Why Dennis Ross is Wrong
by Andy Martin
Why the Washington Post continues to
provide a platform for Dennis Ross (April 25, 2002), the
unsuccessful Middle East negotiator, to lament his
failure and to lament the impossibility of a solution,
is incomprehensible.
Mr.
Ross served at the highest levels of the peace process for a decade.
Yet his efforts were a failure, due in large part to the
incompetence of the advice he provided to two presidents. One
egregious example should suffice: In July, 2000, Clinton and Barak
stated they were totally surprised by the Palestinian insistence on
the "right to return."
The
right to return has been on the "nonnegotiable" table since 1948. One can forgive Clinton for not being familiar with the minutiae of
Middle East politics. One cannot similarly forgive Ross and his
associates. Either Ross never told Clinton the right to return was a
major issue, or he told him and later pretended they were surprised.
Either way, Ross' credibility is demolished.
The
reason the Middle East peace process failed because it was run on an
Israeli model--designed to fail--instead of on an American
model--intended to succeed. Unless and until we abandon the Ross
approach, peace will be impossible. Ross negotiated over "small steps" for a decade. There was endless
negotiation. At the end, there was nothing. In a recent interview,
Ross admitted he made no written proposals in July, 2000 (Fox News,
April 21, 2002) and that in December, 2000 he similarly made no
written proposals (Id.). Who ever heard of negotiating the fate of millions of lives while being afraid to
commit pen to paper?
The
plain fact of the matter is that bottom-up negotiation will never
succeed. Only a top-down process imposed by the United States will
end the conflict. The United States must immediately recognize
Palestine, within the borders of U.N. 242, and send an ambassador to
Palestine in West Jerusalem. Simultaneously Bush must send an
ambassador to Israel in Jerusalem. Once recognition and recognized
borders are no longer at issue, the parties would be able to horse
trade the remaining matters.
It
would also help if Ross' and his successors did not spread the
slanderous disinformation that the Palestinians were "offered
everything" in 2000 and rejected a "dream offer" from Israel.
Undeniably, Israel made a serious opening offer, and Palestinian
negotiators were inept in their responses. But the
initial Israeli offer was hardly a "dream," and would have left
Israeli troops occupying Palestine for six (6) years. Some "dream."
Moreover, the "final solution" did not treat Israel and Palestine as
equals, which is essential for the dignity of the aggrieved on all
sides.
For
example, why should Israel be able to violate Palestinian air space,
but Palestinians be barred from the reciprocal access? The claim
that airplanes landing in Tel Aviv must go over the west bank was
and is ludicrous.
Why
does Israel demand the right to maintain an army but not allow
Palestinians the same right? An asymmetrical solution will never be
accepted by the Palestinians or the broader Arab community. Either
both Israel and Palestine are demilitarized, or both can arm
themselves.
Once we
admit that Israel made a good opening offer, accompanied by
disinformation, and the Palestinians were bush league in their
response, we begin to see that blame lies with both parties, and the
United States.
Both
parties, however, came close at Taba in 2001 to making a deal. But
the tragic intercession of Sharon and Bush made peace impossible.
Sharon
ran for office on a promise to demolish Palestine, a promise that he
tried to realize this month. Bush promised to avoid Clinton's
mistakes, when Middle East policy was a Clinton near-success despite
the lack of a final deal.
Some
writers have recently compared current events to the "Guns of
August" in 1914. A more careful analogy would be September, 1939.
Then, as now, the warnings were clear. The democracies were weak and
hesitant, and the rogue state, then Germany, now Israel, was puffed
up with a "success" that would lead to ultimate destruction.
We have
been repeatedly warned that President Bush risks a worldwide
uprising against Israel and the United States. It has already begun
in Europe.
Yet
Bush continues to fuel right-wing fantasies that he can land
airborne troops in Iraq without support from any nation, and that he
will win a snap victory In Iraq. There has not been a more lunatic
military operation openly discussed since the Charge of the Light
Brigade. Without some Arab support, an attack on Iraq is a delusion.
Delusions are what pass for policy in Washington today.
Arabs
would back an Iraq attack for a finalized U.N. 242 deal in
Palestine, but no one has made the obvious offer and started the
essential negotiations. The only beneficiary of delay is Saddam
Hussein.
American media have completely marginalized the Israeli peace
movement. When Israeli casualties are reported, they are usually
multiplied by a factor of fifty to show what these numbers would
mean in American terms (100 Israeli dead is equivalent to 5,000
American dead). But when 10,000 peace demonstrators march for peace
in Tel Aviv, the multiplier is ignored and depreciated.
On
April 25th I spent an hour in a live broadcast from Tel Aviv interviewing a leading peace advocate on my
radio program. He said it was the first time ever anyone in the
Israeli peace movement had actually been interviewed live on the
radio in the United States! Instead radio "shock jocks" act as
outposts of Israeli propaganda and beat the war drums for an Iraq
attack.
The
media have created a stereotype of Israel that is pumped up for war
with its tanks and bombs. This reflects Sharon's thinking but does
not reflect the willingness of Israelis to accept a fair peace.
In this
chaotic environment, Ross, through the Post, offers his "three
options (April 25th)."
Why not
a fourth? A real option for peace? The ultimate peace solution was
almost reached by the parties at Taba. What is needed is for
President Bush to take bold steps to cut the Gordian knot.
First, he must recognize Palestine and recognize the 242 borders and
demand immediate Israeli withdrawal.
Second,
he must immediately send ambassadors to both countries in Jerusalem.
Third,
he must acknowledge that the right of return exists as a principle
of American law and international law (U.N. 194), and offer generous
incentives for refugees to come to American Canada and Europe with
generous compensation for the loss of their land. Israel must accept
500,000 refugees.
Finally, Bush must agree to protect the territorial integrity of
both counties.
Post-recognition, Palestine cannot be allowed to attack Israel, and
Israel cannot be allowed to launch "retaliatory" attacks on
Palestine for the inevitable violence that will accompany peace. It
is unavoidable that following peace sporadic violence will continue.
Militants on both sides will not accept any deal, until they see a
Green Beret pursuing them.
Thus,
any "peace plan" or "peace process" that calls for "zero violence"
is no peace plan at all (Sharon's approach), because residual
violence will continue for months or even years. Unless we are
prepared to give a perpetual veto to the most outrageous and vicious
elements on both sides, we must negate the violence veto by barring
retaliation by either side and by ordering American protection and
intervention for both sides. You don't fight "terrorism" with tanks
and bombs; you fight terrorists with Special Forces. Once U.S.
forces have a mandate to stop the violence, attacks will gradually
end.
Sharon
is smart enough to know that "zero violence" is impossible which is
why he always uses that condition to derail any peace progress.
President Bush and his unskilled "negotiators" have fallen for the
Sharon charade.
The CIA
proved, however reluctantly, that it could work with Palestinian
forces. Once there is peace, our ability to control the situation
will be enhanced, not reduced.
Mr.
Ross failed because he dreamed small dreams and sought small steps.
That is no surprise considering whom he worked for. President Bush
can only succeed, immediately, if he dreams big dreams and has the
Texas-style guts to take bold steps for peace, for our interests and
the Middle East's. We do not need any more defeatism from Dennis
Ross. We can win if we have the will. He failed because he didn't.
Forty
years ago the British aristocrat and editor of the Observer stated
the dispute was between "two wronged peoples." Unless we do full,
fair and even justice to both wronged peoples, we cannot claim to
have tried to succeed, and we deserve to fail.
Andy Martin is a Radio Talk Show host in Palm Beach, FL, USA.
Source:
