Say What?

by hilzoy

Via Matt Yglesias, Ha'Aretz:

"The Bush administration has given Israel permission to discuss the future of the Golan Heights, security arrangements and Israeli-Syrian peace accords if it agrees to talks with Syria."

Permission? Permission?

There are two things wrong with this. The first is the idea of us giving another sovereign nation "permission" to do something. Personally, I am not opposed to the idea that we might use our considerable leverage over Israel. In fact, I repeatedly advocated doing just this during the war with Lebanon. However, there's a difference between saying "if you do this, then we will do that" and giving someone permission. And the idea that we should think of ourselves as having the right to give Israel permission to decide whether or not to do something that affects her interests much more than it does ours is crazy.

Second, there's what we are doing with our alleged right to boss Israel around. When I advocated trying to get Israel to stop bombing Lebanon after a couple of days, I did so on the grounds that the bombing was not just killing a lot of people and destroying large chunks of a country, but had become counterproductive both to Israel's interests and to ours; that it would be much easier for Israel to stop in response to our pressure than for any other reason (e.g., because they were not winning); that it would be immensely in our interests to surprise the world by being willing to go to the mat against Israel and for a struggling Arab democracy; and that while normally being willing to take sides against Israel would involve harming Israeli interests, on this occasion (see above) we could get all the benefits of taking such a position while helping Israel at the same time. I wasn't telling them not to explore the possibility of making peace with one of their neighbors, for no obvious reason other than that we hate Syria.

There are obviously terms on which one should not make peace. But I cannot think of any time when it's not a good idea to try to make peace. The chance to turn a smoldering hostility into even a guarded peace is precious. Smoldering hostilities have been known to burst into flames. Even guarded peace, by contrast, provides opportunities to create the kinds of commercial and diplomatic bonds that make open hostilities that much less likely. Syria has been trying to negotiate with Israel for several years now. I have no idea whether those negotiations would have succeeded, or whether the Syrians were interested in any terms that Israel should have been willing to accept. But the idea that talks with Syria weren't even worth exploring is foolish, and the idea that we were forbidding Israel from engaging in them is just plain crazy.

I mean, do we think the Middle East just doesn't have enough conflict these days, so that we need to protect the few tiny remaining bits of hatred and instability?

Comments

[xanax]

C'mon, hil... don't you know George W. Bush is "The Permissioner?"

[Anderson]

I see folks going ballistic on this, but wouldn't it be good to recall that the exact wording is that of a journalist?

I see that the phrase has been scrubbed from Hilzoy's link, and the story now leads with our ambassador's ridiculous statement that America's done nothing to pressure Israel.

[Nell]

do we think the Middle East just doesn't have enough conflict these days, so that we need to protect the few tiny remaining bits of hatred and instability?

Apparently 'we' (the current regime) do think so. And not only preserve the hatred and instability, but fan the flames.

[jwo]

The comment is still there, but it is well down in the story. I don't know where it was previously, or if it has been moved at all, but you do have to keep reading to get to it.

[The Commissar]

Whether it's phrased as 'permission' or 'acquiescence' or 'banana,' it's what you think is right. Is that correct? And you're slamming Bush for the policy he seems to have just changed.

Look, Bush is totally hopeless. But just be consistent. If you think Israel talking to Syria is a good thing, and now the administration is supporting that too, then this news would be a *good* thing.

[Gary Farber]

"I see that the phrase has been scrubbed from Hilzoy's link, and the story now leads with our ambassador's ridiculous statement that America's done nothing to pressure Israel."

The second part is correct. On the first, the version I just accessed says "Last update - 20:23 21/05/2007" and includes:

[...] Washington has given Israel the green light to accept Syrian President Bashar Assad's call for peace talks, in a change of position accompanied by several preconditions.

The Bush administration has given Israel permission to discuss the future of the Golan Heights, security arrangements and Israeli-Syrian peace accords if it agrees to talks with Syria.

However, Washington has stipulated that Israel must not agree to any negotiations, even indirectly, on the United States' position, or on the future of Lebanon.

Furthermore, Israel must not make promises to Syria regarding U.S. policy. According to the new position, Washington will deal directly with Syria on these matters.

[Dan]

I wonder what Israelis are saying about this...

[Anderson]

I didn't see the "permission" part when I looked; it may've been scrubbed and then reinstated, but it's more likely that I just missed it.

At any rate, I have enough to enrage me from this administration, without seizing on a *reporter's* characterization of a communication.

[J Thomas]

However, Washington has stipulated that Israel must not agree to any negotiations, even indirectly, on the United States' position, or on the future of Lebanon.

Furthermore, Israel must not make promises to Syria regarding U.S. policy. According to the new position, Washington will deal directly with Syria on these matters.

Actually, this sounds like the Bush administration is declaring an admirable show of independence. They say they will not let israel dictate the terms of a US agreement with syria.

Bully for them!