Wild thoughts about the Palestinian issue

[Violet_Crumble]

By Shmuel Rosner

Philip Zelikow, an advisor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has an appearance that manages to get on people's nerves. "What a nerd," said someone who did not like what he said last Friday at the Washington Institute's conference in Virginia. And he really is, how shall we say it, a nerd: his hair, combed and parted just so; his smooth cheeks, slightly rosy; the shy, somewhat superior smile of the smartest guy in the class.

In a monotone fitting for someone who does not believe in showing his feelings, Zelikow read the audience his "ten points." But it was only when he got to the last one, when his listeners were already exhausted from the late hour, the dinner and the wine, that he pulled the rabbit out of his suit pocket - progress in talks between Israel and the Palestinians is essential. Plain and simple.

Perhaps this is also good for Israel. Zelikow says that it is good for Israel - but that is not what is important. Progress in the talks is essential for America. This how he explained it, with cold logic: America is threatened; it needs a coalition to fight the threat; the coalition's members include Europe and the moderate Arab countries; these other members must be taken into account; and they want progress. Period. Whoever rejects this logic is apparently ready to compromise America's security. And after all, it is easier to look for a solution in Israel, which is so dependent on the United States, than to make an effort to force American policy on a recalcitrant Hamas or the obstinate Europeans.

Only time and President George Bush's decisions will tell whether Zelikow's statements correctly presage future events: whether they will translate into "American pressure" - that slippery concept of which everyone stands in awe - or melt away in the face of a reality stronger than they are. Much will depend on the new Palestinian government and its platform, and in no small measure also on Israel's ability to maneuver between the necessary minimum and the desirable maximum. Nevertheless, one important thing should be learned from Zelikow's speech: In Washington, in the last two years of Bush's term, and presumably in those that come after him, realpolitik is once again in play.

Zelikow called it "practical idealism," quoting Rice's formulation. "Progressive realism" is his own preferred term. But do not believe him. As with the "compassionate conservatism" produced by Bush in 2000, Zelikow also has one important word - "practical" or "realism" - while the second word is only meant to sound good. And if in Bush's case, it was meant to sound good to the voters, whose trust he sought to gain, in Zelikow's case, it is Bush himself who must be persuaded and calmed.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/765102.html

[bemildred]

1. That sure sounds like Bushite thinking.

Not happy with the results of the Lebanon excursion. You can find the idea floating around in the Rabid Right press. Looking for a scapegoat or an underling to abuse so we can feel better about the mess, someone to fall on their sword for us.

[The Magistrate]

2. There Is, Sir, Some Sense To Elements Of It

A liquidation of the conflict between Israel and Arab Palestine would be of great benefit to the United States, and of particular benefit in the current situation regarding the jihadis. This conflict is a leading recruitment tool for the radicals, and a standing incitement to anger among Moslems at large. That at present it is far from the only such does not alter this. The conflict with the jihadis is a sort of guerrilla war on a global scale, and you may recall my occassional comments that the best course for dealing with such a conflict is to find some level of concession that will strip the most radical of their mass support and leave them isolated, and thus much more vulnerable to the military and security forces of the power the militants are contending with.

[bemildred]

3. True.

You will forgive me for not resorting to "making good sense" as an explanation for Bushite conduct. There don't appear to be any prior examples of that sort of thing, so I stuck with what experience indicates, petulance and scapegoating.

[The Magistrate]

4. And My Comments, Sir

Were meant only to address the basic line, independent of the person, and his postion, the article engaged. There is certainly no sign this line of policy will actually be pressed, beneficial as it might be.