All the Emperor’s Men Part I

When diplomacy fails…go with the Shakedown

        Most Americans would agree that as presidents go, Jimmy Carter dedicated more time and resources, during his presidency, to peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians than any other American President–then or since. In fact, Mr. Carter and his fleet of envoys are credited with brokering the [still standing] peace deal between Egypt and Israel. I shudder to think of what the state of affairs would be in the region had this deal not been struck. A masterful accomplishment, since Egypt was frequently at the helm of Arab efforts to oust Israel from its historic homeland. Mr. Carter uniquely deserves his 2002 Nobel Peace Prize "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts.” As the fruits of Mr. Carter’s labor teeter on the brink of obsolescence so too is Mr. Carter’s reputation as a peace broker and what remained of his legacy—if there ever was one.

After twelve days of secret negotiations at Camp David, the Israeli-Egyptian negotiations were concluded by the signing at the White House of two agreements. The first dealt with the future of the Sinai and peace between Israel and Egypt, to be concluded within three months. The second was a framework agreement establishing a format for the conduct of negotiations for the establishment of an autonomous regime in the West Bank and Gaza. The Israel-Egypt agreement clearly defined the future relations between the two countries, all aspects of withdrawal from the Sinai, military arrangements in the peninsula such as demilitarization and limitations, as well as the supervision mechanism. The framework agreement regarding the future of Judea, Samaria and Gaza was less clear and was later interpreted differently by Israel, Egypt, and the US. President Carter witnessed the accords which were signed by Egyptian President Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Begin.

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

As evidenced by the books he has written since leaving office, in recent years Mr. Carter’s true feelings about Israel have surfaced. Even a cursory reading of any of his books published since leaving office would reveal that Mr. Carter’s show of impartiality (during his tenure in the White House) might have been just that: a show. While this essay is in no way an outright criticism of Jimmy Carter, his administration or his foreign policy, it is important to ponder his motives especially in view of recent developments, vis-à-vis President Obama’s call for a roll-back of the borders governing the Palestinian territories.

Upon publication of his book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" in 2006, many in the diplomatic community and the friends of Israel everywhere appeared to have been caught off guard by Mr. Carter's accusation that Israel is an apartheid state. Nothing could be further from reality. As South African professor of international law John Dugard pointed out in his review of the book, apartheid and the Israeli system are polar opposites. While apartheid relies on institutionalized racial discrimination as the basis of its power, the Israeli system can be characterized as a process of colonization, predicated on, among other things, border security. While Professor Dugard goes on to condemn Israel, his acknowledgement of the distinction sets a significant precedent, as he breaks with his cohorts in academia, who typically refuse to credit Israel with any measure of civility.

Mr. Carter betrays his own hypocrisy when he criticizes the Bush Administration’s decision to sever diplomatic ties with Syria—in light of that nation’s role in fermenting turmoil in Lebanon. Moreover, Mr. Carter’s failure to deal with Syria’s relationship with Iran, whose sponsorship, support and training of the Lebanese Insurgency threatens to permanently destabilize the region and antagonize Israel. Having gone as far as praising Bashir al Assad for his ability to lead Syria, in what he calls, “one of the most difficult posts in the region,” I suspect there is little hope that Mr. Carter would reverse his contempt for Israel. Compared with his attitude towards Israel, Mr. Carter’s affinity for Syria bears a striking resemblance to the Stockholm syndrome or at least a sad denial of Syria’s true intent [where Israel is concerned]. Surely, Mr. Carter could not have anticipated that Mr. Assad would banish the press from Syria while he slaughters his own countrymen, in order to protect his fiefdom. Worst still, Mr. Carter has bought into the false notion that as a condition for Syrian acceptance of Israel’s right to exist, Israel should return the Golan Heights, which Israel captured (and continues to hold) from Syria in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which Egypt and Syria led a coalition of Arab States in a surprise attack on Israel.

So committed to his idea of what is fair, that even in the face of credible evidence to the contrary, Mr. Carter will not modify his views accordingly. In the realm of behavioral psychology, this phenomenon is a classic demonstration of man’s aversion to risk. Mr. Carter would risk total loss of credibility over an admission that he has backed the wrong side. Max Bazerman, Jesse Isidor Straus Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School has demonstrated to power of this sort of irrational decision-making in his famous $20 auction. In the $20 auction, the winner is locked into the idea of not losing, and is compelled to shell out far more than the extrinsic value of the bill. Luke Plumber does a nice job of describing the nomenclature of the auction. This thought process has defeated scholars and laymen for eons; not even US presidents are immune to the pull of irrational thought, and certainly not Mr. Carter.

Mr. Carter’s sincerity and objectivity are in doubt, and beg the question: what role did his anti-Israel views play in his advocacy for one side over the other? Whether Mr. Carter’s ideological stance caused him to compromise the efforts of the Camp David mediators is a critical consideration when evaluating the historical significance of his efforts on behalf of peace. Any prudent skeptic would immediately move to question the legitimacy of Mr. Carter’s stewardship of the Camp David Accords. To do so; however, would, in some small way, soil the relative peace that resulted from these sessions. Furthermore, Mr. Carter was successful in forging a peace deal under conditions far more tenuous than those met by his predecessors. And it is my opinion that Mr. Carter’s achievements stand, to this day, as a benchmark for every American President since.

It would appear, therefore, that Mr. Carter has fallen victim to the psychological phenomenon known as the “attribution bias,” which erroneously ascribes a measure of innocence and victimhood to the Palestinians. While I am certain that Israel has not always acted honorably, the Jewish people are in a fight for their very existence. The Palestinians represent a proxy enemy for neighboring Arab states that lack the courage to take on Israel directly. Viewed as a quest for national survival, it is easy to conclude that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are likely to surrender their core ideological positions. On the one hand, for the Jew, Israel represents the final stage of a prophetic wandering–a sort of coming full-circle and acquiescence to the will of God. As such, they are not likely to back down; to do so would mean certain annihilation. The Jew haters in the region would seize upon the opportunity to do what so many others have attempted for millennia: wipe Israel off the map. On the other hand, the Palestinian struggle–as embodied by the Intifada (circa 1987), and other similar uprisings de-cries the morbid reality of Palestinian existence: one predicated on perpetual struggle. To eliminate the conflict with Israel is tantamount to denying the Palestinian a reason for living.

In part II of All the Emperor’s Men, I will discuss recent developments around attempts to broker a permanent peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, and the role of the current US administration in these efforts. I will also discuss why it is impossible for there to ever be peace between the two sides by delving into the true cause of the rift. Answering, once and for all, why, contrary to decades of media misinformation, the disputed lands truly belong to the Jews.