On Wednesday, the Obama campaign received an important new endorsement: Zbigniew Brzezinski, best known for having been Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, introduced Obama on the occasion of his Iraq speech in Iowa. Expect to hear a great deal from Brzezinski about his triumphs of Middle East diplomacy, which he—not to mention Jimmy Carter—is quite fond of recounting. “The fact of the matter is that I’m part of the only administration that brought about peace between Israel and its neighbors,” Brzezinski told NBC News on the day Obama delivered his Iraq policy speech. “And so I’m proud of my record in the Middle East.”
This is a deceptive attempt at rewriting history, one that Brzezinski and his gang have been pursuing for years in an effort to manufacture retroactively a success story for the Carter administration. The administration didn’t “bring about” peace between Israel and Egypt so much as hold a summit at Camp David to work out the details after Israel and Egypt had already committed themselves, independently and entirely in pursuit of their own interests, to a peace treaty. From the outset of the Carter administration, the American commitment had been not to a deal between Israel and Egypt, but to a comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian question, and it was during the administration’s busy pursuit of a renewed Geneva Conference, inclusive of the Soviet Union, Israel, and the PLO, that the Israel-Egypt deal essentially fell into Carter’s lap.
In the mid-1970′s, Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian dictator, was in a bad position: The war he launched in 1973 to wrest the Sinai back from Israel had been a humiliating catastrophe, and he was under growing internal pressure to do something—anything—to salvage Egypt’s honor and retrieve its lost territory. Sidelined by the Carter administration’s focus on the Palestinians, Sadat’s only option was to pursue the Sinai through peaceful means, by directly engaging Israel. A series of monumental and previously unthinkable events took place: In November 1977, Sadat announced to the Egyptian parliament that “Israel will be astonished to hear me say now, before you, that I am prepared to go to their own house, to the Knesset itself, to talk to them.” Four days later Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin formally invited Sadat to Jerusalem, and a week later Sadat’s plane touched down at Ben Gurion airport. Sadat visited Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem, and then addressed the Knesset, declaring that “we accept living with you in peace and justice.” All of this happened entirely independent of—and actually in defiance of—the Carter administration, whose agenda in the region was entirely focused on laying the groundwork for the hoped-for Geneva Conference (which never ended up happening).
The Carter administration was caught completely off guard by this sudden rapprochement, and had no option but to try to include itself as much as possible in the dealmaking. By the time the Camp David summit was convened in September 1978, the only thorny issue left to resolve was the question of whether there would be any Israeli presence left in the Sinai as part of a peace treaty; Begin was initially intransigent on the question, but eventually conceded to a complete withdrawal. Peace between Israel and Egypt was born.
And so today, when Brzezinski brags to the press about how his dedication to diplomacy got results—as opposed, he intones, to the senseless warmongering of the Bush administration—we are witnessing a self-aggrandizing swindle, an attempt not only at enhancing the legacy of the Carter administration but of advancing the proposition that in the Middle East, peace is always possible with the right amount of skilled and dedicated American diplomacy.
The true lesson of the Egypt-Israel rapprochement is actually the opposite of what people like Brzezinski would like it to be: It is a lesson in the sometimes irrelevance of American diplomacy in forging peace between nations, and more importantly it is an example of the reality that peace between implacable foes is usually only possible when one has so thoroughly beaten the other on the battlefield that the defeated party is left with only one option, to sue for peace. People like Brzezinski would like us to believe that heroic diplomacy in 1978 midwifed a peace treaty. Candidate Obama will be ill-served listening to this nonsense.
There are probably good reasons to exclude the rest of them, too.
“DEMOCRATS BLOCK A BLACK MAN FROM GETTING INTO A FEDERAL BUILDING.” Maybe it is 1930 all over again.
It is difficult to imagine what the dems really have in mind in excluding Burris. Near as I can figure they are just petrified by the fact conservatives might be laughing at them. Well they console themselves with the fact that they probably have the easiest path to re-election (at least in 2010) in a century. All they have to do for the next two years is keep the DOW over 6000, unemployment under 10% and the deficit over a trillion dollars.
I must say I’m starting to LIKE Roland Burris. The guy has real moxie. If Reid and campany thought they’d be able to intimidate him, they’ve been proved wrong.
Interestingly, his conduct and the attendant publicity has probably made him a better candidate for 2010 — head and shoulders above some other Illinois Dems, even with the taint of appointment by Blago.
I’ve been commenting on this “Blagojemess” frequently on my blog:
http://thepurplecenter.blogspot.com/
Honestly the Burris matter, well…. like the Warren matter, is of minimal interest to anyone outside the beltway and political blogging bubble. Burris is a little hack who was chosen by Blagovitch because he could be relied on to play the race card and take the spotlight off himself for a awhile. Clearly Reid is playing for time until Blago is impeached or indicted. Burt none of it matters much outside the media and political junkies. Ultimately I suspect Burris will withdraw because he’s going to get a lot of heat. Get excited by Burris Ms Rubin, it’s all totally meaningless in terms of political importance and power.
Mr. Reid must be worrying about 2010 already. The Democrats have got the Rangel, Kennedy, Franken, CIA and other problems brewing making them look bad already and Obama has not even been sworn in as yet.
I thought Burris was well qualified to be the Senator to serve out Obama’s seat and then see if the people elect him in 2010.
I don’t agree, John (“the Burris matter… is of minimal interest to anyone”)… It is being discussed at my office and home; everybody is talking about it. Why? It proves how duplicitous (fork-tounged) the Dems are. Blago, like him or hate him, is STILL the governor of Illinois, and will be so until legal action is taken to remove him as such. And Burris isn’t getting the heat you’d think–the person getting the real heat is Reid (what a waste of a human THAT man is–and he used to be my senator from Nevada until I got smart and moved to another state). He looks as stupid as when he stated the Iraq war was lost. Unfathomably stupid.
So dream on if you think this is of little or no consequence–it displays in a grand staged way what an idiot you have as leader of the Dems in the senate. And to think that Obama agrees with it all is a disgusting way to start an administration. There will be so many of these embarassing displays of incompetence that the Dems will be the laughing stock of the nation by the next election.
This is the Party that is going to save us all? Depressing…
Reid collapsed like a house of cards. House. Of. Cards.
What a numbnuts.
“. . .and a demonstration that Democrats do indeed respect the law,. . .” Huh??? F
Bush is the cause of all this mess. Blagovich is only doing what Bush taugh him to do, which is to accept bribes, take care of cronies, then hide behind blacks when in trouble. I have no idea why Cheney is being covered for. Cheney is the President of the Senate and it is his final decision to exclude the African-American. As usual though, the media covers for Bush and his henchmen and pins everything on Democrats.
Vinnie Boombots,
Dude, all Dick Cheney does it break ties. Trying to blame this on Cheney is an INCREDIBLE stretch. Bush and bribes? Please, be specific. Hide behind blacks? Who are you referring to? Condi Rice? Clarence Thomas? Did Bush somehow or other throw Condi Rice under a bus, or use her as some sort of scapegoat? Or are African Americans denied the right to be pro war? Whenever an African American supports the war, it could NEVER be out of sincere conviction-is that your point?
Vinnie Boombots,
“The ‘media’ covers for Bush and his henchmen and pins everything on Democrats.” Well, Jane Hamsher, of Firedoglake, definately a left of center blog, is calling Harry Reid pretty much a damn fool. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, give me an example of “the media” covering for Bush and blaming the media. When I think of “the media”, the New York Times and CNN come to mind. Who did you have in mind? Fox News? Commentary?
I was never aware of any mentor/protege relationship between Bush and Blago-am I missing something here? I wish the incoming Obama administration well, but if there are any possible mentor-protege relationships here, don’t you think Obama-Blago, or Blago-Obama would be a more plausible mentor-protege relationship?
Vinnie,
Oh, yeah, I forgot. Condi Rice VOTED for Obama. She made a special point of expressing some personal feelings about an African American being elected President, and how that made her proud to be a spokesperson for America. Sounds like a real lap dog Aunt Jamima tool to me! NOT!
Searchlight Nevada, Hometown of Harry Reid has long been the desired spot to insert the nozzle should One wish to give the World an Enema.
Is there a relationship between Environment and Intelligence?
“It proves how duplicitous (fork-tounged) the Dems are.”
RockySpoon, how much proof do you need? At some point, one accepts the obvious as fact and moves on. That’s why so many of us find this un-interesting.
Reid got played, pimped, and now he is Blago’s punk. what a joke.