Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Prospects for peace around Israel and the role of the United States
Something's happening in and around Israel, but I'm not smart enough to figure out what it is.
This morning, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made a surprise visit to Jordan, purportedly to confer with King Abdullah II "on ways to revive Mideast peacemaking." Since the king emerged from the meeting nattering away about a two-state solution and offering to broker a deal among the Palestinians who are presently fighting a non-civil war, we trust that somebody has a new sense of urgency.
Meanwhile, Stratfor (sub. req.) reported last night that Syria had reached out to Israel, via Germany:
Syrian President Bashar al Assad sent a message to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert via Germany pledging to crack down on Hamas and Hezbollah in exchange for a return to peace talks, Israel Radio reported Dec. 19, citing Al Arabiya satellite news. Olmert's office has denied the report.
All of this is happening as it is becoming increasingly clear that there is nobody on the Palestinian side who can deliver security to Israel (much less the West Bank) regardless of the Jewish state's concessions.
There is nothing obviously unusual in any of this news, but it feels as though something significant might be happening.
If our imagination is correct -- that something is happening -- it is happening without any obviously public pressure from the United States, notwithstanding the bleating of the Iraq Study Group and the New York Times (both of which have joined the international received wisdom that "peace" between Israel, Syria and the Palestinians will somehow help the situation in Iraq, and that only the United States can bring about that peace). The question is whether the new diplomatic movement is the product of threatened action by the United States, continued inaction by the United States, or substantially independent of anything that the United States has done. As discussed below, I speculate that if there is progress made between Israel and its near enemies, it will be because of American inaction, rather than in spite of it.
Lest there be any doubt, I'm as in favor of legal peace between Israel and its various neighbors as anybody. Less killing and more economic vitality in Palestine would be a great thing, no doubt about it. I just don't think that it would accomplish much in the wider region, including particularly inside Iraq or in our confrontation with Iran. Indeed, Israel and the Jews would remain a favorite whipping boy of the corrupt kings and brutal fascists who dominate the Arab world regardless of formal diplomatic recognition. Either that, or those regimes -- which need a "far enemy" to justify their sorry existence -- will just find another sore to pick (probably the United States). The most persuasive exposition of this idea is by former Princeton professor Michael Scott Doran, who now sits on the National Security Council. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Bush administration has not spent its little remaining capital trying to force a result that eluded every American president since the 1970s. Ironically, that superficial indifference may be forcing Israel and its neighbors into a "dialogue" of sorts.
Why? Well, the argument is similar to the claim of some Democrats and other critics of the Bush administration that Iraqis are more likely to make peace if the United States stops trying to impose it on them. Reliance on and deference to the United States creates a sort of moral hazard -- people can take extreme positions if they know or anticipate that the United States will bail them out and thereby indemnify them for the consequences of their own stupidity.
In the case of Israel and its hostile neighbors, the prospect of American intervention creates several moral hazards. First, there is the obvious problem that if everybody believes that peace requires action from the United States, nothing will happen until the United States takes action. More significantly, if Israel's "near enemies" believe that the United States believes that peace in Palestine is essential to the mission in Iraq or the containment in Iran or some other much more significant geopolitical objective, they will overestimate the leverage that they have in their negotiations with Israel. The United States therefore weakens the hand of Israel's near enemies (and thereby increases the chances that they will make useful concessions) if it persuades the world that it does not believe that peace in Palestine will contribute significantly to America's wider geopolitical advantage.
Of course, there are obvious advantages to American intervention, including that we may gain some "soft power" credits from Arabs and Europeans for having pressured Israel visibly and that Israel's "near enemies" may be more inclined to enter into negotiations in the first place if they think that the United States will extract concessions for them. The question is not whether these obvious advantages exist, but whether they are worth the attendant moral hazard.
Drop your comment bombs on their targets at the link below.
25 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Dec 19, 12:26:00 PM:
Excellent post, TH. Please change "corrupt kings and brutal fascists" to "world-class leaders." Those guys are some of my best customers.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Dec 19, 12:32:00 PM:
I wonder if this the result of two dynamics:
(1) a clear a growing rift in Islam. The Sunni/shia split was news to me and no doubt many others, but our entrance into Iraq has propeled Islam into the limelight, warts and all. The carnage in places like Baghdad and Gaza show Islam in a very poor light and I doubt that this sits well with some powerful muslims.
(2) a desire on the part of Iran, a shia tyranny, to "own" the Arab/Israeli conflict. An agreement by the sunni lead states in the region to reach a raprochement with Israel isolates Iran diplomatically. It seems that Iran wants war, a war that would ultimately involve the entire region.
Just my two cents.
By 
, at
Tue Dec 19, 12:57:00 PM:
The perpetual conflict between different factions of Islam is as common as Islam's conflict with the rest of the world, especially the jews. Israel is not the problem, and concessions by Israel is not the solution.
Most of the "refugees" (they are not palestinians in any sense) in Gaza were run out of Jordan by the king, who knew they were huge trouble. By calling themselves 'Palestinian' gives these people a false claim to other people's land, i.e., Palestine
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Tue Dec 19, 01:02:00 PM:
With all the peace and security we've brought to the Middle East, Israel probably didn't want to burden us with any additional requests.
By , at
Tue Dec 19, 01:05:00 PM:
Skip is correct.
Saudi and other nations fear Iran. The US is out the door. Only Israel exists as a counterweight to Iran. And with Iran seeking to make itself the global tribune of Muslims everywhere as noted over Israel there exists real dangers for these nations.
It was precisely this division between Islam that allowed the Crusader states to exist for about 200 years, and foiled many attempts to conquer most of Europe from Spain to the Balkans.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Dec 19, 03:21:00 PM:
I think you're right, Hawk, that our inaction is producing this movement. With a leadership vacuum as President Bush takes his time to figure out how to unshit the bed, there's room for the other players to move more freely.
An unpredictable dynamic, to be sure, but the U.S. certainly shouldn't try to control everything that goes on in the world.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Dec 19, 03:55:00 PM:
With a leadership vacuum as President Bush takes his time to figure out how to unshit the bed, there's room for the other players to move more freely.
...the U.S. certainly shouldn't try to control everything that goes on in the world.
Let's be sure we getting the correct recieved wisdom from screwy, shall we?
You are so busy blaming Bush for everything you've fallen completely out of context. According to you, Bush is bad for "creating a power vacuum" which is in direct contradiction to your demand that we not try to control everything.
Steely Dan called this pretzel logic and it fits in the case. Pretzel logic indeed.
Screwy it seems to me that you've managed to fake yourself out. It's tough, but you did it.
I know I will enjoy your resolution of this apparent conflict. It should be interesting.
and Lanky, since when did the American left value security and peace over the struggle for freedom? I'm sure Marx is rolling over in his grave at the thought of you ignoring the struggles of the masses.
By allen, at
Tue Dec 19, 05:20:00 PM:
Why is the US failing to make foreign policy headway, despite the best efforts of the conservative base? Let’s take my experience at Ed Morrissey’s site today as indicative.
As some may already be aware, one of the Air Force’s top JAG’s was recently relieved and placed on terminal leave. Obviously, “Colonel” Michael D. Murphy is neither a commissioned officer of the United States nor an attorney. In point of fact, Mr. Murphy has been disbarred in at least two states; something the Air Force, the FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA, and Homeland Security failed to discover during Mr. Murphy’s 23 year career.
During his time in the Air Force, Mr. Murphy rose to the rank of Colonel. His career path suggests he was in the ideal position to be chosen as the Air Force Top JAG around 2011, under ordinary conditions. However, because the Air Force JAG has seen its upper ranks decimated by scandal, his rise might have been accelerated.
Over the past six years, Mr. Murphy served as the commandant at the sole Air Force JAG academy, twice as White House military counsel, as commander of the legal team responsible for the distribution of billions of dollars in Iraq reconstruction funds, as the agent responsible for the distribution of millions of dollars in “loyalty” monies to Iraqi tribal leaders et al, and, most recently, as commander of the big show, the Air Force Legal Operations Agency.
How does the sad case of Mr. Murphy impact foreign policy and especially that of the ME? Read again from the statement of the Air Force, “In between those tours [counsel to the White House] he was the legal adviser to the reconstruction effort in Iraq.”
!!! Allow me to repeat that: “In between those tours he was THE LEGAL adviser to the RECONSTRUCTION effort in Iraq.”
In chronologic order:
1) legal counsel to the White House
2) legal adviser to Iraq reconstruction
3) legal counsel to the White House
For those who think Foley's alleged pederasty was a problem for the Republicans in 2006, imagine the damage that would be inflicted in 2008 if it came to be known that a fake military officer and fake lawyer had had the ear of the President and been entrusted with the distribution of billions of dollars in Iraq and in choosing America’s Iraqi allies.
This morning, Ed Morrissey led with a thread addressing special investigations. When I posted on his site, calling for a Congressional investigation into the issue of Mr. Murphy, my post was initially accepted and published. Sometime thereafter, Mr. Morrissey personally deleted it, claiming it to be “off topic.” After reviewing hundreds of comments on Mr. Morrissey’s site, I find myself in the unique position of being the sole recipient of his O/T censorship. It is just such inane, subjectivity that has weakened the genuine arguments for the Iraq war and that have operated to bring it to its present sorry state.
As Rich Lowry wrote yesterday, I believe, because one dislikes bad news does nothing to reduce its truthfulness. If PJ Media, through Mr. Morrissey, wishes to hide from inconvenient facts, it will eventually find itself held in the same esteem as Mr. Rather. Therefore, attempting to ignore the duplicity of Mr. Murphy and the gross incompetence of very expensive bureaucracies responsible for the prevention of such embarrassments will not advance the President’s agenda in Iraq and the greater ME.
I suggest that Mr. Michael D. Murphy may hold many of the answers for the dilemma now facing the administration in the ME.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Dec 19, 05:36:00 PM:
yes allen, you have posted this in many places.
but you've not made the case to me, at any rate. how is it that this man is so pivotal? You maintain that he help positions of significance and are apparently concerned that he was not qualified to function well in them.
so what did he do during his tenure in these various positions? Aside from your allegations, what evidence do you offer to support your contention that "Mr. Michael D. Murphy may hold many of the answers for the dilemma now facing the administration in the ME."?
Is he an arab spy? A closet islamic fascist? Or is it that the bureaucracy in DC is so broken that even marginal vetting is now impossible?
Help us to understand your concerns.
Thanks.
By allen, at
Tue Dec 19, 06:42:00 PM:
I know this could never happen because the soulful Mr. Putin is the perfect new Russian, a veritable Teddy bear. But, just for the sake of argument only, suppose the Russians are adults, having an interest in shaping the ME to their liking. I know. I know, no one behaves that way anymore, but bear with me.
In Iraq the Russians find an American Air Force JAG officer controlling the flow of billions of dollars in reconstruction funds. This would be “Colonel” Michael D. Murphy, of course. Curious, the Russians set about to learn what can be learned of Murphy. Always helpful, an Air Force website provides a nifty, glowing biography of “Colonel” Murphy. Therein, the Russians learn that Murphy graduated from the University of Texas School of Law in 1981 and was admitted to the Texas bar. Since much of the business of the Texas bar is the matter of public record, the Russians inquire into the status/history of “Colonel” Murphy; one never knows what one might catch fishing. To their delight, the Russians learn that “Colonel” Murphy is not a lawyer at all; in fact, Murphy has been disbarred in both Texas and Louisiana. Moreover, Mr. Murphy has been impersonating an officer for 23 years. Needless to say, a more deviously aggressive Russian government might suppose that a potential cornucopia of intelligence information had just fallen into their laps.
Was “Colonel” Michael D. Murphy compromised by the new model KGB? If so, as counsel to the White House on two occasions and as the lead legal adviser on the distribution of American largesse, what might a corrupt, highly placed American Colonel have given the Russians? Certainly, since this is all outlandish and could never happen in in the modern world, we need not even consider the possibility of the Chinese, French, Iranians, Saudis etc. etc. etc, or some combination of all the above, having gotten to Murphy.
It would make for a great spy novel, wouldn’t it?
By allen, at
Tue Dec 19, 07:08:00 PM:
skipsailing,
You have read nothing about the Murphy matter, have you?
Do so, and we can talk.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Dec 19, 07:20:00 PM:
Sorry, but it sounds like you're trying to manufacture an international espionage conspiracy out of essentially nothing. There's a term for what he did, (fraudulent enlistment) and it isn't that uncommon. That doesn't make him a traitor, and is totally irrelevant to his capacity for treason except insofar as a foreign intelligence service found out about his past and blackmailed him. (which is pure speculation and not even grounds for investigation)
Then, even if he was somehow turned... he's a freakin' lawyer. I don't know where you get this idea that he would be a treasure trove of intelligence information, but that guy wouldn't be cleared to be in the same building as me and mine. Lawyers are consultants, not policy makers, analysts, or anyone else with wide access to sensitive information. (caveat: at least not what I would call sensitive)
By allen, at
Tue Dec 19, 07:25:00 PM:
skipsailing,
I apologize if the previous post appears unnecessarily trite. As you are aware, I am familiar with your work and respect its quality.
The facts in the Murphy matter or not mine or yours. They just are.
Fact 1: Murphy was/is disbarred in at least two states.
Fact 2: Murphy accepted a commission under fraudulent circumstances. See Application for Appointment as Reserve of the Air Force, etc.
Note Page 3, Question 30, Section B: (1) – (8)
Fact 3: Because Murphy's commission as a JAG was gained unlawfully, he has impersonated a commissioned officer of the United States.
Fact 4: Because Murphy was not an attorney, his work for the JAGAF was unlawful.
Fact 5: Because in the routine course of his work for the JAGAF, Murphy's oath of capacity was explicitly or implicitly given, on every such occasion he committed perjury.
The people of the United States are owed an explanation of how such a man could be given access to the President of the United States and control of the expenditure of billions in various aid packages in Iraq.
Moreover, because such a person is a de facto monumental security risk, damage to the United States, if any should be determined. Recall, every Basic Airman going to Iraq must be first screened for potential excessive indebtedness, lest he/she/she'it pose a security risk.
I will leave off for now. But if you examine the matter for yourself, you too, I believe will find it no small matter.
By allen, at
Tue Dec 19, 07:59:00 PM:
Dawnfire82,
Someone in your office has spent two tours of duty briefing the President? Someone in your office was entrusted with the expenditure of billions in American reconstruction aid in Iraq?
I am not trying to "manufacture" anything other than a plausible excuse for taking the investigation of "Colonel" Murphy out of the hands of the Air Force.
At this writing, the Air Force postition of record is much like your own: no harm, no foul. I imagine you expect more from your personal attorney. If not, your bar association does.
By Tom the Redhunter, at
Tue Dec 19, 10:41:00 PM:
Stop feeding TrollAllen, people. He's a classic troll; write a provocative comment that has nothing to do with the post in an attempt to change the subject.
By Grumpy Old Man, at
Wed Dec 20, 12:45:00 AM:
Back on topic--
I'm all for benign neglect when it comes to the M.E. Less is more.
The Israelis have figured out that occupation and invasion won't cut it. The Palestinians have to have their civil war, or at least a nasty coup. The Israelis recently let the Jordanians send in their Janissaries. Watch for the release of Marwan Barghouti from Israeli prison.
If they do reach some kind of a deal, after a few battles, one thing you can be certain of--they'll all have their hands out to Uncle.
By allen, at
Wed Dec 20, 12:54:00 AM:
Tom,
Classic response. Don't go there. Guestion motive and patriotism. You might actually have to engage the little grey cells. Good try, but no cigar, Dude. "Colonel" Murphy will have to be addressed by us genuine conservatives, otherwise, friend, the MSM will have its feeding frenze, all in due course.
By the way, are you the pretty hall monitor?
By allen, at
Wed Dec 20, 01:15:00 AM:
Tom,
To be completely fair, you do know that Messrs Baker and Hamilton, as well as King Abullah of Jordan among others, have tied the state of Israeli-Palestinian-Syrian relations to the war in Iraq. If I’m writing too fast, let me know; I’ll slow down.
That being the case, the potential misconduct of an admittedly compromised man (that would be the fake lawyer and fake commissioned officer of the United States – Mr. Murhpy), running about Iraq with crates filled with Benjamins, making alliances and advising the President accordingly, might be a security problem for both Israel and the United States. Right? I ask as both an American and a Jew, so, humor me. But, if I am trolling too fast, let me know.
You think about that awhile. My post might have more meaning to you in the sober light of the morning.
Have a nice night.
By allen, at
Wed Dec 20, 01:44:00 AM:
Tom,
Because I am a charitable man, I want to thank you. To put it nicely, Sir, you are an opposition attorney’s wet dream. You are the guy who shows up in court and who, through the exercise of your superior wit, opens up avenues of inquiry that otherwise would have been foreclosed.
May TigerHawk’s practice be filled with adversaries such as you.
TigerHawk, live long and prosper.
By K. Pablo, at
Wed Dec 20, 07:32:00 AM:
Allen, if your monomania about "colonel" Murphy were so damned interesting to anyone else, it would mean your blog would be heavily frequented....
oh wait ... i see you have no blog of your own.
Your are really undercutting whatever persuasive power you might have about this case by imposing it irrelevantly at every turn, and attempting to hijack threads such as this one.
By allen, at
Wed Dec 20, 08:22:00 AM:
K. Pablo,
I do appreciate your sincere concern for my mental hygiene. But, you will pardon my confusion in having posted on the thread topic, “Prospects for peace around Israel and the role of the United States”. Naturally, I assumed, as have the ISG, the KSA, the Kingdom of Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iran, etc, that Iraq was in the neighborhood. Thank you for setting me straight. I’ll certainly wait until the topic is “Christmas Fruitcake” before next venturing into issues of national security, Israel, or Iraq. I do hope that will comfort your obvious discomfort.
By the way, have you read my 01:15:35 AM, addressed to Tom? Please, do.
Oh, did I miss something published by the owner of this blog? For the life of me, I don’t recall having seen as the prerequisite to posting my ownership of a blog. While blog ownership might be entertaining to you, I just haven’t enough important stuff to say to make that worthwhile. Your posting here would seem to say the same for you. That is the beauty of having talented, intelligent, generous people like TigerHawk doing the talking.
Have a nice day.
By K. Pablo, at
Wed Dec 20, 08:44:00 AM:
Allen I have no doubt, if the topic were Christmas Fruitcake, that you would post some perseveration on the disbarred Mr. Murphy.
By Gordon Smith, at
Wed Dec 20, 08:58:00 AM:
skip ya doofus,
I never said that Bush's leaving a power vacuum was a bad thing. Given his track record, the best thing he could do is stop leading for a while.
Now take your gotcha smirk and go enlist or something.
By allen, at
Wed Dec 20, 12:06:00 PM:
K. Pablo,
"Drop your comment bombs on their targets at the link below."
___TigerHawk
Have you anything substantive to add?
Recall, if possible, the topic originating this thread. Your continued insults to the proprietor’s hospitality are bad form, indeed, having no impact on me, as you may gather.
If you have an interest in examining rationally the influence, if any, of Mr. Murphy's engagement by the administration in the conduct of ME policy, do share.
By allen, at
Wed Dec 20, 12:29:00 PM:
K. Pablo,
While I will not link it here, having just visited your site, there is much to recommend it. Had you chosen such, we might have had a rewarding colloquy. Well, better luck next time.
