hizballah.

Meanwhile, Israel is led by an unpopular prime minister whose toughness has been questioned and who, unlike his immediate predecessor, lacks the credibility to give away land such as the Golan Heights in a bid for "peace."

Amid such circumstances, it is hardly surprising to see this Washington Post headline recounting Rice's most recent trip to the Holy Land: "Rice Visit Yields No Commitments On Mideast Talks; Differences Over Agenda Remain Wide." The only mystery here is why the Secretary of State—an intelligent woman—insists on continuing to engage in such a hopeless endeavor.

Here are the first paragraphs of that lugubrious article, written by Scott Wilson:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that the U.S.-backed peace conference proposed for later this year must "advance the cause of a Palestinian state" but acknowledged that much work remains to be done before Israeli and Palestinian officials agree on an agenda to achieve that goal.

"The international meeting has to be serious, it has to be substantive," Rice said at a news conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah after meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on the second and final day of her visit. Referring to the Bush administration, Rice said, "We have many things to do. We don't need a photo opportunity."

Rice spent two days with Israeli and Palestinian leaders in an effort to narrow the differences—some substantive, some technical—over an agenda for the international peace conference President Bush proposed earlier this year. She departed with neither a firm date for the meeting nor a commitment from the Palestinians to attend unless a detailed agenda, including a specific timetable for the creation of a Palestinian state, can be arranged by negotiating groups that have yet to meet.

June 5, 2009 update: Of course, the most hubristic of American presidents, Barack Obama, has set his sights on "solving" the Arab-Israeli conflict. Jennifer Loven reports for the Associated Press:

"The moment is now for us to act," Obama declared at a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. … Obama revealed in a round-table discussion with Mideast journalists how much he fears letting efforts flag. "When things stall, everybody knows it," he said in a Thursday interview in Egypt that was released Friday by the White House. "I want to have a sense of movement and progress. … I'm confident that if we stick with it, having started early, that we can make some serious progress this year."

Comment: Not only is the idea of "some serious progress this year" untenable, but Obama is going about it precisely the wrong way – by pressuring and alienating Israel, America's only strategic ally in the region.

July 16, 2009 update: Obama's June hubris was no one-time aspiration. According to Barak Ravid of Ha'aretz, he is soon expected to announce a new plan to renew Arab-Israeli "peace process" that will include a binding timetable for negotiations so as to reach a final resolution of the conflict. According to "a senior Western diplomat closely involved in current contacts involving the U.S., Israel, the PA and moderate Arab states," Obama is sees bringing talks to a conclusion "on time" as a method to force progress.

Jan, 21, 2010 update: After a year of abject failure to make progress toward Arab-Israeli reconciliation, Obama has at least for the moment learned a lesson. From an interview with Joe Klein of Time magazine on January 15, "Q&A: Obama on His First Year in Office," and made available today:

Obama: the Middle East peace process has not moved forward. And I think it's fair to say that for all our efforts at early engagement, it is not where I want it to be.

Klein: Why is that? …

Obama: I'll be honest with you. A) This is just really hard. Even for a guy like George Mitchell, who helped bring about the peace in Northern Ireland. This is as intractable a problem as you get. B) Both sides — the Israelis and the Palestinians — have found that the political environment, the nature of their coalitions or the divisions within their societies, were such that it was very hard for them to start engaging in a meaningful conversation.

I think that we overestimated our ability to persuade them to do so when their politics ran contrary to that. …I think it is absolutely true that what we did this year didn't produce the kind of breakthrough that we wanted, and if we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high.

Related Topics:  Arab-Israel conflict & diplomacy, US policy receive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes' free mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.