Former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer weighs in on the Middle East war with an important article in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung: Ein Krieg gegen die Existenz Israels (A War against the Existence of Israel). While Fischer sides with the view that Israel was clearly provoked by Hezbollah's incursion, he warns against Israel getting sucked into a ground invasion, and sees an opportunity for a "Quartett" (the US, EU, UN and Russia)to broker a lasting peace from the crisis. Bruce Miller in his Old Hickory's Weblog provides an excellent analysis of Fischer's position and has helpfully translated some of the key sections (so I don't have to):
Israel wäre gut beraten, auch die politischen Möglichkeiten dieses Krieges zu nutzen und aus einer Position der Stärke heraus initiativ zu werden: mit einem umfassenden Friedensangebot an all diejenigen, die zur Anerkennung Israels nicht nur in Worten, sondern vor allem in Taten bereit sind und auf dauerhaften Gewaltverzicht setzen.
Think big! Dies gilt aber nicht nur für Israel, sondern auch und gerade für die USA und Europa. Der Krieg eröffnet eine Chance für den Frieden, die nicht vertan werden sollte.
[Israel would be well-advised to also use the political possibilities of this war and to take the initiative out of a position of strength: with a comprehensive peace offer to all those who are ready to recognize Israel not only in words, but above all in deed and to conclude a lasting peace.
Think big! This goes not only for Israel, but also and particularly for the USA and Europe. The war opens up a chance for the peace that should not be frittered away.]
Another blogger - Steve Clemons of The Washington Note - reports on an event with former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski - who is far more critical of Israel than Joschka Fischer, but who also sees an opportunity for the US to seize a leadership position in brokering a lasting peace. This can only be possible - Bzrezinski believes - if the US commences to disengage now from its misguided adventure in Iraq: (Steve's notes on Brzezinski's comments):
1) America's "policy in the Middle East is the basic test of America's capacity to exercise global leadership." This is similar to "what transpired during the Cold War when the ultimate test of America's capacity to act as a defender of the free world was its ability to conduct a meaningful policy in Europe."
If America does not do well in its Middle East challenge, the U.S. will lose its capacity to lead.
2. Neither the United States nor Israel "has the capacity to impose a unilateral solution" to Israel's problems in the Middle East. "There may be people who deceive themselves of that. We call them neo-cons in this country and there are other equivalents in Israel as well."
3. Israel and its neighbors alone "can never resolve their conflict peacefully, no matter how much they try, now matter how sincere they may be." When one party is sincere, the other's intentions are not synchronous.
4. Brzezinski stated: "I hate to say this but I will say it. I think what the Israelis are doing today for example in Lebanon is in effect, in effect -- maybe not in intent -- the killing of hostages. The killing of hostages."
"Because when you kill 300 people, 400 people, who have nothing to do with the provocations Hezbollah staged, but you do it in effect deliberately by being indifferent to the scale of collateral damage, you're killing hostages in the hope of intimidating those that you want to intimidate. And more likely than not you will not intimidate them. You'll simply outrage them and make them into permanent enemies with the number of such enemies increasing."
5. "The solution can only come if there is a serious international involvement that supports the moderates from both sides, however numerous or non-numerous they are, but also creates the situation in which it becomes of greater interest to both parties to accommodate than to resist because both of the incentives and the capacity of the external intervention to impose costs. That means a deliberate peace effort led by the United States, which then doubtless would be supported by the international community, which defines openly in a semi-binding fashion how the United States and the international community envisages the outlines of the accommodation."
Whether or not we agree completely with Fischer or Brzezinski, it is painfully obvious that this type of strategic thinking is sorely lacking in the current administrations in Washington and Berlin.
Comments