Persuading a Just Peace

Jimmy Carter writes an interesting, informed piece in the NY Times, claiming that America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace. Unfortunately, he chooses to ignore something that he himself mentioned in the second paragraph:

When the election was over, I made a strong effort to persuade the leaders of Hamas to accept the election results, with Mr. Arafat as their leader. I relayed a message offering them full participation in the process of developing a permanent constitutional framework for the new political entity, but they refused to accept this proposal.

I admire his optimism, and if I thought Sharon's forays into the West Bank were the problem, I would support his recommendation to lean on Israel by threatening to curtail our aid to them. But the problem is not Sharon. He's a firebrand, to be sure, but he's the direct result of Palestinian and Arab intransigence, not the cause. There was a peace plan brokered and ready to go and Arafat walked away and started the second Intifada. These actions brought the Labor government down and triggered the rise of Sharon.

What if we turned the headline around? How would these sound?

• America Can Persuade Arafat to Make a Just Peace
• Arab States Can Persuade Arafat to Make a Just Peace
• Europe Can Persuade Arafat to Make a Just Peace

The bottom line is that neither Arafat, nor Hamas, nor the corrupt Arab regimes that use Israel as a distraction want peace.

Repeat after me:

They don't want peace; they want to destroy Israel.

Let's revisit the common map of Israel:

----

This reminds me of a story I once read about a new professor at an Episcopal seminary. He saw the young (male, at the time) priests-to-be worked up into a lather protesting a school-wide ban on smoking by students. They were adults, they fumed. They should be able to smoke if they wanted to. This was a constant source of conflict between students and staff.

The new instructor listened earnestly to an outraged student during office hours and agreed to take the case to the Dean to see what might be done.

*

At the next opportunity, the new fellow did just that. The Dean listened earnestly with a wry smile on his face. "It seems to me a small thing. Why not just let them smoke if they want, if only for the sake of domestic tranquility."

The Dean chuckled and replied, "Reverend Johnson, I hear this suggestion dozens of times a year. I have two very different responses. The first is what I tell the students. It is of little importance.

"The second is the truth, which I will share with you now.

"I am well aware that my smoking policy is universally derided as petty and intrusive. I know that it causes a great deal of friction. I know also that the students would welcome a change.

"I impose this ban not out of concern for students' health nor to impose my will on their private lives. I impose it out of convenience.

"We are separate, students and faculty. This separation creates an unavoidable tension. Students will always be outraged about rules and policies. Lifting one stricture will only make them complain about another and another and another.

"So, you see, my ban keeps the students focused on this one minor complaint. It makes me the bad cop so you end up with pupils who have spent the full measure of their moral outrage on this. It gives you flexibility and power over them that you might not otherwise have. And I think you will find that it increases domestic tranquility."

*

Reverend Johnson met a few days later with the student and reported that he'd pled his case forcefully, but the incorrigable old fart wouldn't hear a word of it. "I guess there's no reasoning with that man," he intoned, sadly shaking his head. After a pause, the professor brightened visibly and said, "Don't worry though, I'll keep at him. Now let me tell you about a special research project I'd like you to help me with...."

  

Thomas Friedman (and Jim Bouton): Paean to the Golf Channel:

10. No one on the Golf Channel is afraid of compromise or change. On the contrary, golf is a game where the very best players engage in never-ending self-criticism, self-reflection and self-correction, constantly adapting to changes in courses, conditions or age. That's all they talk about on the Golf Channel. The best golfers spend a lot of time looking at themselves in the mirror to check their swings — unlike in the Middle East, where self-reflection and self-criticism are as common as a three-hump camel.