Two Lame Ducks Meet
Israeli leader Ehud Olmert will meet his American counterpart George W. Bush this week. The two men will talk about their years in power and will try to agree on some points for the future of U.S.-Israel relations.
Most interesting about the meeting is, of course, that it will mark the end of a loyal yet ineffective relationship. Bush stood by Israel during the eight years he was in office. At the same time, he tried to convince Ariel Sharon and later Ehud Olmert to the need to agree to some kind of compromise.
But generally, Israeli leaders were quite happy with Bush. He would not push them to agree to conditions they did not want to agree to, and they knew that he would not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
At the same time, Bush and his advisers made some terrible mistakes: elections were organized in Palestine which resulted in a massive victory for Hamas. Although Fatah and Hamas can both be considered reasonably extreme, the main difference between the two is that Hamas is truly an Islamist organization, whereas Fatah is, in theory, secular.
In a post 9/11 world, a victory for Islamists was of course Israel’s and America’s worst nightmare.
Then again, Hamas’ victory allowed Israel to blame the Palestinian terrorist organization for all problems in the region and especially for preventing a compromise from being reached.
The next president, Barack Obama, will have to choose a slightly different approach. The U.S. should, of course, stand by Israel, but if the U.S. truly thinks that peace should be established in the Middle East by bringing the warring sides together, Israel will have to give up some of its claims. In the end, Palestinians and Arabs will only possibly be satisfied when a true Palestinian state is established in Gaza and the West Bank. This would require a major withdrawal from Israel and, of course, the destruction of all Jewish settlements in this areas.
As of yet, this is not something Israel is willing to do.
At the same time, there are some Middle Eastern leaders who want to see Israel completely destroyed. They will do whatever in their power to destroy the Jewish nation-state, including destroying it bit by bit, step by step.
What is often missing from the debate, however, is the following: the destruction of Israel would be horrendous to most Arab regimes and Tehran. These regimes use Israel as the scapegoat for all their own domestic problems. If Israel were to be destroyed, they would have a hard time holding on to power.
At the same time, this is also one of the major reasons why it is so difficult for Arab leaders to agree to a lasting peace. If they do so, they are considered traitors, first and foremost, and it would make it difficult for them to scapegoat Israel for their own domestic issues, second.
This should be kept in mind: Arab regimes are not looking forward to a peace deal for a variety of reasons, most of which domestic. They are, on the other hand, also hesitant about truly destroying Israel, for it is thestatus quo that helps them. Change, no matter what kind of specific change, does not.
A President Obama will have to take this reality into account, and give Arab and Israeli leaders something valuable in return for a peace deal.
It’d be a bold move indeed if any American president would publicly support Israel giving up some of its claims.
Bold internationally, perhaps, but potentially devastating domestically. An American president has to be particular careful on how he does anything in relation to Israel, lest he be portrayed as not supporting the country.
The best safe zone approach would be to really push for a peace deal, but make it clear the terms are not dictated by the U.S.
Of course, this has been done in the past to little effect. So maybe it is time for a bolder approach? Could come at the cost of re-election, though.
I do not think that terrible mistakes were made by promoting an election. I disagreed with that view then and I do now. it would be highly hypocritical of nations to claim to support democracy – then when democracy actually happens – for us to claim to want a mulligan just because the outcome is not the ideal one.
If the elections are free and clear, then let the people decide who they want as elected representatives. We as democratic nations need to respect that outcome.
However, we as nations that provide funding for foreign nations can then reassess how we wish our money to be granted out – that is our prerogative and one we should exercise.