Is Middle East Peace a Mirage?
With the truce in the week-long Gaza war, Barack Obama is being prompted by right and left to re-engage and renew U.S. efforts to solve the core question of Middle East peace.
Before he gets reinvolved in peacemaking, our once-burned president should ask himself some hard questions.
Is real peace between Palestinians and Israelis even possible?
Is there any treaty that could be agreed to, or imposed, that would be acceptable to Israel and the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, let alone to Hamas, which has emerged from its defiance of one of the most intensive bombardments of modern time with new prestige?
What are the obvious impediments to such a treaty?
First, Bibi Netanyahu, who has presided over the expansion of Israel settlements and joined Avigdor Lieberman, a supporter of ethnic cleansing of Israeli Arabs, in a coalition of the Israeli hard right.
Would Bibi agree to a treaty that required removal of scores of thousands of Israeli settlers from Judea and Samaria, when he opposed Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal of a few thousand settlers from Gaza?
Would Bibi agree to Jerusalem becoming the capital of Palestine as well as Israel, a non-negotiable demand of Arab nations?
Could a Palestinian Authority that gives up all rights to Jerusalem survive?
A second roadblock is the correlation of forces in Washington.
Should Obama begin to pressure Israel to remove settlers from the West Bank and accept a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem, he would ignite a firestorm among evangelical Christians, the Israeli Lobby, the neocons and a Congress that, not long ago, gave Bibi 29 standing ovations after he dressed-down Barack Obama right in the Oval Office.
Obama has acquired much political capital with his election victory, but not that much.
In a Bibi-Barack face-off over settlements and Jerusalem, with whom would ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other Democrats looking to 2016 stand? As for the Republicans, we already know. Their policy on Israel: “No daylight between us,” and, “We’ve got your back.”
A third impediment is the altered environment between Israel and a newly radicalized Middle East.
Israel now looks north to a Lebanon where Hezbollah possesses more and better rockets than the metal-shop jobs Hamas fired off. Beyond lies a powerful Turkey whose prime minister just declared Israel a “terrorist” state.
To the northeast lies Syria, where the 40-year truce on the Golan is unlikely to last after Bashar al-Assad falls and is replaced by a Sunni regime rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood, or becomes a failed state saturated with jihadists and loose chemical weapons.
To the east lies Jordan, wracked by riots, a monarchy that looks to be a candidate for an Arab Spring uprising.
To the south and west are Hamas, a Sinai that is a no man’s land, and an Egypt dominated by the Brotherhood, millions of whose people would like to see the Israeli peace treaty trashed.
Israel is as isolated as she has been in a region that is more hostile to her presence than perhaps at any time since the war of ’48.
The time of Yitzhak Rabin, when Israel had treaties with Egypt and Jordan and had entered into the Oslo Accords with Yasser Arafat’s PLO, seems ancient history. Looking back, with the Rabin assassination and Netanyahu accession, the window that appeared to be open may have closed for good.
Israelis appear now to have entrusted their future to a U.S.-guaranteed military superiority — F-16s, smart bombs and an Iron Dome missile defense — rather than peace talks and parchment.
Which is their call. But what of us? What do we have to show for decades of involvement in the Middle East?
Despite our “liberation” of Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya at a cost of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, despite plunging hundreds of billions into foreign aid, America’s influence has never been lower.
Hillary Clinton, who cut off her Asian tour to fly to Israel and Egypt, was a bystander in brokering the truce. She is not even allowed to talk to Hamas. For we have designated Hamas a terrorist organization.
Astonishing. What was Joe Stalin when Harry Truman talked with him at Potsdam? What was Nikita Khrushchev when Ike invited the “Butcher of Budapest” to Camp David? What was Chairman Mao when Richard Nixon toasted him in Beijing in 1972?
We tie our own hands and wonder why we cannot succeed.
Today, as Obama is being pushed toward another futile round of peacemaking in the Mideast, prodded to intervene in the ethnic-civil-sectarian war in Syria and goaded to draw a “red line” for war on Iran, he should ask himself:
How would America’s vital interests be imperiled by staying out of this particular quarrel, conflict or war? Why are all of these crises somehow ours to resolve? What are the odds that we can resolve them?
We are out of Iraq, and leaving Afghanistan by 2014. Should we go back in, or as Obama pledged, do our “nation-building” here at home?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
Read more by Patrick J. Buchanan
- What Should Americans Die For? – May 16th, 2013
- Who Are the War Criminals in Syria? – May 6th, 2013
- Their War, Not Ours – April 29th, 2013
- Is War With North Korea Inevitable? – April 4th, 2013
- Goading Gullible America Into War – March 21st, 2013





davidgrayling
November 23rd, 2012 at 12:01 am
Yeah, please Patrick. Do your nation-building at home.
The world is sick of your warmongering which brings nothing but killing and destruction. The world is sick of your constant meddling and war crimes and hubris.
If I never heard anything about the U.S. ever again, I would be pleased. Mightily!
woodlandsguy
November 23rd, 2012 at 12:04 am
The United States is on its last legs as a superpower and will soon be forced out of the Near East, regardless of what the Israel Lobby or any other lobby wants. When that happens and Israel is out on its own, can it survive?
RParker
November 23rd, 2012 at 1:22 am
Israel wouldn't last one week without their American stooges. During the 1973 October War, with Israel about to be overrun by the surrounding Arab states, Golda Meir had to bend Richard Nixon's ear to send the decimated IDF new shipments of planes, tanks and other materiel, or the Israelis would have been history. And with Henry Kissinger's "persuasion", Nixon obliged, in spite of the fact they were in the process of taking him down with Watergate, since Nixon had no great love of Israel. Unless Nuttyahoo decides to employ the Samson Option if such a desparate situation arose again, Obama would no doubt come to his rescue, no matter if it totally bankrupted the US and potentially started World War III.
Yonatan
November 23rd, 2012 at 3:29 am
Yes – Israel wants land free of Palestinians and Arbs in general. The 'process' is part of the extended scam allowing them to get away with their land grab. Everything Israel does is closely and clearly focussed on progress towards Eretz Yisrael. Israel is making the final big push before its US host goes under. Once it does, Israel will be self sufficient in energy given the large quantities of oil/gas discovered in the eastern Mediterranean of the coast of the Gaza strip and Israel itself. If the oil price goes sky high as the result of war in the Persian Gulf, Israel will be a major beneficiary. The US economy, however, will tank.
Is Middle East Peace a Mirage? - Unofficial Network
November 23rd, 2012 at 5:05 am
[...] View original article. This entry was posted in World News by admin. Bookmark the permalink. [...]
Middle East shifts may weaken Iran’s influence with Palestinians – Los Angeles Times | Financial News
November 23rd, 2012 at 6:48 am
[...] Conflict shifts balance of power in the Middle EastCNNUS ties with the new Middle EastAl-ArabiyaAntiwar.com -Washington Postall 24,236 news [...]
Le constat est clair et sec. « YERELCE
November 23rd, 2012 at 7:43 am
[...] Is Middle East Peace a Mirage? [...]
musings
November 23rd, 2012 at 7:51 am
"Israelis seem to have entrusted their future to US military superiority … rather than to parchment and peace talks." And therein lies our own corruption. Jill Kelley is not a one-off (and of course not an Israeli either). But the kind of rewards that exist for those who keep ramping up US military hardware expenditures and obsession with the Mideast to a detriment of care for our own core country and values are immeasurable. If you are a sociopath who doesn't mind sticking your bills on others (e.g.Kelley), then this is the perfect environment to flourish. But what do we get in return? The country will wind up with a future as shallow as the Florida landmass and as likely to go under in the next major ice melt. If the statement by Pat is true, then we have become enablers, like some parent who keeps the kid on his credit card through his twenties and expects at some time down the road for maturity to set in (though it never does).
musings
November 23rd, 2012 at 7:53 am
I am sure there are overtures to China as we speak. And have been for some time. The question is, what does Israel have that China wants? They are not as stupid as we are.
RickR30
November 23rd, 2012 at 8:23 am
If peace is possible it will be only without US grandstanding…er…"leadership" as this conflict has proven.
But peace is a mirage as long as netenyahoo and his ilk are anywhere near power. A childish religious fanatic, racist, maniac, who has declared war on peace doesn't understand peace nor want it.
If the majority of israelis want peace, they'll have to stop voting for lunatics like him. The alternative of course is that the US exerts all the pre$$ure it can to get the insane israli administration to come to its senses. But what are the chances of anyone in DC even thinking of that? Or better yet, swich Middle East policy entirely. 100% support for Palestine, ignore israel until they become peaceful.
JLS
November 23rd, 2012 at 9:22 am
"Why are all of these crises somehow ours to resolve?"
You can't be the one world government unless you claim de facto jurisdiction over the entire planet. Washington wants to be and is laying the foundation for one world government and as such it is already acting like one. See Chomsky's essay America acts like it owns the world:
ttp://www.alternet.org/world/chomsky-america-acts-it-owns-world-while-endangering-planet-nuclear-war-and-climate-change
Rich
November 23rd, 2012 at 10:42 am
I don't know that the USA is on its last legs. It is still an imperial power with a huge army that both its major political parties seem almost anxious to use. The USA is rich in natural resources, has an educated population and a militarized police force, it will be around for a very long time. Once the ruling class realizes they can easily raise taxes on the wealthy, the US will have a nice growth spurt that could last another hundred years. Our only hope for ending the constant wars is that a peace candidate emerges somewhere and redirects American policy. Otherwise, prepare for 50 more years of foreign adventure.
Outsider
November 23rd, 2012 at 11:20 am
So, Mr Buchanan is a warmongerer? Nothing could be further from the truth! Pat has been against ALL of our ME incursions. He was against Bush I's Desert Storm, which was one reason he ran against him in the Repub primaries of '92. Read his "Day of Reckoning" which skewers GWB and the neocons. Obviously, david, you are not at all versed in his mountain of writings. The one objection I have towards Pat is that, near the end of the recent campaign, he decided to return home to the Repubs and endorse Romney.
davidgrayling
November 23rd, 2012 at 2:06 pm
I did not say that Patrick was a warmonger. What I was referring to in my comment was the term 'nation-building' which is American-speak for imperialism!
Let the U.S. build its own nation and stop trying to gain power and control over the other nations of the world as it's been doing since 1950!
wars r u.s.
November 23rd, 2012 at 2:08 pm
I think he was referring to the US, and not Buchanan in particular, when he said "do your nation -building at home". So the war mongering remark would also be directed at the US and not Buchanan. Just guessing.
Jack
November 23rd, 2012 at 4:38 pm
When the 1973 War ended Israel was close to capturing Damascus and had the Egyptian Army surrounded. Kissinger called them off because he didn't want to start World war lll.
Eileen Kuch
November 23rd, 2012 at 6:00 pm
That's why the US is on its last legs, Rich. All the militarization you mentioned is only hastening its downfall. Why? It's TRILLIONS of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in debt; most of this debt incurred from military spending TWICE that of all the other nations of the world COMBINED.
Meanwhile, domestic infrastructure is crumbling; 47 MILLION Americans are on food stamps; the Northeast – including much of NYC – is still struggling from the devastation of Hurricane Sandy, with thousands of residents still homeless and without power. If the US isn't fading after all this, I don't know what else to call it. A nation does not survive long nowadays with spending trillions of $$$$$$$$$$$ on stupid military adventures around the globe, earning nothing more than worldwide hostility. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his farewell address, warned this nation against feeding a military-industrial complex through military overreach; and, this was during the COLD WAR.
Also draining America's influence and finances is the billions of $$$$$$$$$$ it continues to hand out to the world's biggest WELFARE QUEEN and worst terrorist state, ISRAEL; and this $$$$$$$$$$$$$ is stolen $$$$$$$$$$$$ from US taxpayers. Oh, and a superpower does not allow itself to be led around on a leash by a tiny entity such as Israel. If you want to describe a superpower, try CHINA. China – if it wants – can destroy the US without firing a shot.
RParker
November 24th, 2012 at 12:53 am
That was due to the massive infusion of US military equipment. The USSR was ready to enter the war and had an airborne division on standby, so Kissinger had to act fast to prevent World War III–basically his plan of rearming Israel nearly backfired on him.