It is best for politicians to let sleeping dogs lie. And when the dogs begin to stir, it is wise to avoid provoking them, even by looking them directly in the eye.
In other words, there are problems likely to be trouble for all who meddle. Some fester without solution, at least while current alignments continue to hold sway.
The Greeks wrote their tragedies about individuals who felt they could rise far above the norm. Sadly for us, there appear to be tragedies waiting in the careers of Barack Obama and Benyamin Netanyahu. Both are affected by greater than normal self confidence, bolstered by recent political success. Both are stirring the sleeping dog of problems that have been insoluble. Adding to the mess that is likely is their roles as adversaries, seemingly destined for collision with one another along with other players who will work to frustrate their efforts.
The field of direct confrontation between Obama and Netanyahu is the elusive process of negotiations between Israel and Palestine. George W. Bush wisely let it fester with a minimum of personal involvement after Bill Clinton's heroic efforts produced intifada al-Aqsa. Now Obama has promised intense personal involvement and led off with a speech detailing his key demands of Israelis, Palestinians, and other Arabs. He is sure that his list will unlock the tangles that have foiled other peacemakers for more than 60 years. If that is not a sufficient definition of his hubris, he reaches further with aspirations for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
On the Israeli side, Ehud Olmert wisely played the game of negotiating without results . But Netanyahu, like Obama, felt it necessary to strike at the heart of the matter by challenging conventional lip service. He proclaimed what is widely felt but should be kept quiet: that the goal of a Palestinian state is not credible. Moreover, he raised another sleeping dog when he announced that he would not curtail settlements.
Two groups of questions beg answers:
Are there likely to be adverse consequences from letting the sleeping dog lie? Or can Israel prosper without solving the conflict between Israel and Palestine? And is it likely that a frontal assault on the issue will improve the lives of Palestinians?
And why the special concern shown for Israel and Palestine among leaders of the United States and Europe, while other problems seem to be producing even greater misery? Examples abound in the violence and poverty of Africa, and may be found in the less attractive areas of Asia, Latin America, and the United States.
In response to the first group of questions, it appears that Israel has done well in its more than sixty years as a state, despite not being able to define all its borders or not having the formal recognition of its capital or its existence by numerous governments. It is the most successful of the one hundred or so countries born after World War II in its maintenance of democracy, its economic development, and its public services. Its security forces have dealt successfully with challenges no less severe than those of other countries, without damaging freedoms of expression and politics. Palestinians, especially those of Gaza, have not done well. However, their own leadership and that of other Arab countries appear to be largely responsible due to their constant prodding for revenge, and refusing to absorb those who have held on to their refugee status since 1948.
Surely some of the people reading this will accuse me of not taking responsibility for Israel's contribution to Palestinian misery. My response is that Israel has tried to be accommodating, most recently in 2000, and Palestinians have spurned decent offers. More important than trying further to persuade Palestinians to reduce their non-negotiable demands is the priority of defending ourselves against the madness of Palestinian extremists.
The second question, why the special concern, is easier to answer. It reflects the weight of Muslim countries in international politics, and their self-serving ritual of emphasizing Israel's affront in order to excuse their shabby treatment of Palestinians and their own citizens.
I fear that the frontal assault on this issue, both by Barack Obama and Benyamin Netanyahu, will do more harm than good. It is not clear who deserves the greater condemnation: Obama for provoking the dog from its sleep, or Netanyahu for provoking Obama with his unnecessary declarations about settlements and a Palestinian state. Netanyahu has added to the provocation by proclaiming extreme conditions for a Palestinian state. Israeli commentators have compared the state he would accept to Andorra. The chorus of nay saying from Palestinians and Arab rulers was predictable. It was also inevitable that with even a slight bend toward the Americans Netanyahu would provoke the right wing in his own government. Israel's sleeping dogs have started to bark and may bite. Netanyahu's previous term as prime minister ended when his allies abandoned him as not sufficiently kosher.
Hopefully the response of Arab governments to Netanyahu is no more than lip service. Hopefully Obama will recognize it as such, and not respond with increased pressure on Netanyahu.
The peace process involving Israel and Palestine was safely asleep. The damage that came to violent Gazans earlier this year may have deepened the sleep. Past efforts to achieve peace proved the depth of the problem. Obama and Netanyahu will not help themselves by brazen attempts to deal with it, and they may hurt the rest of us in the process.
I welcome comments sent to my e-mail address, below.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il