How Many Of These 5 "Middle East Peace" Myths Do YOU Believe?

Aaron David Miller, a former advisor to six Secretaries of State, wrote in yesterday's Washington Post, describing Five myths about Middle East peace:

1. Direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians are the key to reaching an accord.
2. The United States is an honest broker in the peace process.
3. Settlements are the main obstacle to peacemaking.
4. Pressuring the Israelis is the only way to reach an agreement.
5. Arab-Israeli peace is critical to securing U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Take your pick.

To these "myths", Miller counters:


1."History argues strongly to the contrary. With the exception of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of October 1994, every negotiation that has resulted in an enduring Mideast agreement was brokered by the United States." ["Every"? Are you as curious to see how long his list is as I am?]

2."It has been before and can be again. But in the past 16 years, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, we have failed to be as tough, fair and reassuring as we need to be to broker a solution." [Whom is he thinking of? He only mentions Clinton and Bush.]

3. "But even if the settlement issue were resolved today, negotiations would still confront another galactic challenge: a crisis within the Palestinian national movement, with two authorities governing two discreet areas with two different security services, two different patrons and two different visions of the Palestinian future." [Not to mention that the terms of both "authorities" have already expired with no new elections in sight--but please, do feel free to mention it.]

4. "...Obama now understands that fighting Israel over settlements is a dead end." [Wanna bet?]

5. "Arab-Israeli peace will not stabilize Afghanistan or facilitate an extrication of U.S. forces from there. It will not create a viable political contract among Iraq's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. It will not stop Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to make a nuclear weapon. It will not force Arab states to respect human rights. Nor will it end anti-American sentiment fueled by our support for authoritarian Arab regimes, our deployment of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, our war against terror and our close relationship with Israel." [On this I can agree]

But just to get a sense of perspective, this is what Aaron David Miller was advising in February 2009:

"This region, as best I can understand it, hates big ideas. Particularly those big ideas imposed, crafted or orchestrated from outside. And frankly, transformative diplomacy was the essence of the previous administration's approach to this region. Regime change, democratization, grand bargains, grand rhetoric, one-size-fits-all," he said.

Instead, Miller called for "transactional diplomacy" based on small, pragmatic steps like getting Israel to open up Gaza for reconstruction efforts. Miller said President Obama should save his "big ideas" for dealing with the economic crisis in the United States, and take small, incremental steps in the Middle East.[emphasis added]

Apparently, back then Miller was opposed precisely to the kind of brokered, "crafted or orchestrated from outside" that he is advocating now.

Miller writes that "the power of direct negotiations is compelling".
But apparently the urge for the US to step in and get it done is even greater.

Technorati Tag: Mideast Peace Talks.