xenia
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2010
- Messages
- 785
- Reaction score
- 0
Peace now?
Is now the time for the Obama administration to propose a Middle East peace plan?
Apr 30th 2010 | From The Economist online
In a leader this week, we called on Barack Obama to present a detailed plan for peace in the Middle East. Indirect talks between the Israelis and Palestinians look set to resume after more than a year of deadlock. But without a push from America, will they get anywhere?
A rash of Middle East experts in America who have long called for a two-state solution have been telling Mr Obama not to get involvednot yet, anyway. In an article entitled The False Religion of Mideast Peace in Foreign Policy, Aaron Miller, who has served as an adviser to both Democratic and Republican secretaries of state, writes that America needs to be aware as much of what it cannot do as of what it can. He argues that those who believe in Americas power to help bring peace to the region need to re-examine their faith, especially at a moment when America is so stretched and overextended. Without big changes elsewhere, he maintains that it's going to be tough to re-create the good old days when bold and heroic Arab and Israeli leaders strode the stage of history, together with Americans, willing and able to do serious peacemaking. Mr Miller believes that there are other, bigger problems, such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, that Mr Obama should concentrate on solving.
Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank, is similarly pessimistic. In the Wall Street Journal he argues that announcing a peace plan now, one that is almost certain to fail, would be a mistake. Mr Haass acknowledges the value of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. It would, he writes, constitute a major foreign-policy accomplishment for the United States. It would help ensure Israel's survival as a democratic, secure, prosperous, Jewish state. It would reduce Palestinian and Arab alienation, a source of anti-Americanism and radicalism. And it would dilute the appeal of Iran and its clients. But he also thinks it is possible to overstate the importance of the conflict. He also maintains that the time is not ripe for a big diplomatic push. The will and ability to compromise are missing on both sides and, he maintains, failure risks discrediting good ideas, breeding frustration in the Arab world, and diluting America's reputation for getting things done.
In contrast, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser to Jimmy Carter, and Stephen Solarz, a former congressman from New York, are more optimistic. In the Washington Post, they too encourage Mr Obama to come up with a bold plan for peace in the Middle East, pointing out that a comprehensive peace agreement is in the interest of all parties. But they also stress that a routine unveiling of a U.S. peace proposal, as is reportedly under consideration, will not suffice. Only a bold and dramatic gesture in a historically significant setting can generate the political and psychological momentum needed for a major breakthrough. They argue that Mr Obama must act now: It is time, though almost too late, for all partiesIsraelis, Palestinians, Americansto make a historic decision to turn the two-state solution into a two-state reality. But for that to happen, Obama must pursue a far-sighted strategy with historic audacity.
Is the time right for Mr Obama to weigh in? Or does he risk doing more harm than good? Please join the debate below.
Is now the time for the Obama administration to propose a Middle East peace plan?
Apr 30th 2010 | From The Economist online
In a leader this week, we called on Barack Obama to present a detailed plan for peace in the Middle East. Indirect talks between the Israelis and Palestinians look set to resume after more than a year of deadlock. But without a push from America, will they get anywhere?
A rash of Middle East experts in America who have long called for a two-state solution have been telling Mr Obama not to get involvednot yet, anyway. In an article entitled The False Religion of Mideast Peace in Foreign Policy, Aaron Miller, who has served as an adviser to both Democratic and Republican secretaries of state, writes that America needs to be aware as much of what it cannot do as of what it can. He argues that those who believe in Americas power to help bring peace to the region need to re-examine their faith, especially at a moment when America is so stretched and overextended. Without big changes elsewhere, he maintains that it's going to be tough to re-create the good old days when bold and heroic Arab and Israeli leaders strode the stage of history, together with Americans, willing and able to do serious peacemaking. Mr Miller believes that there are other, bigger problems, such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, that Mr Obama should concentrate on solving.
Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank, is similarly pessimistic. In the Wall Street Journal he argues that announcing a peace plan now, one that is almost certain to fail, would be a mistake. Mr Haass acknowledges the value of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. It would, he writes, constitute a major foreign-policy accomplishment for the United States. It would help ensure Israel's survival as a democratic, secure, prosperous, Jewish state. It would reduce Palestinian and Arab alienation, a source of anti-Americanism and radicalism. And it would dilute the appeal of Iran and its clients. But he also thinks it is possible to overstate the importance of the conflict. He also maintains that the time is not ripe for a big diplomatic push. The will and ability to compromise are missing on both sides and, he maintains, failure risks discrediting good ideas, breeding frustration in the Arab world, and diluting America's reputation for getting things done.
In contrast, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser to Jimmy Carter, and Stephen Solarz, a former congressman from New York, are more optimistic. In the Washington Post, they too encourage Mr Obama to come up with a bold plan for peace in the Middle East, pointing out that a comprehensive peace agreement is in the interest of all parties. But they also stress that a routine unveiling of a U.S. peace proposal, as is reportedly under consideration, will not suffice. Only a bold and dramatic gesture in a historically significant setting can generate the political and psychological momentum needed for a major breakthrough. They argue that Mr Obama must act now: It is time, though almost too late, for all partiesIsraelis, Palestinians, Americansto make a historic decision to turn the two-state solution into a two-state reality. But for that to happen, Obama must pursue a far-sighted strategy with historic audacity.
Is the time right for Mr Obama to weigh in? Or does he risk doing more harm than good? Please join the debate below.
