‘NYT’ peace plan is at best naive

on 10 Comments

What is it about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that compels intelligent and sensitive analysts to persist in believing—despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary— that a solution will emerge top-down, from leaders, rather than from demands made by civil society? And why, rather than drawing attention to the many initiatives to mitigate the suffering of the people on the ground in the absence of a comprehensive peace deal—ending the siege of Gaza, supporting nonviolent activists in the West Bank, etc.— do commentators instead continue to focus on prescriptions to end the conflict as a whole, thereby reinforcing the myth that it is the solution itself—as opposed to the political will to enforce a solution—that remains elusive?

Consider Bernard Avishai’s article in the New York Times Magazine this past Sunday. While the whole world has just witnessed the sudden eclipse of realpolitik in the Middle East by will of the people, the NYT runs a long cover article focus exclusively on the same figures that were shell-shocked by developments in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere. A reader of Avishai’s article is led to believe that the same characters who have perpetuated the violent status quo in the Middle East have all along been harboring the intention to deliver peace to the region. According to Avishai, all that is essentially needed is an opportunity for these leaders to capitalize on their diplomatic wisdom, to exercise the better angels of their nature, and at that point, peace will reign. It is worth examining some of the subtle, and misleading, ways that Avishai attempts to demonstrate this. 

1) “President Obama has signaled his determination to support democratization in the region, as promised in his 2009 Cairo speech, and not to remain tied to authoritarian regimes.” This sentence is found in the opening paragraph, and establishes a key premise of the article: that the words of leaders—whether American, Israeli or Palestinian—are to be taken at face value. Here, Obama’s reaction to the recent events in Egypt is linked to the promises made in his speech in Cairo in 2009. To many others—including the Egyptian people, who observed at close range that the tear-gas canisters fired at them by Mubarak’s henchmen were embossed with the words “Made In U.S.A.”—the reaction of the U.S. to the Egyptian uprising confirmed that there is an obvious gulf between Obama’s rhetorical gestures and the policies of his administration. Of course, the Obama administration changed its position over the course of the past weeks, but only because it was compelled to change by the tide of events.

2) “Israelis understand that their occupation of the West Bank and siege of Gaza are sources of rage in the Arab street, but many have come to believe that the peace process is futile—especially since President Obama seems to have despaired of meaningful negotiations…” This establishes another main premise of the article: that it is necessary for Obama to restart negotiations. Avishai is hardly unusual in emphasizing the perennial value of peace talks; taken as a whole, however, this sentence is rather remarkable. Obama’s alleged “despair” is the main reason that Israelis have lost faith in the peace process? Recall that when Obama was seemingly more optimistic—that is to say, when he maintained an interest in bribing Israel to take the most minor and inconsequential steps toward peace (the “settlement freeze”)—many Israelis, Rashomon-like, interpreted Obama’s desperate bribes as in fact exerting an unreasonable amount of “pressure” on Israel. While Netanyahu has a shrewder understanding of American politics than most Israelis—he knows that Washington’s “demands” hardly constituted a different, hard-line approach towards Israel—he nonetheless refused to go along, thus helping to derail talks already underway. Surely the actions of their own government, then, rather than Obama’s attitude, have aptly demonstrated the “futility” of the “peace process” to Israelis, and given everyone—perhaps including Obama—ample reason to “despair” of “meaningful negotiations.”

Furthermore, Avishai, who is clearly against the occupation, creates the impression here that the occupation will necessarily continue in the absence of a “peace process.” Yet it is precisely the same “peace process” that has provided the crucial diplomatic cover for the persistence of the occupation. As Avishai must know, it was during the Oslo years, under the auspices of the peacemaker Rabin, when settlements in the West Bank expanded at a greater rate than other time in history.

3) “In his pivotal Bar Ilan University speech of June 14, 2009, Olmert’s successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, finally promised to work toward a Palestinian state…” Many NYT readers probably recall the celebrations in the American press attending Netanyahu’s speech at Bar Ilan, a university known for right-wing sentiment, where Netanyahu indeed pledged to work towards a Palestinian state. As is often the case, Israeli critics knew better, perceiving the speech merely as a rhetorical ploy meant to fend off challenges from Netanyahu’s centrist critics, who never tired in repeating that Netanyahu’s formal rejection of a Palestinian state was a death knell for democratic Israel. In any event, it has been a year and a half since Netanyahu’s speech. Is Avishai’s use of word “pivotal” to describe the speech at all warranted? “Pivotal” is defined as “vitally important, especially in determining the outcome, progress, or success of something” (emphasis mine). As Avishai knows, Netanyahu has gone on from his famous speech to do everything in his power to undo the prospects for Palestinian statehood. Furthermore, as Avishai acknowledges, in the speech itself “Netanyahu made much of his demand that Palestine be demilitarized.” In fact, as many commentators pointed out at the time, Netanyahu’s vision of a Palestinian “state” is one entirely without sovereignty—in other words, a state that no Palestinian leader could accept. The proper way to describe Netanyahu’s speech, then, is “cynical”, not “pivotal”.

4) “A viable plan exists: it is waiting to be forged from the far-reaching proposals that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority made to each other in 2008. We had a glimpse in mid-January of these negotiations—the ‘Palestine Papers’, leaked by Al Jazeera; and then excerpts from Ehud Olmert’s memoir, published in Israel. But the picture that emerges from these accounts is unfocused and confusing…” Is it reasonable to conflate the revelations of the “Palestine Papers” with Olmert’s memoirs? The former have given us an unprecedented opportunity be privy to secret talks; the latter are the personal recollections of a man noted, even by the standards of Israeli leaders, for corruption and mendacity—no small feat. Of course, since Avishai’s article privileges Olmert’s own perspective above all others, it is necessary for Avishai to downplay what many see as the central revelation of the “Palestine Papers”: that similar Israeli leaders have had no interest in pursuing a negotiated settlement to the conflict, spurning even the most generous concessions from Palestinian leaders (“we are offering you the biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history”, etc.). Indeed, Avishai is unique, as far as I know, in seeing the picture emerging from the “Palestine Papers” as somehow “unfocused and confusing”; to everyone else the lessons to be drawn from them—at least from those that we have seen thus far— have been rather clear and straightforward. 

5) “Over the course of almost two years, from December 2006 to mid-September 2008, Olmert and Abbas met 36 times. Lower-level talks were also going on…the top-level talks were considerably more important.” While the remainder of Avishai’s article elaborates on the contents of these “top level talks”, impressing upon the reader how narrow the differences between Olmert and Abbas became over time, this does not explain why these talks are “considerably more important” than the lower-level ones, whose contents were revealed by the “Palestine Papers”. In fact, the importance of the talks between Olmert and Abbas is taken as a given throughout Avishai’s article, and never proven. Yet it is a curious feature of the article that running alongside it, at least in the print version, is a brief commentary by James Traub, showing precisely why these “considerably important” talks— dissected so earnestly by Avishai—will likely remain a template for nothing. Paraphrasing Joe Biden, Traub writes that “[Biden] sees no sign that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been deeply troubled by the attacks on the regime of President of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, is prepared to take greater risks now then he was before.” This is also the view of Aaron David Miller and David Makovsky, two old Israel hands in Washington. “Both men”, according to Traub, “say they believe that the Netanyahu government will conclude that the world, for now, is yet more dangerous for Israel, and thus it will be even more loath to make painful concessions on borders and security arrangements.” Of course, this is the lesson that Israeli leaders have always drawn from any perceived changes to the status quo, regardless of whether those changes signify a rising authoritarianism or rising democratization in the region. As former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir once said, “the Arabs are the same Arabs, and the sea is the same sea.”

I have chosen to focus here on a few of the disingenuous—some might say merely naive— arguments that Avishai makes to frame his article; others may have found fault with more of the details. In the end, however, I find it difficult to comprehend why a sophisticated thinker like Avishai would have chosen to write such a piece in the first place, given the array of human struggles in the Middle East that are deserving of attention (how many NYT readers have heard of Breaking the Silence?). In any event, if the past few weeks haven’t convinced us of the futility of relying upon leaders to deliver us from conflict and injustice, nothing will.

10 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    February 18, 2011, 11:15 am


    [1] “And why * * * do commentators instead continue to focus on prescriptions to end the conflict as a whole, thereby reinforcing the myth that it is the solution itself—as opposed to the political will to enforce a solution—that remains elusive?” EXACTLY. Stress “enforce”. Who will do the enforcing? Or, perhaps, who will force an agreement to be made absent Israel/USA will to reach an agreement that Palestinians could agree to?

    [2] Avishai joins the USA, Israel, NYT, and others in the absurd idea that the “players” is this drama — if it is to make useful progress toward peace — should be the same “players” that have so adroitly prevented progress until today. He proposes no role for the international community:

    The so-called “peace process”, for example, has been dismally non-ideal (except for those who intended it to fail) because the Israelis have enjoyed the benefits of a quasi-peace-treaty (the occupation) without its costs (creation of a Palestinian state, removal of some settlers). The Palestinians have been under extreme pressure for 43 years whereas the Israelis have been on easy street for all those years.

    To energize the “peace process” what is needed is to equalize the pressure. Israelis must be as desirous of peace as the Palestinians are.

    One way toward the ideal would be for the UNSC to issue a strengthened form of UNSC 465 (1980). That resolution called for removal of all settlers and dismantling of all settlements. Today, in the 21st Century, and after Tunisia and Egypt’s eruptions, it should be strengthened by adding to it, first, a requirement that the separation wall be removed and, second, a meaningful regime of credible and stern sanctions in the event of (initial) performance-reluctance by Israel, with all removals and dismantlings to be completed over a one-year period on a schedule required to be published by Israel within one month of enactment of the resolution.


  2. Richard Witty
    February 18, 2011, 1:04 pm

    Avishai is not describing a condition that does not take work. There is much work, requiring coordination, to accomplish a successful negotiation.

    And, I think that you are right that absent a conversion on Netanyahu’s part, there will be no intersection between Israeli concerns and Palestinian. A conversion is unlikely for him personally and unlikely for him to be able to navigate through his coalition,

    As all the other alternative paths (civil uprising, as much of a rush as it gives you), are not viable within the scope of time of the Israeli and Palestinian administrations. The BDS, single-state effort is at least decades long, and inevitably involving struggle. And, by struggle I don’t mean the struggle to lift 300 lbs, but the struggle requiring the willingness to harm one’s neighbors for a political agenda that is unlikely to be realized anyway.

    Given that, the ONLY possible path is the one of negotiation.

    And, for that to happen with any prospect of resulting in an actual peace, requires electoral change in Israel AND consistency of position within Palestine.

    A moving target Palestinian demand will kill the possibility of this very complex negotiation. And, faked willingness to reconcile on Israel’s part, with a good faith partner (like the current PA), will similarly kill the negotiation.

    Even with two willing parties, US or other trusted third party interventions and guarantees are necessary to bridge the remaining conflicts.

    The civil uprising in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Jordan, do NOT translate to the condition in Israel/Palestine.

    Militants can distract, even destroy the prospect of peace, as many have for a long time, however rational sounding their arguments.

    Those arguments pale compared to the actual improvement in Palestinian lives that a peace would accomplish.

  3. southernobserver
    February 18, 2011, 4:44 pm

    The central question is whether the offered agreement is genuinely better than nothing for the Palestinians. As best I can tell, the answer is no, they would actually be substantially worse off. The offered ‘state’ appears to remain the Allon plan— an abusive apartheid state, not materially different from now — but now without any chance of improvement since the abused side would have signed away any rights. A viable state requires control over its resources. Well they would not control water, airspace, airwaves, finance, borders/custom, security, or movement within the state or to other states. The economic development would be almost entirely the ‘opportunity’ to be a cheap workforce for israel controlled factories in highly controlled borderzones. Finally, the beneficent israel would continue to reserve the right to randomly kill, imprison and blow up bits of the ‘state’.

    This is not only not in any respect state, it is a large open air prison, except that the guards expect others to feed the inmates. How is this better?

    Despite the ground swell of support for human rights, seen by many on this blog, but not all, it is very sad that our supposed liberal countries, continue to support this abomination.

    • Richard Witty
      February 19, 2011, 6:24 am

      You pose a good first question, “The central question is whether the offered agreement is genuinely better than nothing for the Palestinians.”

      It is up to the Palestinians and Israelis themselves to determine if an offered agreement is liveable.

  4. lobewyper
    February 18, 2011, 5:07 pm


    You’ve written yet another great article! Reasoned and trenchant critique of Avishai. The Israeli “peace efforts” have been exposed by you and others as the sham they actually were/are: delaying strategies that permit construction of new facts on the ground that will need to be ceded by the Palestinians in any peace deal.


    Regarding your comment that the US could serve as a trusted third party to help secure a lasting peace, I believe history shows this concept to be almost entirely without merit. The US government’s I-P policy has been in the Lobby’s (and hence, the Israeli government’s) pocket almost from the onset. This fact has been acknowledged even by Israeli officials…

    • Richard Witty
      February 18, 2011, 7:39 pm

      Your description of “pocket” sounds ludicrous to me.

      • Chaos4700
        February 19, 2011, 12:38 am

        A “pocket” is an element of clothing, often found on pants but that can also be built into carrying bags (typically non-rigid ones, like purses or satchels). It is generally a pouch made of fabric that is built into the article in question, useful for carrying small objects or currency.

        To be “in someone’s pocket” is an idiomatic phrase that represents a dominating social or political relationship, in which the antecedent of the phrase has its actions dictated by the possessive entity, often through blackmail or bribery.

        I understand that, from time to time, sophisticated applications of the language seem to baffle and bewilder you, Witty, so I hope you found that helpful and educational.

      • Richard Witty
        February 19, 2011, 6:34 am

        The US has a red line that it should apply, that the UN should, that the Arab world should, that the Palestinian solidarity world should.

        And, that is acceptance of Israel as the self-governing entity of the current Jewish majority in the small area of land that is Israel.

        Absent that acceptance, there is no peace.

        The range of influence that AIPAC has is just to ensure that protection. Its scope is limited.

        As the threat to Israel’s existence is real, palpable, expressed frequently, expressed here frequently, that defense of Israel is also expressed frequently.

      • lobewyper
        February 19, 2011, 8:24 am

        Well said, Chaos.

  5. piotr
    February 18, 2011, 11:36 pm

    The logic on Israeli side is roughly like that:

    if there is armed Palestinian resistance, then the security of the state requires expansion of the settlements and cleansing Jerusalem of non-Jews

    if there is no armed Palestinian resistance, then there is no reason not to proceed with the expansion of settlements and cleansing Jerusalem of non-Jews.

    Non-violent resistence is a bit outside that logic, so it has to be eliminated. Here is where PA is enormously useful, by restricting the non-violent movement to several local initiatives without unifying umbrella and mass coordination.

    The only way to change to political equation for Israeli government is outside pressure that would add up to national emergency. I do not see how any gentle means of persuasion can work, UNLESS Israeli will convince themself that those objectively benign measures are some kind of mortal threat. As some Israeli politicians explained: peace is impossible unless we crush Palestinian spirit and reduce their expectation to a realistic level. Now something symmetric is needed.

    BDS is almost entirely symbolic, but has a potential of becoming a sufficiently dreaded boogieman. I just do not see a more benign mechanism for peace over there.

    A less benign but perhaps more realistic scenario is “second Saladin”. A coalition comprising state from Iran to Egypt, sufficiently armed to boldly meddle into the question of humanitarian abuses of fellow Arabs/Muslim by Israel — while the internal politics of Israel require a persistent escalation of such abuses. What would be a precise nature of eventual confrontation is hard to guess, but imagine the threat from Hezbollah multiplied by 100.

Leave a Reply