The Palestinians' Crisis of Leadership

[barb162]

The Palestinians' Crisis of Leadership

By Aaron David Miller

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

More than 50 years after its creation, the Palestinian national movement -- in both its secular and Islamic guises -- lacks a coherent strategy and the means to realize Palestinian national aspirations. No matter what the outcome of tomorrow's elections, this will remain the central challenge confronting Palestinians and their politics.

At some point in the history of any national movement, its leaders (and followers) must be judged by their ability to carry out the goals they set for themselves. It is true that these goals can evolve over time, in some cases tailored by circumstances, in a more pragmatic direction. In the 1960s the Palestine Liberation Organization preached the destruction of Israel. In the 1970s it endorsed a secular democratic state for Arabs and Jews. In the 1980s and 1990s, Palestinians shifted -- under pressure, to be sure -- to a two-state solution.


Most Palestinians have grudgingly come to back a Palestinian state alongside Israel, provided it is based on 1967 borders, has its capital in East Jerusalem and offers a resolution to the refugee problem that includes some kind of right of return.

Sadly, however, history has no rewind button, and if such a solution was ever possible, it certainly seems unlikely now. Ariel Sharon had the power to move toward a conflict-ending solution, but he had no incentive to do so -- nor will his successors. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has the incentive but lacks the power. In any case, unilateral action, not bilateral negotiations, seems to rule the day and will probably be the course chosen by Sharon's successor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301256.html
snip

[Englander]

1. In other words, "Blame the Victim".

Good work from Mr Miller here, he does a good job of continuing the myths
& presenting a factually flawed, & one-sided view of the situation. For eg,
the word 'occupation' does not appear in the article, even once.

Here's a much better article from Haaretz;

'The obligation of the occupied
By Amira Hass

The elections taking place today in the Palestinian Authority are fluctuating between two poles: The Israeli occupation and its tremendous involvement in Palestinian lives, and the responsibility that the occupied have for their own lives. The world, led by Israel, loves to forget that the Palestinian parliament and government, despite their respectable name, are not state institutions, and that the PA enclaves are not independent.

The Palestinian parliament and government lack the authority and rights their counterparts have in sovereign states. They have no control over the external and internal borders that Israel draws between the various Palestinian districts, to the point where they are cut off from each other.

Sixty percent of West Bank land, the primary physical resource of the Palestinian people, are under total Israeli control, and no Palestinian government will be able to do with them what sovereign entities do in their territory: sow and plant, build, develop, maintain. Israel controls the water sources in Israel and in effect sets quotas for the Palestinians. Israel's control of the Palestinian population registry and freedom of movement means that it intervenes in personal decisions like family ties, place of residence, work and study. Through its control of the external and internal borders, Israel also determines how the Palestinian economy will look - the rate of unemployment, the salary cap, the types of economic activity, the location of the factories. And that is only a partial list.

>snip

The Palestinian voters know well that the ballot slip they choose today will have no influence, not even for the medium term, on the might of the Israeli occupation. But their concern in the elections expresses the approach that it is impossible to blame the occupation for all societal disease, that there are internal matters that the occupied can influence and for which they are responsible, even within the splint of occupation. These matters range from the level of teaching to the potholes that need fixing, from the weakness of judges and policemen because of clannish loyalties, to landlords' evasion of responsibility to tenants; from weddings of 15-year-old girls to the speed with which PA ministries empty out at 2 P.M.; from the widespread use of connections to the inordinate use of antibiotics.

Israelis must not deceive themselves: The Palestinians have not forgotten the occupation. They want to hope that the new candidates, who are supposed to be attentive to their people, will do better than their predecessors in taking advantage of the narrow maneuvering space that even the occupied have in their struggle for freedom. Days will tell whether the new parliament will indeed be able to find methods of struggle that will succeed where negotiations, rifles, explosive belts and unarmed popular activities have failed.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/674639.html

[bemildred]

2. This is drool.

Yes, I read the whole thing. It was painful, but I did it.
The idea of a fellow named "Aaron David Miller" in WaPo telling
us what "Most Palestinians" have "grudgingly come to back" is
ridiculous.

[barb162]

3. I am curious...is there something wrong with his name

(since you put it in quotes) or with the Washington Post or both or what. Is his resume not suitable for making commentary? From what I have seen of his background, he was for a long time and still is heavily involved on I/P issues.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. Might be that he is American or that he worked for the State Department

or is there something more subtle that I am missing???

Aaron David Miller became President of Seeds of Peace in January 2003.

For the last two decades, he served at the Department of State as an adviser to six Secretaries of State, where he helped formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East and the Arab-Israel peace process, most recently as the Senior Adviser for Arab-Israeli Negotiations. He also served as the Deputy Special Middle East Coordinator for Arab-Israeli negotiations, Senior Member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff, in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research and in the Office of the Historian. He has received the Department's Distinguished, Superior, and Meritorious Honor Awards.

Mr. Miller received his Ph.D. in American Diplomatic and Middle East History from the University of Michigan in 1977 and joined the State Department the following year. During 1982 and 1983, he was a Council on Foreign Relations fellow and a resident scholar at the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 1984 he served a temporary tour at the American Embassy in Amman, Jordan. Between 1998 and 2000, Mr. Miller served on the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. He has written three books on the Middle East and lectured widely at universities and Middle East symposia across the country. His articles have appeared in newspapers including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The International Herald Tribune.

Since becoming President of Seeds of Peace, Aaron Miller has been seen on national and international media outlets speaking about Seeds of Peace and the Arab-Israeli conflict. His recent appearances include CNN (including American Morning, Wolf Blitzer Reports, and Newsnight with Aaron Brown), CNN International, CNN Headline News, Newshour with Jim Lehrer, FOX News, NBC Nightly News, CBS Evening News, National Public Radio, BBC, Canadian Broadcast Network, Al Arabiya, Al-Jazeera and Israeli Radio. Mr. Miller has also been a featured presenter for the World Economic Forum in Davos and Amman, Million Dollar Round Table, Council on Foreign Relations, Center for Strategic International Studies, Harvard University, Columbia University, New York University, University of California at Berkeley, City Club of Cleveland, Chatham House, and the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Mr. Miller works out of the Seeds of Peace office in Washington D.C. and oversees its worldwide staff of forty employees and additional offices in New York and Jerusalem. Seeds of Peace is a non-profit organization dedicated to empowering young leaders from regions of conflict with the leadership skills required to advance reconciliation and coexistence. The organization focuses on the Middle East but has also expanded to include young leaders from South Asia, Cyprus and the Balkans. Its leadership network now encompasses over 2,500 young people from four conflict regions.

And who or what is "Seeds of Peace"? Check out their

and their "About Us" page--

About Seeds of Peace

Founded in 1993, Seeds of Peace is dedicated to empowering young leaders from regions of conflict with the leadership skills required to advance reconciliation and coexistence.

Over the last decade, Seeds of Peace has intensified its impact, dramatically increasing the number of participants, represented nations and programs.

From 46 Israeli, Palestinian and Egyptian teenagers in 1993, the organization still focuses on the Middle East but has expanded its programming to include young leaders from South Asia, Cyprus and the Balkans. Its leadership network now encompasses over 2,500 young people from four conflict regions.

The Seeds of Peace internationally recognized program model begins at the International Camp in Maine and continues through follow-up programming at the Seeds of Peace Center for Coexistence in Jerusalem, international youth conferences, regional workshops, educational and professional opportunities, and an adult educator program. This comprehensive system allows participants to develop empathy, respect, and confidence as well as leadership, communication and negotiation skills -- all critical components that will facilitate peaceful coexistence for the next generation.

Seeds of peace - Middle Eastern Program
Seeds of Peace has focused primarily on bringing Arab and Israeli teenagers together before fear, mistrust and prejudice blind them from seeing the human face of their enemy. Seeds of Peace goes beyond international agreements and treaties. It reverses the legacy of hatred by nurturing lasting friendships that become the basis for mutual understanding and respect. By training these young leaders in conflict resolution skills, Seeds of Peace helps them become the seeds from which an enduring peace will grow.

Each year more than 300 outstanding Egyptian, Israeli, Jordanian, Palestinian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Qatari, Yemeni and other Middle Eastern teenagers are chosen from more than 2,000 applicants to participate in the program. Selected by their respective governments without regard to economic or social background, and based solely on academic performance and leadership ability, these young people are destined to become tomorrow's leaders.

Seeds of Peace: An International Model

Due to its proven impact and success in the Middle East, Seeds of Peace has earned international recognition as an effective model for resolving conflict worldwide.

Due to its success, in 1998, Seeds of Peace started branching out to other conflict regions. Seeds of Peace now hosts a Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot delegation each summer as well as participants from Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, the former Yugoslavia (including Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo) and Romania.

In 2001, Seeds of Peace began its South Asia program with Indian and Pakistani youth and in 2002, Seeds of Peace expanded welcoming an Afghan delegation to the Seeds of Peace International Camp.


Seeds of Peace also runs a domestic program called "Maine Seeds" to address ethnic and racial tensions between the diverse communities that have settled in the camp's home state of Maine. In addition, in 2004, Seeds of Peace launched "Beyond Borders" which brings teens from additional Middle East countries including Iraq, Saudi Arabic, and Kuwait to participate in a cultural exchange program between American and Arab youth.

Since 1993, over 2,500 teens from 25 nations have graduated from Seeds of Peace.

[barb162]

9. Yeah I looked at his impressive background before I posted

the article and I think it is pretty...(repeating)... impressive; PhD and all in diplomacy/Mideast History from a good school, State Dept employment in Arab / Israel matters, etc. If this guy isn't qualified to comment, who is? Oh and thanks for agreeing ( at least that's what I think you are doing).

[Coastie for Truth]

5. Maybe his name isn't Livingstone or Galloway or Blackwell?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

7. Or - maybe it isn't Corrie.

[barb162]

10. I looked at his credentials when I posted and thought they

were outstanding. I don't really care what his name is.

I agree with your post, CB

:hi:

[bemildred]

8. Only that he is clearly not Palestinian.

I usually like to ask people what they think,
as opposed to imputing words and feelings to them.

He also seems fond of dramatic abstractions and
little inclined to bother himself with any scruples
about supporting his airy abstract dramatizations
with any facts or arguments.

It's all declarative, all pulled out of his ass,
and all drool.

Edit: WaPo is a fount of propaganda, especially in
it's OpEd pages, and has been so all of my lifetime.
That doesn't make it any different than any other
news source anywhere else in the World, but I am as
little inclined to take it's opinion pages at face
value and I would, say, Xinhua, Haaretz, Al Ahram
or Der Spiegel.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. Your point is that only a Palestinian or Israeli can opine? NT

[bemildred]

12. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

The question is why ought one to listen?
This fellow spouts a conventional propaganda
line, has no facts, says nothing new, and
says it about a people whom he clearly has
no particular standing to speak for.

To clarify: If he were speaking for the State
Dept. or the US Government or some such thing,
and so stated, I would be more inclined to
listen; when he arrogates to himself the right
to speak for the Palestinians, and spouts the
government line without saying that he is doing
so, he invites being ignored as a propagandist.

[Colorado Blue]

13. What about these comments sounds like propaganda?

First the credentials:

"The writer has been an adviser to six secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli negotiations. He is now a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars."

The thought the writer did sound pretty balanced. He said:

"Ariel Sharon had the power to move toward a conflict-ending solution, but he had no incentive to do so -- nor will his successors. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has the incentive but lacks the power. In any case, unilateral action, not bilateral negotiations, seems to rule the day and will probably be the course chosen by Sharon's successor."

Also, he does not blame Arafat for the failure of Camp David, rather he says:

"Yasser Arafat's real transgression was not his unwillingness to accept what Ehud Barak offered at Camp David (no Palestinian leader could have done that and survived), it was his willingness to allow his monopoly over the forces of violence in Palestinian society to dissipate and to acquiesce in, if not encourage, terrorist attacks by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Hamas."

I think these are interesting and insightful comments.

[bemildred]

14. Well, that's an opinion, my opinion.

Good propaganda does makes an effort to appear "pretty balanced". It is propaganda in that it attempts to assert as facts what are mere opinions, or speculations about the mental processes of leaders, or wished for outcomes. I'm not interested in disputing the matter further, but to address a couple of your questions:

1.) The writer has a good background, I'm rather fond of the Wilson Center, but it is the background of a public policy wonk, writing in one of the state propaganda organs (WaPo). What he says may or may not be interesting, but it is folly to consider it and unbiased view of history, or history in the making. In this case it's not interesting, because it is a re-hash of old talking points, all of which are quite familiar.

2.) A few quotes, taken from your selections, that appear to me to be propagandistic:

"Ariel Sharon had the power to move toward a conflict-ending solution, but he had no incentive to do so -- nor will his successors."

He speculates on Sharon's motives, and whether or not he had "incentive" to resolve the conflict, and presumes to predict the dispositions of his successors. I would speculate that it is "The Palestinians" that ought to have supplied Sharon with "incentives", and not for example the USA or the EU. But either way, it's all pretty much pulled out of his ass, there is no support given for these opinions. I will stipulate that Sharon did have "the power to move toward a conflict-ending solution" but chose not to do that.

"In any case, unilateral action, not bilateral negotiations, seems to rule the day and will probably be the course chosen by Sharon's successor."

Again, the gypsy fortune teller speaks. I read a story today on Olmert's first statement (here), and it sounded to me like he was trying to please everybody, as one would expect, poor fellow, and I would assert that what his eventual considered course of action would be is unknown at this point, and for veracity's sake one should say so if one is trying to be dispassionate instead of propagandistic. If you google up "Olmert statement" you will get half a dozen spins on it.

And the one WRT Arafat:

"it was his willingness to allow his monopoly over the forces of violence in Palestinian society to dissipate"

I would just love to know how this fellow attained such deep knowledge of Arafat's emotional state and motives, or what Arafat might or might not have gotten away with at Taba in the alternative universe where he did not get pissed off and walk out.

Edit: fixed link.

[barb162]

17. Since he worked the Mideast in the State Dept as a negotiator

he writes as a person who knows the principal players personally and has observed and interacted with them and also observed the situation in the region on a daily basis as part of his job. It's not as if he were writing a biography of a long dead individual or era. I see this not as propaganda but as the highly educated and experienced thoughts of a person who knows these players and the situation far better than most people could ever dream; he was there and part of it. When you write "there is no support given for these opinions" well, actually it's his prior 20 years of working in State and his knowing these players and the region. ("...he served at the Department of State as an adviser to six Secretaries of State, where he helped formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East and the Arab-Israel peace process, most recently as the Senior Adviser for Arab-Israeli Negotiations.").

You wrote that this was "drool" and of course that is your opinion, but I am wondering something. Who, then, in your opinion, is out there on any side or from any perspective, whose opinion or thoughts are not drool, if this writer's opinion is drool.

[bemildred]

18. It's not drool because of who wrote it.

It's drool because of what it says.

You want me to accept him as an unbiased authority
whose writings I should accept without examination.
I won't. I didn't say he had no standing to speak to
the issues, I said he has no standing to speak for "The
Palestinians". He doesn't. So there is no person whose
opinion I will accept just because he wrote it. None.

[bemildred]

19. Who else am I supposed to not question?

Am I supposed to evaluate writings based solely on who wrote them?
Bush is president, does that mean he's a righteous fellow?
What is all this argument from authority about?
He may be very nice, but that has nothing to do with how well his mind works.
It takes more than hypothetical good intentions to compel agreement.
If he wants credibility, let him write something credible.
Humbug.

Edit: added "that".

[barb162]

21. Questions 1-2: Of course not

Question 3: I am not understanding the "authority" aspect of your question as I wrote of his heavy experience and first person knowledge of the players and believe I never mentioned authority.

I think we are having a discussion on this because I think he is credible and you don't. I will base a lot of credibiity on a person's education and experience, especially, in this case, first-hand, in- person experience of the I/P situation.

[barb162]

20. He is coming from a standpoint of what he saw for 20 years

or so and he knows the people.

This is incorrect:"You want me to accept him as an unbiased authority
whose writings I should accept without examination."

No I don't. People and their standpoints should be examined.

What I am trying to find out is who you do accept after examination of their opinions, let's say, for the Palestinians. Can an Israeli speak for a Palestinian or vice versa. This gets hairy because Noam Chomsky can speak on the I/P situation and some pro-Palestinians will applaud. Then again most people would agree Bush doesn't speak for most Americans. Hamas doesn't speak for Fatah. On and on.

Believe it or not this isn't meant to be argumentative.

[bemildred]

22. People are only allowed to speak for themselves.

There are exceptions for animals, children and incompetents,
but those do not apply here, and when they do apply must be
handled with great care. Sometimes we have elected political
leaders, and those are allowed in some sense to speak for the
people that elected them. Mr. Miller was not elected to speak
for the Palestinians, nor was Mr. Chomsky.

I accept all sorts of people after examining what they say,
if it is well said, as it appears to me, and otherwise not.

There is nobody I can think of off hand where I would reject
or accept what they had to say on the basis of who they were,
although one tends to filter out time-wasters after a while, and
with someone who is well-known one might take that knowledge into
account. But that would not apply to this fellow, who is new to me,
so there is not much to go on, other than his internet curriculum
vitae and other sorts of unattributed puffery, and the apparent
fact that he is a successful State Dept. person; which leads one
to suppose that he accepts the US Government line WRT I/P relations,
a supposition that his writing here confirms.

There is also not generally anyone that I wholly agree with or
disagree with, although there are plenty that I dislike, or like
as the case may be.

I have already gone into modest detail as to what specifically I
dislike about what Mr. Miller wrote, and the way he wrote it,
and I would refer you back to that.

[Jim Sagle]

15. Omigod, he might be a joooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:scared:

[bemildred]

16. Seems to be:

http://www.jfjfp.org/13-19.htm

"Aaron David Miller, a Jewish State Department Official charged with furthering the peace process, and condemned by right-wing Israelis, is leaving his post in despair."

Here is the "despair" link:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.01.10/news4.html

Ordinarily I would not assume that someone named Miller is Jewish, but you never know.

I would say he's a nice enough fellow too, from what I can see, probably sincere, and no friend to the Israeli right, but he's still drunk the State dept. KoolAid, and is no proper spokesperson for the Palestinian POV, with all due respect to his pretensions of objectivity.