web analytics
July 28, 2014 / 1 Av, 5774
Israel at War: Operation Protective Edge
 
 
At a Glance
News & Views
Sponsored Post
IDC Advocacy Room IDC Fights War on Another Front

Student Union opens ‘hasbara’ room in effort to fill public diplomacy vacuum.



Why ‘Peace Process’ Champion Changed His Mind



WASHINGTON – Depending on your view of the Middle East and the Obama administration, Aaron David Miller is either a hero or a turncoat.


Miller, a peace process functionary under both Bush administrations and the Clinton administration, published a declaration of independence last month from what he called the “religion” of the peace process.


Critics of the Obama administration’s emphasis on peacemaking – among them neoconservatives who once reviled Miller as an apostle of the process – embraced his article, published in Foreign Policy, as the repudiation of the process.


“One can take exception to some of Miller’s argument, but the core of it is indisputable,” Jennifer Rubin wrote on Commentary Magazine’s Contentions blog. “The peace-process believers ‘need to re-examine their faith.’ “


Defenders of an assertive American role in the Middle East dismiss Miller out of hand as an effete academic now removed from policy.


“For all his pessimism about the future, Miller never asks if the United States should distance itself from an Israel that is in the process of becoming an apartheid state,” Stephen Walt, the Harvard historian and author of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, wrote on his blog on Foreign Policy.


It doesn’t stop in the blogosphere: Miller, the author of The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace and now a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, recently returned from a Middle East tour of Lebanon, Israel the Palestinian areas and Syria, and he found himself discussing his article with regional leaders.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saw validation in his own belief that the Obama administration is overly invested in the prospect of imminent Palestinian statehood, Miller and a Netanyahu confidant said.


In an interview with JTA in his office on Pennsylvania Avenue – a 10-minute walk from the White House – Miller took the reactions with equanimity.


“I was prepared to accept the possibility that the piece would be misinterpreted, hijacked, used by people for a variety of reasons,” he said. “So be it. These are my views. Reality changed and it’s not honest, in order to simply continue, to repeat the same mantras.”


This is the “catechism,” outlined in his article, and referring to his State Department years from 1985 to 2003: “First, pursuit of a comprehensive peace was a core, if not the core, U.S. interest in the region, and achieving it offered the only sure way to protect U.S. interests; second, peace could be achieved, but only through a serious negotiating process based on trading land for peace; and third, only America could help the Arabs and Israelis bring that peace to fruition. As befitting a religious doctrine, there was little nuance.”


A thorough reading of Miller’s article does not suggest an abandonment of the creed. Rather he counsels stepping back and re-examining its principles against the light of new Middle East realities.


Miller argues that the issues have become more vexing, and that there are no leaders who match the titans of peacemaking in years past, such as Egyptian President Anwar Sadat or Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.


If anything, he said in the interview, his three weeks in the Middle East reinforced those perceptions.


“What I find difficult to reconcile is how you’re going to get to a conflict-ending agreement which addresses the four core issues that have driven the Israelis and the Palestinians and brought each issue to a finality of claims.


“I just do not see how to do that given the gaps that exist and the inherent constraints on the leaders in the absence also of a real sense of urgency.” 


The four core issues are borders, security, Jerusalem and refugees.


Miller describes how the situation has worsened since the last major effort at a resolution, the Camp David-Taba talks of 2000-01: The status of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has been wounded profoundly by the ouster of his Fatah party from Gaza at the gunpoint of Hamas; Netanyahu is bound by a right-wing coalition (of his choosing) that is not ready to countenance a full-fledged settlement freeze, never mind compromise on Jerusalem; and Obama has had 15 months, distracted by the economy and health care, to match Clinton’s six full years focused on the issue.


Then there’s the region: “Hizbullah and Hamas,” Miller says referring to the terrorist groups in Lebanon and Gaza, respectively. “You have two non-state actors, two non-state environments who are not proxies of Iran and or Syria but who clearly reflect their capacity to want to influence events – and then you have Iran” and its potential nuclear threat.


The prospect that Miller says unnerves him most is that the Obama administration says it will step in with a conflict-ending agreement if the current proximity talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians go nowhere.


“I’m very uneasy because at the end of the day, I don’t see what the game is, I don’t see what the strategy is,” he said. “Even if it’s an initiative, what’s the objective, what’s the strategy?”


In his article, Miller advises that the United States stay involved but realize there are limits. 


“The United States needs to do what it can, including working with Israelis and Palestinians on negotiating core final-status issues (particularly on borders, where the gaps are narrowest), helping Palestinians develop their institutions, getting the Israelis to assist by allowing Palestinians to breathe economically and expand their authority, and keeping Gaza calm, even as it tries to relieve the desperation and sense of siege through economic assistance,” he writes.


“But America should also be aware of what it cannot do as much as what it can.”


Such advice is beside the point for Miller’s new champions and detractors alike, who continue to perceive America’s role in the conflict as either-or.


“It’s had an impact, certainly for Netanyahu and his entourage,” Steve Rosen, who is close to Netanyahu’s advisers, said of Miller’s article in Foreign Policy. “What makes Aaron important is he’s not from central casting . He has credibility as someone who has been a lifetime proponent of the process.”

(JTA)

About the Author:


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Why ‘Peace Process’ Champion Changed His Mind”

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Children run into a shelter during a Code Red siren warning of incoming rockets fired from Gaza in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon.
IDF Retaliates for Ashkelon’s Morning Rocket Fire
Latest News Stories
Soldiers Waiting Around

9:58pm The IDF has adopted the “quiet will be met with quiet” operational directive and is only reacting to pinpoint Hamas rocket fire. When Hamas fired a few rockets earlier today the IDF fired at the area the rocket were launched from (Bet Lahiya, Gaza) The government security cabinet is meeting to decide whether to […]

Yeshoron Tzoran

Yeshoron Tzoran is the officer who stopped the Arab terrorist near Beitar Ilit who was driving a massive car bomb to his target. Tzoran’s quick thinking and action saved hundreds of lives.

Givati soldiers standing over a Hamas terror tunnel.

The IDF blew up two more tunnels in the course of the last 24 hours. “The longer we stay on the ground, the more we learn about the extent of the tunnels and the route they were built in.”

Children run into a shelter during a Code Red siren warning of incoming rockets fired from Gaza in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon.

The IDF retaliated Monday morning for rocket fire aimed at Ashkelon after hours of quiet on the front.

Calling for a global recitation of the Shema at 12:00 noon EST, 7:00 a.m. PST, 7:00 p.m. in Israel.

The UN Security Council wants a cease fire now. The focus is on the safety of Gaza civilians, but not Israel’s security.

The IDF claims from their investigation and released video of the shell that hit the UNRWA school that they did not kill the 16 people.

If anti-Israel doesn’t necessarily mean anti-Israel-Semitic, why do anti-Israel protests always seem to be so violent?

Make up your mind: PA Chairman can’t decide whether Palestinians are sovereign state or feeble protectorate

Thinking her microphone’s been turned off, UN translator speaks her mind about world body’s anti-Israel obsession.

2010 cruise to Gaza ended so well, ‘humanitarian activists’ want to try it all again.

PM Netanyahu gave an interview (in English) and talked about the cease fire violations.

Islamic Republic pledges ongoing support for Hamas, tells Meet the Press that US weapons intended to kill Arab civilians.

Hamas had been preparing a murderous massive assault on Israeli civilian targets during the upcoming Jewish New Year holiday, Rosh Hashanah.

Hamas not only has no respect for the living but it also has no respect for the dead.

Kerry is consistent. He has talked so much and promised so much that, like the peace process, his ceasefire delivered nothing.

More Articles from Ron Kampeas
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

President Obama in an April 25 press conference seemed ready to take a break. “There may come a point at which there just needs to be a pause and both sides need to look at the alternatives,” he said.

Secretary of State Kerry and Prime Minister Netanyahu

Obama himself suggested that a break from the process may be necessary.

But Israel’s stance is not sufficiently consequential to set off a fight between friends, neoconservative scholars said.

Tensions between Russia and the West are mounting over the Russian military takeover of the Crimean Peninsula, with the United States and European countries threatening to impose sanctions.

Expansive outreach, of course, is nothing new for AIPAC. But in the wake of battles over Iran sanctions legislation that pitted the pro-Israel lobbying powerhouse against the White House, many congressional Democrats and liberals more generally, AIPAC’s traditional emphasis on Israel as a bipartisan issue has taken on added urgency.

Administration officials and Jewish groups sympathetic to Kerry’s initiative say there is a longer-term agenda in preempting attacks on the framework peace agreement the Obama administration is expected to propose soon.

“As we have since the beginning of the process, we continue to support Secretary Kerry’s diplomatic efforts to achieve a secure and lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” AIPAC spokesman Marshall Wittman said in a statement to JTA.

WASHINGTON – Until recently, the rule of thumb in the pro-Israel community was that the bigger the academic group, the less likely it was to consider a boycott of Israeli colleagues.

    Latest Poll

    Do you think the FAA ban on US flights to Israel is political?






    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/why-peace-process-champion-changed-his-mind-2/2010/05/18/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: