So It Goes

Another View on Misguided Diplomacy

BEYOND MANY OF THE EDITORIAL PAGES OF MAJOR WESTERN NEWSPAPERS, most of the public criticism of former President Jimmy Carter's meetings this past week with Hamas leadership came from largely from Israelis and most of Israel's Jewish supporters around the world. That's not to say that the criticism was any less valid. But I worry that, when Israelis and the Jews are once again fighting a battle like this on their own, many others around the world tend to discount their views as the same old intransigence.

So rather than rehearse many of the same arguments that other Jewish supporters for Israel are making about President Carter's misguided diplomacy, I thought it would be refreshing to look at a different source and see what his views are on the subject. In this case, I've chosen someone who has been in a good position to evaluate the role of violent extremism among Arab groups in the Middle East, someone who is not motivated necessarily by his embrace of Israel.

I'm referring to Farid Ghadry, a Syrian-born businessman who now lives in the United States and who founded and currently heads a group called the Reform Party of Syria.

RPS describes itself as a "Syrian opposition party to the Assad regime that has emerged as a result of September 11.  The party is governed by secular, peace committed American-Syrians, Euro-Syrians, and native Syrians who are determined to see that a 'New Syria' is reborn that embraces real democratic and economic reforms." And, with his frequent and vigorous speeches, testimonies in Congress, regular blog entries and various other public utterances, Ghadry provides anyone who will listen regular reminders to pay attention to the misdeeds of the Assad regime and to the courageous efforts of those who oppose it.

With that in mind and knowing of his longtime criticism of extremists (particularly those with strong ties to Assad), it's not entirely surprising that Ghadry would be critical of President Carter's meetings with Hamas. But, as with Jewish and Israeli responses to President Carter's meeting, Ghadry's  perspective still gives his arguments as much power as any.

In a blog posting yesterday, Ghadry wrote:

The direct and indirect effect of President Jimmy Carter's visit to Gaza, Egypt, and Damascus to meet with members of Hamas sends chills down the spine of every Arab and Muslim working for reforms in the Middle East because it legitimizes terror and violence and dilutes all the efforts that peaceful Arab reformers have committed themselves to. One such reformer told me: "Why are we working so hard for peace if the Americans prefer to deal with terror?.'" I could not utter but words of encouragement knowing deep inside that he is right.

He goes on:

Under the auspices of “seeking peace”, President Carter is reversing years of hard work by many Palestinians and Israelis who see the road to co-existence paved by true peaceful acts. For President Carter to meet with individuals with blood on their hands not only legitimizes terror but it also encourages it in two ways: It sends the signal to Hamas that its violence pays off but also inspires those who vacillate between violence and peace to surrender to violence.

Ghadry's most valuable message, then, is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, despite that terminology, not strictly between Israelis and Palestinians. Rather, it is between the forces of moderation and the forces of extremism on both sides of the conflict. My belief (and more knowledgeable people than I would probably agree) is that there are a large number of Israelis and Arabs, who if they had their way, could pretty quickly come close to resolving many of the issues that have divided them for so many years. The main obstacle, however, are those who see any such co-existence and cooperation between the two peoples as a threat and who will do anything to derail peace.

Ghadry is not saying (nor am I) that the forces of good should do nothing at all to deal with groups like Hamas and extremist regimes like Iran and Syria. As he writes:

Part of the blame for Carter’s trip falls on this administration as well. The policy of “no policy” towards Syria and Iran has fostered this sense of mid-air suspension that inevitably encourages people like president Carter to apply the laws of physics. Had the US foreign policy been more forceful than simply attempt to isolate Hamas and Syria, the US may had seen faster pace to peace than what the molasses isolationist policy can deliver.

I'm not completely sure what Ghadry means when he says "more forceful." I hope he means it in the diplomatic sense and not through military action against these groups. That's my preference, and one only needs to look at the mess in Iraq to understand why.

But we need diplomacy that's more careful and evenhanded than what President Carter, who has vilely compared Israel to the South African Apartheid governments of years past, has to offer. Ghadry's right that someone with the stature of Jimmy Carter -- a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and tireless advocate for peace and human rights -- frustrates the careful (and probably not-so-careful) efforts of those on both sides of the Israeli-Arab divide who are trying to solve this problem of extremism. It allows the good guys to look like the obstructionists to peace and the bad guys look like great statesmen willing to compromise without really having to compromise.

If you have any doubt that Hamas really doesn't want to compromise, by the way, just read what Mahmoud al-Zahar, Hamas's "foreign minister," wrote in an Op-Ed in the Washington Post three days ago:

A "peace process" with Palestinians cannot take even its first tiny step until Israel first withdraws to the borders of 1967; dismantles all settlements; removes all soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank; repudiates its illegal annexation of Jerusalem; releases all prisoners; and ends its blockade of our international borders, our coastline and our airspace permanently. This would provide the starting point for just negotiations and would lay the groundwork for the return of millions of refugees. Given what we have lost, it is the only basis by which we can start to be whole again.

This is not compromise, especially when you know that Hamas has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. Rather, it is like one boxer telling another to tie his hands behind his back so the first boxer can finish the other off -- with knives and bullets.

And these are the guys to whom President Carter decides to lend his prestige? Does President Carter have any prestige left to give?

Jeff

Dealing with Iran

I'M GUESSING IT WAS MOSTLY COINCIDENCE that David Ignatius and Charles Krauthammer’s columns addressing how the U.S. and the West should deal with the ominous threat of Iran appeared on the same Washington Op-Ed page on Friday, September 15. They presented a shorthand of the two primary arguments in a debate about a difficult issue. My own preference –- and hope –- is for the way outlined in Ignatius’s column.

Ignatius, who has reported extensively across the Middle East, including Iran, from which he had just returned from a long visit, based his column on an interview earlier in the week with President Bush. The interview showed that, even when pressed, the President eschewed a military resolution to the Iranian nuclear threat, though he endorsed some of the carrot-and-stick solutions (such as processing plutonium outside Iran) that have been recommended to keep Iran from using nuclear technology to threaten others.

“I came away with a sense that Bush is serious about finding a peaceful solution to the nuclear crisis, and that he is looking hard for ways to make connections between America and Iran,” Ignatius wrote.

Ignatius also asked Bush why he approved the controversial 12-day tour to the United States by former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami.

“The Khatami visit ‘said that the United States is willing to listen to voices,’ Bush explained. ‘And I hope that sends a message to the Iranian people that we're an open society, and that we respect the people of Iran.’ Clearly, the White House wants to reach out to segments of Iranian opinion beyond the hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“I asked Bush what next steps he would favor in opening dialogue with Iran. ‘I would like to see more cultural exchanges,’ he said. ‘I would like to see university exchanges. I would like to see more people-to-people exchanges.’"

Compared to the inflexible, get-tough tone we heard in the run up to the military attack on Iraq in March 2003, it’s an understatement to say this signals a conversion for this administration. As I wrote in an earlier posting, what a difference a war makes. And it’s a welcome change, as far as I’m concerned, not to lead with the tip of a sword. But that’s not to say a military option would never be necessary. It just seems to be an unimaginable option to exercise, especially given what it has wrought on Iran’s Western border. 

Indeed, in his column, Krauthammer doesn’t dismiss that the costs of military strike to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat would be pretty horrendous. Iran’s military proxies (terrorists) will be deployed to do their dirty business all over the world against Western targets. Oil prices, he says, could go up to $150 a barrel. If the U.S. were to carry out the strike, it will take an enormous diplomatic hit even from its allies in the West and certainly from the Muslim world.

“These are the costs. There is no denying them. However, equally undeniable is the cost of doing nothing…. Every city in the civilized world will live under the specter of instant annihilation delivered either by missile or by terrorist. This from a country that has an official Death to America Day and has declared since Ayatollah Khomeini's ascension that Israel must be wiped off the map…. Is the West prepared to wager its cities with their millions of inhabitants on that feeble gamble? These are the questions. These are the calculations. The decision is no more than a year away.”

I’ll leave it up to the arms and Iran experts to argue with Krauthammer about the whether the threat is “no more than a year away,” but I will not discount that it is serious.

But I think Krauthammer presents a false choice. Choosing not to bomb the Iran – even if you could figure where is the most effective place to bomb (he can’t be talking about a ground invasion, can he?) isn’t “doing nothing.” I’m not sure our current administration has the diplomatic capital right now to build the kind of trust and good will that President Bush seems to be referring to in his interview with Ignatius. But isn’t that – combined with some other incentives and penalties through the international community – doing something?

Yes, if intelligence tells us that the clock is ticking, that missiles are about to be launched, then the calculus may be different. (Or if, as was the case this summer with Hezbollah, an actual provocation occurs, some action should be taken.)

I realize that ‘building bridges of understanding’ can sound soft and mushy, and to those who just want to kill the rest of us, that sort of stuff means nothing. But we’ve learned that we can’t eliminate that small group of extremists without building alliances with the great majority of the rest who would like, just like us, to put the extremists out of business. I know, I know, we’ve been talking for years about working with the moderates in Iran and in other places, and look what it’s gotten us.

We should be ready with a military option but it should be only remotely deployed. Something tells me that dropping a few bombs to erase the threat, even if it could hit the right targets (a big if), could actually make the threat lot bigger and more terrifying than it is now.

Jeff