Posted on 11/24/2004 11:18:09 AM PST by Tolik
Ambassador Ross has written an amazing book. The Missing Peace (Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, New York, 2004) tells in 815 pages of excruciating blow-by-blow detail the story of how over almost two decades, three American presidents, three Secretaries of State, one long-term advisor, and five Israeli Prime Ministers were all manipulated, intimidated, tricked, lied to, played for fools, humiliated, and exploited by one short, fat, stubble-faced, grubby looking Arab terrorist. There is much of value in this book. Ambassador Ross inside scoop on who betrayed whom and who said no to what at Camp David 2 will, hopefully, put to rest forever the argument about what Arafat rejected and what he could have had if he had been willing to say yes to co-existence with Israel. Similarly, Syrian perfidy and obduracy are described in great detail; as is Rabins statesmanlike behavior, Netanyuhus carping and vacillating, and Baraks desperate need for a deal. We see the characters in one of historys most complex and frustrating scenarios with the clarity of Ross up-front-and-personal reportage, day by day, sentence by sentence, line by line. The book can be divided into three not-necessarily-sequential parts: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
Rabin is revealed as a world-class statesman who put his country first, maintained his integrity even in the most trying of situations, never went back on his word, and earned the trust and admiration of all with whom he worked.
Barak is portrayed honestly with his flaws and weaknesses, but also as the Israeli leader who found the courage to make the very best offer imaginable (even though he knew that it might end his political career), and then made it even better when Arafat turned it down the first time. The simpering, whining Palestinian spin-meisters who carped for 4 years about what was or was not offered are now silenced. Even Bandar bin Sultan (Saudi prince and Arabian ambassador to Washington) said it was the best deal ever, and Arafats refusal was a crime against the Palestinian people.
Netanyahu is portrayed harshly, but accurately, as a politician steadily loosing the trust of his constituency, and trying to maintain his political seat of power even at the expense of his nations best interests. On the other hand, it is odd that Ross critiques Netanyahu for not being more forthcoming about a peace agreement with Syria. Syria aids, abets, supports, and harbors Hezbollah (described by the US Department of State as the A-Team of terrorism), and is home to dozens of terrorist training camps where tens of thousands of wanabee terrorists are trained daily by PLO operatives for action against the Zionist enemy. And Ross wonders why Netanyahu did not trust Hafez el-Assad!
The Israeli body politic is portrayed accurately as desperately wanting peace, willing to vote out of office those who did not move fast enough in that direction (Shamirs government in 1992, Netanyahus in 1996), and willing to trade land and dismantle settlements in honest negotiations with a partner committed to peace. But, this same body politic was equally willing to vote in a hawkish leader (Sharon) when it became clear that Arafat retained his decades-old commitment to Israels destruction, used the faux mantle of peace process to advance his terrorist designs, and exploited his political and territorial gains as a springboard for his long-dreamed-of jihad.
Arafat, the most complex figure of all, is portrayed in gory detail: with all of his histrionics, street theatre, temper tantrums, serial lies, smarmy toadying to the President and to Ross, endless wailing about Palestinian victimhood, and endless vitriol against Israel and Zionism.
Some of his most effective ploys are revealed: And with all that, Ross also portrays three generations of American statespersons continuously playing along, tolerating, accepting Arafats ploys with hardly a complaint. Yet, they all (Cyrus Vance, Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, President Clinton, and even Ross himself) found plenty to complain about when Itzhak Shamir, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak tried to take a hard line with Arafat.
Tragic and comic at once, we see Americas Secretary of State Madeleine Albright careening down the hall of a Paris office building in her high heels, chasing desperately after an insulted Arafat who has stormed out of a conference in high dudgeon due to some imagined slight to his honor. Tugging on his coat sleeve, she begs him to return, never realizing that that was exactly what he wanted her to do. She thinks she has pulled off a great victory when he condescends to return.
Writing as an embedded reporter, Ross lets us see the seamiest and the greatest in the players of this tragedy.
There are two dynamics, critical to the understanding of why Oslo and Camp David failed, that Ross leaves unmentioned.
To be fair to Ross, it is important to note that he did, on a number of occasions, warn his President or Secretary of State that Arafat could not be trusted and might pull some last-minute reversal. But these warnings never got translated into actions, never influenced the behavior of Americas key players (1). There are three aspects to this dynamic: a.) Selective terror diffuses internal pressures. Professor Nathan J. Brown, in his thoroughly researched and copiously footnoted Palestinian Politics after the Oslo Accords (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, 2003) (2), explores Palestinian politics in excruciating detail during the years from Oslo to the 2nd Intifada. Brown gives an almost day-by-day account of the political interaction between Arafat and a variety of Palestinian political and legal entities during the previous decade. The single most important process that he discovers is Arafats stoking the street and inciting terrorism when pressed for reforms or for democratic procedures, and then turning to his troublesome constituency and saying: How can you expect me to
.when our people are dying in the streets?. And the constituency always backed off. The two most obvious examples of this adroitly handled technique are the Tunnel Intifada of 9/1996 and the 2nd Intifada of 9/2000. Shortly after Arafat was elected president in January, 1996, he set about demonstrating to the world that he would behave as a dictator. He brooked no rivals and allowed no autonomy to the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) or to the Palestinian National Council (PNC) or to a number of other socio-political groups that had geared up for the creation of a state and the implementation of democratic processes. When pressure for reform and democratic procedure mounted from these groups, he used Netanyahus opening of an Herodian tunnel near the Temple Mount as the excuse for massive demonstrations and terror attacks that forced Israeli military intervention. Faced with this chaos and unrest, the pressure groups backed off and Arafat got his way. These facts do not excuse Netanyahus galactic stupidity in forcing the opening of the tunnel, but they do make clear Arafats technique that exploited the tunnel incident to his internal political advantage by using it as an excuse for a new wave of terror. Similarly, January of 2001 was the end of his 5-year term of office. By early to mid- 2000 Arafat was faced with internal pressures for elections, and with a growing clamor among Palestinian leaders about the overt corruption and Mafia-like excesses of his regime. The 2nd Intifada was his answer, and it worked. Having thumbed his nose at President Clinton and told Prime Minister Barak to ..go to hell, Arafats stature with the Palestinian street was at its apogee. So he used Sharons ill-fated visit to the Temple Mount (9/28/00) as the excuse for starting his day of rage (9/29/00) that he escalated quickly into the 2nd Intifada. Now at war with Israel, a war led by the immensely popular rais, the Palestinian Authority was hardly in a position to demand a financial audit or force elections.
b.) Selective terror supports Saddam Hussein. In the months leading up to the 2nd Gulf war, both Hezbollah and the terror groups under Arafats umbrella purposely initiated a series of terror attacks against Israel. These attacks were intended to achieve three aims: sympathy and support for Saddam, posturing to place Arafat on a par with Saddam in the fight against the great black Satan, and goading Israel into a retaliation that would upset the delicate coalition cobbled together by President Bush. Yossef Bodansky, in The Secret History of the Iraq War (Regan Books, New York, 2004) documents these attacks and their correlation with events leading to the second invasion of Iraq (3). The fact that these attacks undermined, or perhaps even eliminated, whatever possibilities there may have been for an end to the Intifada was of far less importance to Arafat than the need to show solidarity with Saddam. c.) Selective terror torpedoes advances in peace negotiations: Until May of 2002, one could argue that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, the DFLP, the PFLP-GC, Sayyif Allah, and Jayyish el-Jihad were terror groups not under Arafats control. So when spokespersons for these groups openly declared that they had perpetrated attacks precisely because they did not want peace talks to move forward, one could argue that they were acting independently and that Arafat was not responsible for these attempts to de-rail progress. But once the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) raided Arafats Muqata and captured tons of documentation from his archive and computers, it became clear that he had been heavily involved in the planning, funding, and execution of these attacks. They were part of his strategy; as were the attacks by the el-Aqsa martyrs brigade, Tanzim, Force 17, and Fatah, all of which were acknowledged to be under Arafats direct control.
Ross documents time after time how negotiating teams seemed near agreement and then, most inconveniently, another terror attack, another bus bombing, another drive-by shooting which created mounting pressure in the Israeli public for distrust of the American diplomatic effort and a demand for a retreat from negotiations. It may be that Ross was then not aware of the control that Arafat had over his terror groups. But Ross is writing in 2004, and now has the information that the IDF raids made public. Moreover, Arafat continued to use terrorism this same way for several years after Camp David 2; most notably during the visits of Mitchell and Tenet, when Hamas and Islamic Jihad greeted them with multiple suicide bombings on the very days of their arrival. During both the Tenet and Powell visits there were multiple attempts as terror bombings but these were intercepted by the IDF.
So how can Ross write without hindsight? How can he ignore the dynamics that have become obvious over the past few years?
Happily, Ambassador Ross has answered these questions for us. During his recent nation-wide book tour, he spoke at a synagogue in northern California. One of the audience asked him why he did not address in his book the dynamic of selective terrorism. His reply was swift, forthright, and disarming: I am not as sure as you that this dynamic did indeed exist. After all, Arafat did crack down on Hamas and tried to stop terror attacks. With equal swiftness, Ross then moved on to the next question. A bit later during his presentation, Ross answered another question by saying that Arafat cracked down on terrorism only when very heavily pressured to do so by the USA. This statement contradicts his earlier answer. If Arafat was willing to put a lid on Hamas only because American pressure forced him to do so, then his actions against Hamas did not reflect a commitment to the goals of the peace process nor were they witness to his attempts to honor his responsibilities per the Oslo Accords. Therefore, the fact that only under duress did he crack down on Hamas in no way demonstrates that he could not have been using terrorism selectively for strategic purposes.
Ambassador Ross cannot rationally argue that Arafat sincerely tried to stop terrorism, and therefore could not have been using terrorism strategically, when in the next breath he notes that Arafat never tried to stop terrorism until forced to do so by American pressure..
Based on his contradictory replies, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn regarding the absence of any analysis of these two dynamics in his book. Ross knows perfectly well that Arafat used terrorism both tactically and strategically to strengthen his political and military position, to solidify his base of support, to raise his stature as a fighter for Arab causes, and to undermine any progress toward a move from dealing to making a deal. But Ross also knows that Arafat never intended to make a deal. He knows that Arafat used every trick in his arsenal to manipulate the Elder Bush and Clinton and their entourages, and they all, including Ross, fell for it
.or better, put up with it, tolerated it. They never called him on it. But worse, they know that if they would have called him on it, the course of negotiations might have gone differently.
And perhaps worst of all, it is clear in hindsight (that hindsight which Ross omits) that by turning a blind eye to Arafats machinations, by pretending that it was Israel that had to be cajoled into more flexibility, more concessions, more risk-taking, by acting like the dog every time that Arafat rang the doorbell, they were empowering Arafat, enhancing his stature, supporting him before his constituency, weakening the already meager forces of democracy within the Palestinian Authority, and making it easier and easier for Arafat to avoid compromise, to forestall a deal.
The willful blindness of the American team, led by Dennis Ross, actually undermined the very process that they were supposed to be advancing. Ross et al are very much to blame for Arafats ability to keep the Intifada going, and thus to blame as well for the death of hundreds of Israelis.
So Ross omits these dynamics, because he does not want to admit the abysmal failure of his policies and does not want to acknowledge the horrendous harm for which he and his team are responsible.
In his epilogue (pp. 781 ff) Ambassador Ross stoops to a most distasteful tactic. He admits a few minor errors on his part, but then launches into a critique of the current President Bushs handling of the Arab-Israel conflict. He has a litany of complaints about what President Bush did not do, but fails to note all that he did. He laments the missteps of Bushs envoys, while avoiding the obvious conclusion that Bush had the wisdom or the guidance to recognize precisely what Ross et al refused to countenance: that Arafat was a deeply evil murderer, committed to the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its Jews; and as such, he could never be a serious partner to peace negotiations.
Ross seems to be attempting to place upon Bush the blame that he should be taking upon himself.
One cannot but conclude that he was maneuvering for a place in Kerrys cabinet. Perhaps now he is maneuvering for a position in Hillarys in 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) There was one example of a minor success in curbing Arafats excesses. At one point in the Camp David 2 talks, Arafat began to assert that the Jews had no claim to the Temple Mount because the Jewish Temple was never there. No one knew exactly where it was, he opined, maybe in Nablus, maybe in Yemen. Ross told him to stop the nonsense because everyone knew where the Temple was. Faced with Ross blunt rebuttal, Arafat ceased bringing up that lie at Camp David, but he continued to use it elsewhere in his speeches. One cannot help but wonder what progress could have been made had he been faced with such blunt rebuttals for other of his lies and machinations.
(2) It is important to keep in mind that Professor Brown is no friend of Israel. In this book and elsewhere he claims sincere 3rd-party disinterest, staunchly defends Arafat, and depicts the Palestinian Authority as a well-intended political body struggling to slough off Israels occupation so that its people could be free to resume their almost idyllic pre-Zionist life. While one may doubt his objectivity, it seems clear that he is not slanting his work to favor Israel. (3) esp. pp. 90 ff, 251 ff, 314 ff.The Good
The Bad
The Ugly
This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).
To become "willfully blind" one first has to know and understand what one becomes "willfully blind" to - thus one must have "seen" it beforehand to gain such knowledge and understanding. More, one could even claim that to have gotten such knowledge one must have a better than 20/20 eyesight. Hence the term is an oxymoron at best.
Anyone else have a take on him?
Based on his contradictory replies, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn regarding the absence of any analysis of these two dynamics in his book. Ross knows perfectly well that Arafat used terrorism both tactically and strategically to strengthen his political and military position, to solidify his base of support, to raise his stature as a fighter for Arab causes, and to undermine any progress toward a move from dealing to making a deal. But Ross also knows that Arafat never intended to make a deal. He knows that Arafat used every trick in his arsenal to manipulate the Elder Bush and Clinton and their entourages, and they all, including Ross, fell for it .or better, put up with it, tolerated it. They never called him on it. But worse, they know that if they would have called him on it, the course of negotiations might have gone differently.
And perhaps worst of all, it is clear in hindsight (that hindsight which Ross omits) that by turning a blind eye to Arafats machinations, by pretending that it was Israel that had to be cajoled into more flexibility, more concessions, more risk-taking, by acting like the dog every time that Arafat rang the doorbell, they were empowering Arafat, enhancing his stature, supporting him before his constituency, weakening the already meager forces of democracy within the Palestinian Authority, and making it easier and easier for Arafat to avoid compromise, to forestall a deal.
The willful blindness of the American team, led by Dennis Ross, actually undermined the very process that they were supposed to be advancing. Ross et al are very much to blame for Arafats ability to keep the Intifada going, and thus to blame as well for the death of hundreds of Israelis.
So Ross omits these dynamics, because he does not want to admit the abysmal failure of his policies and does not want to acknowledge the horrendous harm for which he and his team are responsible.
I had always assumed that Ross had a seat in a Kerry administration. You?
Ross, Albright, Clinton, etc. probably had lots of motives for the charade in which they engaged, only one of which was to maintain the "affection" of the international community by remaining "engaged." My appreciation of George Bush was solidified when he simply refused to deal with Arafat, a liar. He just wasn't going to waste his time.
Since he served in the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations, you're probably right. I haven't always agreed with him, but he's always struck me as a straight shooter. Of all the Oslo supporters, he's one of the few that places the blame for it's failure where it belongs, Arafat and the PA.
Every thing, every word, every aspect of human existance, is a weapon for the terrorist's purpose of unseating the target(s). The terrorist's dislodgement, of such that are for you, vulnerabilities, he can sense, and, given your failure to be resolved to defend yourself no matter what, he will direct against, shocking force(s).
Terrorism is the oldest economic means in the Near, Middle, and Far, East. It is a way of life and of death.
Terrorism is a sub-classification of piracy (water is not required for pirates), and resisting terrorism was once upon a time, the primary purpose of extending power over the sea, to bring peace, freedom, and thus grounds for continued commerce ... by force if necessary.
There is a time limit for trusting words, words, words (the fashionable dialog de jeur de lingua "talking heads;" after which, force is required to make the peace happen.
Other people, and so-called "leaders," are only committed to the peace process. They desire only, and they only have the guts (if any), to participate within the most secure windows of opportunity that lay within the protection (for them) that is established by other people who are enforcing the peace.
To wit: Bill Clinton is a coward, and too many other people who will not stand up.
For the most part, if you truly want peace and world peace, then require yourself and your neighbor to stand up for truth and justice and adherence to the laws made through the democratic-republican process that elects representatives who sit in legislative bodies and make the laws.
Be resolved to defend liberty and its worthy heritage, and publicly educate people to these disciplines and exercises by which we fight for freedom every day.
All people who want peace, should be in the fight.
It is from such struggles, that come men and women who most understand the price of failing to adhere to the original intent of peace treaties. They bring to the deliberations, serious failure analysis and sincere desire to forge agreements that are bound by the wording used --- that is to say, no peace document is of any value, when fake boobs in high places insist on ignoring the original intent of both document and its words.
Remember, our Constitution is a peace treaty.
We only have the rights we defend, as long as we are able.
We are only as free as we make the effort to know why.
Does it have the map and the deal that Arafat rejected?
Madeleine Albright is shown as the half-wit that she really is.
Dims like half bright are process oriented...results are meaningless.
It didn't take W any time at all to find out that assarat was an impediment. After that I think he and Sharon did a rope-a-dope on the pali buffoon.
He's dead now and we've got 4 years to see if W can actually come up with some real results in that cesspool.
Did nobody else see what Arafat saw? Each refusal by Ara to accept an Israeli offer brought pressure from outside Israel to offer more and more concessions in the firm conviction that this terrorist trash was sincere and wanted peace. All that was demanded of him was an empty offer to stop terrorism, which brought no sanctions when not complied with. His response each time was to up the terror. The result of refusal each time was a reward, not a punishment
Why should he make peace when holding out could have netted him the whole cake eventually based on past experience of increasing the reward as a response to failure to make peace.
Israel tries to exact punishment for terror in the form of bombings and rooting out of terrorist cells but I am beginning to suspect that the PA is Bre'r Rabbit and enjoys being bombed and humiliated, if not for the act then for the rich award of media attention and sympathy it reaps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.