Coming off of his triumphant op-ed in the Jerusalem Post, Aaron David Miller who has successfully participated in getting the Israelis and Palestinians come to agreements and have those agreements violated by the Palestinians, does a curtain call with a rehash in the Washington Post. As in the earlier op-ed (critiqued here, here and here. See memeorandum). First Miller argues, ignore the Palestinians:
The notion that trying and failing is better than not trying at all might be an appropriate rallying cry for a college football coach; it isn’t a suitable foreign policy principle for the world’s greatest power. The well-intentioned old college try, which was President Bill Clinton’s mantra at Camp David in July 2000, reinforced by his advisers, myself included, proved costly. And we had much better conditions in 2000 (if still not the right ones) than the new administration faces.
Yes, the conditions were much better in 2000. Miller and company had been working furiously for seven years to build on the Oslo Accords (that were agreed upon without any American involvement). Of course if the push for peace in 2000 didn’t work given those circumstances, it ought to make Miller wonder if his premises were wrong.
But Miller writes, don’t ignore the Middle East!
For a president looking for a way to buck up America’s credibility, an Israeli-Syrian agreement offers a potential bonus. Such a deal would begin to realign the region’s architecture in a way that serves broader U.S. interests. The White House would have to be patient. Syria won’t walk away from a 30-year relationship with Iran; weaning the Syrians from Iran would have to occur gradually, requiring a major international effort to marshal economic and political support for Damascus. Still, an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty would confront Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran with tough choices and reduced options.
None of this will be easy. An Obama administration, and particularly the new president, would need to be in the middle of things. It would be excruciatingly hard, time-consuming and expensive to satisfy Israel and Syria’s economic and security needs, and a final agreement would most likely involve U.S. peacekeepers. More important, the United States would need to push the two sides further than they are now willing to go, on the extent of withdrawal from the Golan Heights in Israel’s case, on normalization and security in Syria’s. But with Israeli and Syrian leaders who are serious, and with a new administration ready to be tough, smart and fair in its diplomacy, a deal can be done.
So the United States ought to get an agreement as a first step of weaning Syria out Iran’s orbit. Given that Syria has shown no inclination to leave that orbit what makes Miller think this will work? The same pixie dust he was snorting making him think he’d get an agreement between Israel and Arafat in 2000?
But that doesn’t mean that the United States should ignore the Palestinians.
So, Mr. President-elect, go ahead and try to buck up the Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire, train Palestinian security forces, pour economic aid into Gaza and the West Bank, and quietly nurture Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. But don’t go for the endgame — you won’t get there.
However, repeating bad ideas does not improve them or make them more viable.
But repeated past failures don’t get Miller down:
Instead, invest in an Israeli-Syrian peace, and, afterward, you might find, with a historic success under your belt and America again admired for its competence, you will be better positioned to achieve the success you want in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, as well.
He’s been involved in crap for so long he’s sure there’s a pony in there someplace. On the other hand, I’d be a lot more encouraged if I didn’t see that Israel’s enemies – like Syria and the Palestinian Authority – were not trying to undermine Israel’s legitimacy at every opportunity. I’d think that a necessary prerequisite for peace is the Arab world coming to terms with Israel’s existence. But what do I know? I’m not an experienced peace processor like Miller. Who has absolutely no successes to his credit.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Israel uses the Golan for Vineyards. The Syrians used the Golan Heights as an artillery and sniper platform to target Israeli children in their schools and homes, and Israeli farmers working their fields. Anyone who has seen the fields near the former Syrian pill boxes can tell you the Syrians never cleared the area for farming — it is all half-buried rocks.
A generation of Israeli children grew up sleeping in underground shelters every night, until Israel captured the Golan in the 1967 war of defense. Why on earth should it be given back to Syria?
To make people like Israel again.
Really. That’s their logic.
It’s not just to make the world like Israel again, but to make the world respect the United States again. Just like it did after the successfully concluded the Camp David summit in 2000.
Oh it wasn’t successful?
Never mind.
Actually, it should be given back to Syria becaue the shelters have not been used in a long time. Also, modern Israeli children need to get used to sleeping in shelters so that they will be used to the conditions when the UN forces Israel to move 50 miles west of Tel Aviv.
Israel should tell the syrians “tough luck we took it fair and square.”
The US would not give Russia back Alaska just because we are more friendly now. It would jepordize the US’ national security and so would returning the Golan Heights for Israel.
The only thing that will “wean” Syria from its alliance with the Pharaohs of Tehran is the 4th Infantry Division rolling into Damascus and standing Bashir and his consiglieri against the nearest wall. Why should he move away from Iran? The more he clings to Iran the more Westerners try to give him stuff to encourage him to move away, the more they come down on Israel to give him stuff, and the greater his importance in the eyes of the outside world for his troublemaking.
Syria has given no evidence of wanting peace with Israel, only regaining its firing position against the Hulah Valley. Syria has not given up on colonizing Lebanon either, although Iran may prevent that by colonizing it herself.
Selling out Israel will make us no friends either in the Middle East or elsewhere. It will gain us only the justified contempt of our enemies for ratting on an ally, and the distrust of our allies who may well conclude “We’re next.”
Actually, Michael, I think selling out Israel WILL get us more friends—in Europe, where they’re very fond of selling out the Jews.
With all the money and ‘spiritual support’ that Iran is pouring into Syria and Lebanon, and with the US noticeably short of an excess of funds to replace Iranian terrorist monies, due to financial circumstances brought on by feckless democrat policies (Hello Fannie, Hello Freddie, Hello Rubin, stock market’s spaghetti) and with a dove in hawk’s clothing about to enter the White House, what incentive does Syria have to tow a soft line or to link up with the US than 5,000 centrifuges Amamadjihadi? That was rhetorical.
Once the cheering is over Meryl, the Eurotwits will be the first ones wondering “Are we next?” Europe cannot or will not defend itself against any outside threat. Much of it is likely to collapse in the face of any significant internal threat, like the threatening jihad, too. And the answer to their question will be: Yes.
If the USA rats on Israel, colluding, even if only passively, in a renewed genocide of the Jews, some especially horrible disaster will come upon us, and we will deserve it.