The Light of Day Shines Even Behind the Scenes

While it feels like a long time, it was only two days ago that I suggested America not take the front and centre lead in trying to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Responses to the idea have been varied. Chris Dierkes found the proposal “intriguing”, E.D. Kain felt I was “on the wrong track”, and Max Socol thinks I’m dreaming in paleo techni-colour. Let me, then, address each point and try to flesh out why I made the suggestion and what benefits I see accruing to such a decision.

I’ll start with Chris, his assessment was, after all, the most complimentary (playfulness intended). Chris suggests that getting directly involved in the process is a finger trap of sorts, another quagmire that has no obvious solutions and where tensions are running high enough to make real discussion about solutions next to impossible. On these grounds Chris has a hard time seeing, “where Obama goes after doing whatever he can to make sure the ceasefire sticks for now”.

This is certainly part of what drove my suggestion. America is in an interesting place right now, part beleaguered from eight years of shoddy leadership (depending on who you ask, of course) that funneled it into what is perhaps an un-winnable war and an economic meltdown that has been snowballing under most noses for years, if not decades; part renewed protagonist shot through with the righteous belief of redemption. I don’t begrudge many Americans the joy of Obama’s election and I don’t think that election is insignificant, but the realities pressing in on the stability of the country are incredibly real and will take up no small amount of time, attention, and effort to overcome.

In short, the last thing America needs to do is get itself caught in Chris’ identified finger trap. In fact, let me suggest that doing so isn’t just a poor decision for America, it’s a poor decision for the world.

Despite my push towards realizing multipolarity on the geo-political scene, I also noted that there is no world in which American isn’t an influential player in geo-political issues. America still has a key role to play in the way that the world works, but it is, I and the authours I noted would suggest, one role among many. But for that role to be beneficial, the world needs a healthy and robust America, which is certainly no the current case.

Obama doesn’t really have a choice in whether he chooses to address the pressing economic (and in many regards I would add social) challenges facing the country, but he has a choice about how much of his and the country’s time is taken up with those challenges. I’m of the opinion that most, if not all, of his and the country’s time should be spent recovering, so as to ensure that future participation geo-politics is anything but a distraction.

I’d quibble with Max Socol about that being a reflexive paleo tick on my part. I’m not suggesting that America has no role to play overseas, I’m suggesting that it is best able to play that role (a role that I think is different from the traditionally envisioned role) when its standing on two feet.

Chris goes one to suggest that,

It could be argued, however, that any non-involvement from the beginning on the part of Obama will be taken as a sign of the continuation of the Bush policy in the region.  Bush came into office and did nothing with the region, basically signalling to the Israelis that they could have a pretty much free hand in the region.

While it might sound like I’m arguing for non-involvement, that is in fact not the case. What I’m arguing for is different involvement and, admittedly, lessened involvement. Note that I acknowledged that America has a key role to play in peace negotiations vis-a-vis its relationship with Israel, it is that relationship that I think should inform the scope and  direction of their role. My basic point is that there are, in my estimation, better players on the field to play the traditional arbiter/negotiator role that America has played in this conflict and that America would do well to let those players take the lead. Where America can continjue to play a role, while focusing on pulling itself up by its domestic bootstraps, is precisely how Freddie has suggested it ought to — provide advice and in some cases tough love to Israel throughout that negotiation process. No other country is quite in the position that America is to do so and so it is vital to the success of such negotiations that America play that role to the best of its ability, but I would suggest nothing more.

To answer why nothing more I am now compelled to turn to E.D.’s arguments. E.D. writes,

Just as the Bush administrations refusal to ever deal with so-called enemies, or their stubborness in pushing for democratic elections in Palestine and then refusing to acknowledge the not-so-surprising results, has led to a one-sided and ultimately unhelpful handling of the conflict, I think a “behind the scenes” America would only lead to questions, suspicion, and ultimately illegitimacy in the process.

I think the hang up here is on my use of the term “behind the scenes”. That description of America’s involvement may summon images of smokey backroom deals to screw the Palestinian peple over. This is not at all what I intended, as probably seems somewhat clear from what I’ve written above. I agree with E.D. that all of the negotiations in such process need to be as open and transparent as possible, and I would suggest that they be so. But my thinking is that America should consider not being the front and centre player in those negotiations and instead voice its support for whomever is taking the lead (Sarkozy, in all likelihood?) and focus on counselling Israel about how best to navigate those negotiations.

A little earlier, E.D. notes that,

Indeed, in every significant move toward peace America has had at least a hand in the matter.  Carter, for all his flaws as President, at least played a part in brokering Israel’s peace with Egypt.  Massive aid packages to Egypt and Jordan from the United States have been instrumental in securing a lasting peace between Israel and those nations.  Always this balanced approach, with America naturally more amicable with Israel than with her neighbors or the Palestinians, but still acting as a broker, as a go-between for the various parties, has worked the best.

Yes, I agree. Along every step of the way, America has been a key player in nudging negotiations forward. But the America of Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Clinton is not the America of today. I don’t think it is overstated to say that the last eight years has squandered an almost unimaginable amount of America’s soft power and global reputation. Granted, America may remain in excellent stead with Israel itself, plus a handful of other countries, but let us not forget that anti-Americanism is at an all-time high, especially in the Arab world. I may also grant that many have heralded the election of Barack Obama as a huge step forward, but to think that general suspicion and resentment about American motives has been wiped away by that single event is, dare I say, naive in the extreme. Besides, Obama’s speech to AIPAC has placed him on the wrong side of trust via-a-via Palestinians generally.

So my point is that, the actions and motives of America will be subject to a goodly amount of questions, suspicions, and perhaps ultimately illegitimacy in the process for much of the world. My suggestion is that the best way to avoid this is to have America use its legitimzing power to stear Israel in a productive direction and underwrite the process and allow the other powers who are both eager to play a larger role on the geo-political scene and in a better position to do so (both domestically and in terms of proximity).

Such a move, in my estimation, is better for the world because it spreads the responsibility of guidance around more and thereby strengthens and legitimizes such activity, as well as actively recognizing the coming multipolarity with which we all have to grips. But I think it is especially helpful to America because stepping back allows our aging superpower to avoid the finger trap that Chris identified while at the same time earning back some goodwill amongst its critics by allowing that it simply isn’t the only game in town. Such a move might seem to be one of weakness, but I would beg to differ. Acknowledging that there are other important players in geo-politics who have important contributions to provide and stepping aside and playing the appropriate role in a major geo-political conflagration will be seen by many as a sign of strength, of wisdom and grace — something the U.S. of A has been in short supply of lately. I would argue that Obama’s global popularity would only increase were he to make this bold move — not non-involvement, but lessened and appropriate involvement.

But that brings us back to Max’s point: that I’m dreaming in techni-colour. With this I can’t argue. As Chris noted, it seems already evident that Obama intends to jump in with both feet and in one our epic skypecasts, Chris and I grappled with what one might do to try to find some kind of acceptable solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and came up with very little in the short term (aside from making a ceasefire stick, as Chris alluded).

So I suppose that one could criticize my contributions as lacking a sufficient mooring to reality, as Max does, and I wouldn’t stand much a chance in arguing that the scenerio I put forward is liekly to come to be. But part of writing about thing like this is to engage in possibilities far and wide that might better inform our overall discourse about a variety of issues. Whether or not I think the above scenerio is likely has little bearing on whether or not I think it’s the best possible option available. Given that that is indeed my belief, I feel compelled to flesh it out for consideration in the hopes that the more people that articulate what is outlined, the more realistic a possibility it becomes.

Related posts...

• Israel, Alone
• Sympathy for the Devil?
• Policy and Dissent

Tags | America, appropriate involvement, hamas, israel, multipolarity, non-involvement, palestine, possibilities