Marc Lynch, a generally sensible young “rising star” in the world of US Arabists, today blogged about his “four suggestions for the Obama administration.” Three of his suggestions are helpful, though not terribly new. The fourth– on the Palestinian/Gaza situation– seems actively dangerous since in it he resurrects from what I had thought was a well-deserved death the old canard of “ripeness theory.” … As in, “Oh no, we can’t possibly talk about final-status issues in the Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy right now because the situation isn’t ‘ripe’ for resolution.”
The original author of ripeness theory in this context was Richard Haass, who not long thereafter got “mugged by reality” and disavowed the whole idea. But the theory lived on, most especially in the words and works of Dennis Ross, peace “processor” extraordinaire, who for 12 long years in the Bush I and Clinton administrations used that argument– along with a second, Cold War-derived argument about the need for lengthy “confidence building measures”– to delay and delay the moment at which the US government or anyone else might actually get serious about promoting a final-status peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Meanwhile, as we all know, the pro-settler forces in the Israeli political elite used those delays to their great advantage to push further and further forward their project of planting settler colonies throughout the whole of the West Bank (and throughout Syria’s Golan.)
What a crock that whole theory of “ripeness” turned out to be.
But now, here was Marc Lynch today, writing about the Palestinian situation:
- it’s hard to imagine a situation less “ripe” for resolution, the current Palestinian leadership is in no position to deliver anything, and the Gaza war will leave deep scars. Instead, focus on the realities on the ground as they are, not as we would like them to be, and put U.S. diplomatic and material support into building more solid foundations for a renewed peace engagement.
Well, Marc, I’m guessing that by “the current Palestinian leadership” you mean Mahmoud Abbas. (Though after the past four weeks he looks far less leaderly than Haniyeh, Meshaal, and Co.) But guess what, both Abbas and Hamas are now talking about the need for a new Palestinian national unity government… They look serious about getting their political ducks in a row in preparation for the challenges ahead.
It’s on the Israeli side that it now looks far more questionable whether there is indeed a “partner for peace.”
But regardless of those problems, the ghastly crisis from which we’re just now emerging provides just the kind of impetus and motivation that true, far-reaching– i.e. final-settlement-seeking– peace diplomacy so sorely needs. There truly is no excuse for not pushing ahead… And surely the whole world community (and not just the decisionmakers here in Washington) has now vividly seen the danger of simply letting the Palestinian-Israeli situation continue to fester for any further length of time.
Ripeness theory: It’s ripe for burial. Right now.
Hi Helena, So Abu Aardvark doesn’t walk on water, eh? Nanu, Nanu!
I especially liked point 4 in ML’s list — seeing the region whole, rather than parts — e.g., the Ramazani “holistic” thesis, the one once so intensely dismissed by many…. (esp. from the Israeli side back in the 1970’s) Appointing “special envoys” to deal with one country or another does seem a recipe for “divide and conquer” and obfuscation….
As for “ripeness,” not sure that was ML’s intended point (#3). After all, it comes up under a heading, “Engage on Gaza right away.” That doesn’t sound like the standard change-the-subject delay strategy, say, of the ole’ ripeness theory. (nor does the critical reference to “clinton-era peace-processing” e.g., Dennis Ross et. al. — symbolized by its delay, delay, delay, strategy until the end) Again, the theme of point #3 seems more consonant with your own thesis to “get with it” rather than waiting til matters are “ripe.”
Still, the reference to matters seeming less than “ripe” understandably raised the concern — and your points about rapidly changing Palestinian attitudes and positions does plausibly suggest that matters may be more “ripe” for directly engaging the situation now, rather than later.
(that is, if we were considering the “ripeness” theory as valid. But since we’re not, well, it doesn’t matter. Get on with it!)
before a few hours, President-elect Obama will be officially the President of the USA. With much respect for him, I can see President Obama as a successful star rather than a President. In my viewpoint, the Vice-President Joseph Biden will the real President of the USA who will set the middle east agenda and put it into practice.
I hope I am wrong.
Hafid
The REAL issue here is how to avert Iranian influence in post-war Gaza. See what Shimon Shapira says about this at http://tinyurl.com/8gldrj
Yup, not ripe…
Like India wasn’t “ready” for independence, Black South Africans not “ready” for political equity, American Negro Slaves not “ready” for freedom, Women not “ready” for suffrage. The language of “not ready” which tells people to quite down and be stoical to “prove” they’re ready for that moment which never, ever comes. The language that says we support what you want, but you just have to be patient until the “time is right”.
Bismark said: “When a man says he believes in something in principle, he has no intention of carrying it out in reality”
One can only marvel at the stupidity of Israel’s politico-military class, exceeded only by its cruelty.
“yerushalmit” links to a piece that expresses concern in Israel about the way Iran gained influence in Lebanon after the 2006 war by assisting in the reconstruction of the infrastructure that lay in ruins.
So now that the IDF has destroyed Gaza’s infrastructure, such that it was, Israel is concerned that Iran may benefit by assisting in its “rehabalition”!? Are we to laugh or cry at this colossal obtuseness?
Stephen Walt has it right in his “The myth of Israel’s strategic genius” post.
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/
(“JudyinJerusalem” links to the same piece as yerushalmit in the most recent post on Walt’s blog. Fantastic hasbara work, team!)
To stupidity and cruelty perhaps we should add mindless tenacity.
Welcome back Helena! What did you do over there besides go to a dance performance? I bet the place isn’t the same (in a good sense).
Anyhow, Lynch wrote: One of the most glaring aspects of the Gaza crisis was the near-invisibility of the United States.
Lynch has a visibility problem here. Of course the US was clearly abetting Israel in the UN and in Congress, and in the press, as well as by providing all, or most all, the terrible war machines and munitions used to kill Palestinians.
Regarding a settlement, Lynch mentions the weakness of Palestinian leadership, but there are other factors. Settlement in Gaza would of necessity include recognition of Hamas, which would be unacceptable to the major regional powers and the US. It appears that any Fateh/Hamas confederation would be dominated by Hamas.
Hamas, a Sunni Islamic organization, was formed in 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood. Because it advocates the replacement of a secular state with an Islamic one it is seen as a threat to the Egyptian, Jordanian and Saudi dictators (all US allies), as well as to Israel (and by extension the US). And what about Syria? That’s why Hamas and the people that voted for it were open targets (which mirrors, on a smaller scale, US aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia).
(Trust me, I don’t know what I’m talking about here because I’m an I/P neophyte, so feel free to correct me.)
Obama is clearly on the side of Israel (as well as being an advocate of military use), and I doubt he is prepared for any Egypt/Saudi/Jordan disagreements.
Another factor is that disorder in the region suits the US security state just fine, as it has in other areas. The situation, that is, is “ripe” for disorder and the power and profits that derive from it. Just think how this recent activity will enhance US foreign military sales!
On his blog Lynch writes:
“One of the most glaring aspects of the Gaza crisis was the near-invisibility of the United States. Many people in the region saw this as the logical conclusion of eight years of disastrous American disengagement.”
This idea of “disengagement” seems rather ludicrous to me. Over the past 8 years I’ve seen an administration extremely engaged – engaged in supporting (with weapons, money, stalling, UN vetos, intelligence, etc.) the most violent, expansionist, and militaristic elements in the Israeli government. The time’s not ripe, it’s rotten!
Helena,
I would really like to hear (read) your take on this by Paul Woodward (actually by Mark Perry):
Editor’s Comment — Here’s a comment on George Mitchell’s appointment from my colleague, the co-director of Conflicts Forum, Mark Perry:
Barack Obama has said that he would make Middle East peace a priority. George Mitchell’s appointment is a reflection of that commitment. There couldn’t be a better person to do this job.
He couldn’t have made a better appointment.
The time’s not ripe, it’s rotten!
M. M. “it’s rotten” long time ago not in the past 8 yeras.
H. Kissinger told Israelis US will supply all the weapons that Israelis