As Alana noted yesterday, the extent of Palestinian concessions during peace talks, once made public, has seriously damaged PA leaders — and the State Department has weighed, noting that things are now going to be even harder than they were already.
The immediate fallout from the leaks should raise a number of important questions for the Guardian, but judging by the way it is spinning the story, it is hard to believe introspection is coming.
First, the Guardian appears shocked and angered by the extent of Palestinian concessions on settlements and yet blames Israel for the subsequent impasse on account of … settlements!
As Noah pointed out, if the main cause for lack of progress in the past 24 months was Palestinian insistence on an Israeli settlement freeze, one that included Jerusalem, as a precondition for talks — and this, thanks to U.S. backing — the papers reveal that it was merely a cynical pretext for the Palestinians’ not resuming talks once Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu took power. Otherwise, why make a sacred cow of something they had already conceded before? The answer may be that the Palestinians neither accepted nor rejected the Olmert offer but, rather, regarded it as still on the table, allowing them time to see if Olmert was going to survive politically. With Olmert (and Livni) out and Obama in, then, the Palestinians may have concluded that a better deal could be had with a more sympathetic U.S. administration in place. This is consistent with Palestinian behavior historically and a tried-and-tested recipe for disaster for their aspirations.
In his Guardian op-ed on the leaks, Jonathan Freedland wrote that:
Surely international opinion will see concrete proof of how far the Palestinians have been willing to go, ready to move up to and beyond their “red lines,” conceding ground that would once have been unthinkable — none more so than on Jerusalem. In the blame game that has long attended Middle East diplomacy, this could see a shift in the Palestinians’ favour. The effect of these papers on Israel will be the reverse.
What Freedland is telling us is not what might happen but rather what he ardently wishes would happen. He may be right, of course — but it is not like Israel was basking in the light of international favor before the leaks!
So in effect, the Guardian is saying, Thank heaven Israel will be forced to give back what the Palestinians conceded — that will surely lead to a more equitable result! (Though the Guardian also concedes that the chances for a deal are now dead in the water, thanks to their leak!)
Second, the fallout caused by the Guardian leak is that, in the short term, Palestinian negotiators will have to heed the calls of the street and be much less amenable to compromise than was demonstrated in the leaked papers. Why is it that private virtue and public vice deserve praise?
Again: in the established tradition of Arab leadership, privately held views can never be aired in public, because the public cannot take the truth. This is what the leaks show: Palestinian leaders — much like their Arab counterparts and their Palestinian predecessors — are prisoners of their own past lies and public rhetoric. What they might have agreed to in private has exploded in their faces once made public.
How then can one expect these talks to have ever come to fruition? Surely had the Palestinians and the Israelis signed such a deal, the reaction would have been the same — a rejection of the deal and the questioning the PA leadership’s legitimacy, as the Guardian has indeed done on Sunday.
The Guardian has then chosen to leak the papers with a goal – to discredit Israel and the Palestinian leadership at the same time, to peddle its own rejectionist agenda. And what exactly is this agenda? Today’s commentary on the leaks, titled, tellingly, “Papers reveal how Palestinian leaders gave up fight over refugees” by Seumus Milne and Ian Black, is worth quoting:
The documents have already become the focus of controversy among Israelis and Palestinians, revealing the scale of official Palestinian concessions rejected by Israel, but also throwing light on the huge imbalance of power in a peace process widely seen to have run into the sand.
Milne is an anti-imperialist firebrand, who has applauded “the resistance” against the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, trivialized the scale of Stalinist atrocities, repeatedly shilled for Hamas, and staunchly defended unrealistic Palestinian claims on refugees. In short, he’d be probably kicked out of the Nation for being too left-wing; but at the Guardian, he is the mainstream.
To him, the leaks are a wonderful opportunity to berate what appear to be much-needed Palestinian concessions for a viable agreement as a surrender to Israel and a betrayal of Palestinian rights.
The Guardian hates the revelations in these papers not because they supposedly show that Palestinian leaders were ready to make the necessary concessions for peace and that Israel was intransigent, but because it hates the fact that Palestinians must make any concessions if peace is ever to be achieved. That is why the real story behind the leaks is not the papers themselves but the Guardian’s agenda for leaking them.
The sanctimony of its articles since last weekend shows a contempt for the kinds of concessions that everyone knows are the necessary preconditions for a deal. Milne is flummoxed by the fact that the Palestinians would renounce the refugees’ claim to a right of return; his colleagues are fuming because Israeli settlements would be allowed to survive under Israeli sovereignty; the lead editorial on Sunday decried Hamas’s exclusion from negotiations; and they lament “the huge imbalance of power” between Israel and the Palestinians — something they wish would change in favor of the Palestinians so that it would be Israel, not the PA, that would have to concede.
The peace process may have been moribund, but surely, after this weekend’s leak, it is dead. The Guardian has just given it the coup de grace and is now busy taking credit for it.
I pray for the day when the UN implodes on itself. There is no body more worthless than that organization and it’s a shame that it is taking up prime real estate (and will be getting new digs) in NY.
I also look forward to the day when all countries start to publicly declare that they will act in their respective countries’ interests and won’t give a hoot about international opinion. Oh wait, there are countries that do that now – too bad none of them are Western or Western-based democratic societies.
“For the first time in more than a century, the world’s financial architecture and its geopolitical structure are falling apart at the same time.”
————–
Really? How about the 1930s? Worldwide depression, the assumption of power by Hitler in Germany, Japan’s incursion into Manchuria, Italy’s visit to Ethiopia, Germany’s annexation of Austria, the Sudentenland, the rest of Czechsolovakia , Memel, and the biggie, Poland.
Gordon-the-crepe-hanger is at it again — “the world’s financial architecture and its geopolitical structure are falling apart.” Hardly. There is more trade with lower tariffs than at any other time in human history. Tax rates worldwide are at an all time low also. And more people are leading lives of material comfort than ever before. Finally, more people are free from tyranny than ever before. The examples of the endangered geopolitical structure is Putin’s invasion of a neighbor and the chronic cases of Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Somalia. Historically speaking this is very small stuff.
The biggest threat to world security and public law, however, goes unmentioned. It is radical Islam, in all its many unpretty aspects.
Chris Bolts Sr., you wrote: “Oh wait, there are countries that do that now – too bad none of them are Western or Western-based democratic societies.” Exactly! We need to learn how to speak about our values.
Inagua, you ask about the 1930s, and that is a great question. There wasn’t that much change in the structure of the international system in the late 1920s and early 1930s when the global economy fell apart. When the changes in the structure of the geopolitical system occurred at the end of the decade, the global economy had hit bottom long before.
Analysts think next year will see the first drop in world trade in decades. And yes, we have just passed through one of the most vibrant economic periods, but now it is all downhill for at least a few years, perhaps longer. More important, global financial rules could change. As for the American-led international system, that is disappearing as we move to a multipolar one.
By the way, radical Islam is not the world’s biggest threat. That honor belongs to the large authoritarian states, which can really cause damage. Terrorists without nukes can kill people, but they cannot change the international system. Only large states can do that. Unfortunately, some of them are trying their best to accomplish that at this moment.
#4, Gordon Chang: “Terrorists without nukes can kill people, but they cannot change the international system. Only large states can do that.”
(1)Why assume that terrorists will continue to be without nukes?
Nukes of some nature could be bought.
Nukes for terrorist use might be delivered by truck, might be detonated by
a suicide volunteer. That simplifies technical issues – what would not be
a weaponized nuke in the hands of a state might be so in terrorist hands.
(2)Terrorists with bioweapons are no less capable of changing the world
than terrorists with nukes.
(3)Do you include radiation weapons with nukes? It is extremely easy to
acquire radioactive materials; mixing them with explosives presents no
technical difficulty.
This seems the closest threat. I don’t understand why they haven’t done it yet;
my guess is the Bush team has kept them preemptively busy and has kept itself
preemptively informed. If so, the world is greatly in the Bush administration’s
debt – but how long will this preemption keep succeeding?
(4) As for “large states”, they are all pygmies, in terms of military
budgets or military technology, compared to the USA.
They can be military rivals to us if they employ
asymmetrical warfare –
- but that returns one to the issue of terrorism…
Gordon,
I see your point that the Depression preceded the geopolitical realignment, but I think Manchuria in 1931, Hitler in 1933, and Ethiopia in 1935, and maybe even the Spanish Civil War in 1936 qualify as depression-concurrent geopolitical realignments.
I also grant that everything is going downhill at the moment, but I do not share your opinion that the decline will last for “at least a few years,” at least not here in America. Admittedly, this is just my usual optimism, based on nothing more than my faith in free markets and free men.
The international system will remain American-led for a long time. Militarily it is almost beyond question. We own a very substantial majority of all advanced military equipment in the world — missiles, aircraft carriers, stealth aircraft, etc. Economically, it is very hard to see any country achieving multipolar status soon. China, the economic threat du jour has an economy less than a third the size of ours; the entire EU is also smaller; and india lags very far behind that. I am sure that prosperity will someday come to most nations, but probably not fast enough to creat a multipolar world in the next few decades.
I take your point about the threat of large authoritarian states. It was my unstated premise that the only such state that posed a serious threat today was Iran, which I subsumed in my threat from radical Islam. Perhaps I am being naive, but I have other states like China marked down as ambitious, but rational, like the old Soviet Union. That leaves Pakistan, and we should simply offer to buy their nukes, as Bret Stephens of the WSJ suggested the other day.
Your posts are always a pleasure to read.
first-hand opinion, if terrorists get nukes, they will get them from states. Think of them as delivery boys. The same is true for chemical and biological weapons. I suspect that terrorists can make and deliver “dirty” bombs by themselves, but these are far less deadly.
Yes, the Bush administration does deserve credit for keeping us safe after 9/11. It deserves a measure of responsbility for the terrible events of that day, however. Rice was dismissive of terrorists from the get-go, and Cheney ignored the Rudman Commission report when he had a chance to begin implementing its important recommendations.
Personally, Gordon, what would your rankings be for the top ten international issues that need to be solved in 2009?
Inagua, I understand your points about the 1930s. The closeness of events during that decade is, of course, a matter of interpretation. Thanks for making the case contrary to mine.
I agree we will be the first out of the economic downturn due to our amazing ability to adjust and bounce back. Nonetheless, I don’t see recovery for some time, largely because Asia will go into the tank soon and act as a weight on the rest of the world.
When we come out of this, I believe we will be stronger in relative terms than we are today. Yet today, we are not succeeding at too much. Therefore, I think we are, at this moment, passing from an American-led system to a multipolar one.
China and Russia may not be driven by ideology, but together this pair poses a special threat because they are undermining the international system at a critical time. So, the effect of their acts may be much greater than they intend. Their support of Iran, for example, could end up creating the most horrible of consequences.
I appreciate the time you spend on responding to this posting.
Andrew, interesting question. I would start with Iran, North Korea, and Syria as the most urgent. Yet these are really Russia and China issues.
Stablizing Pakistan is critical. This is a China issue, of course.
Next would be protecting Georgia and Ukraine, and these would be closely followed by bolstering Taiwan.
I’d like to see the United States do something about energy because high prices power the authoritarian states other than China.
If we get these right, terrorists would be isolated, and we could pick them off easily.
What are your top issues?
My first top issue, like yours, would be Iran. Preventing it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
However, then would be Afghanistan and Pakistan. Considering by all means we’re supposedly losing there, we cannot let 1) terrorists take control of those areas and 2) let terrorists enjoy a victory, guarenteeing more support.
North Korea is lower on my list however. I feel the geopolitical advantage of China when it comes to North Korea will prevent us from making serious gains in North Korea in the future. Like you said, a China issue.
As for protecting the smaller democratic states of Georgia, Ukraine and Taiwan, well, I’m hesitant to predict we’re going to have another invasion of one of them. If we solve the Iranian problem by invasion under an Obama administration, do you think our Russian and Chinese friends will still be clawing for the chance for their own personal conquests?
Andrew, thanks for your thoughts.
Solving North Korea is almost like solving Iran. The Iranians take their cues from what happens to their friends in Pyongyang. Defanging Syria sends a powerful message to Tehran.
You write: “If we solve the Iranian problem by invasion under an Obama administration, do you think our Russian and Chinese friends will still be clawing for the chance for their own personal conquests?” No. I worry about these democracies being subverted, though.
Does President Bush realize just how incoherent, foreign pollcy wise, his 8 years in office has been?
Badly spooked by the first few awful years in Iraq, a disaster he could have avoided, he threw foreign policy back into the hands of the Scowcroft and Baker clones.
Well, now we have a president who will happy to do no more than talk and summit meet his way around the world for the next 4 years. More than ever, advocates of a strong, assertive U.S. need to come together- Republican and Democrat. There are, I think, more Democrats in the House who take a jaundiced view of Iran, Russia, China, etc. than we normally think. But I am worried. All the misrepresentation of Bush’s first 4 years added to the currency of such flimsy terms as the “international community” has led so many Americans that believe that diplomacy can work with the most belligerent and depraved regimes out there.
Stuart Rose, I agree. And, like you, I am worried by the diplomacy crowd. Diplomacy with hardline states works when they know they’re defeated. Why do we forget this critical lesson?