Playing Safe

The challenge of the Middle East peace process is the problem of the disparity of power. Andrew Bacevich writes, “Between Israelis and Palestinians, the disparity of power looms large and not by accident. Even before founding their state, Zionists were intent on acquiring a surplus of power. By means both fair and foul, Israel succeeded in doing just that. Today it has a regionally dominant conventional army; nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them; and the world’s leading superpower in its pocket. By comparison, the Palestinians can claim no remotely comparable advantage.”

For Israelis, the peace process is “a mechanism to enshrine hard-earned Israeli advantages in perpetuity.”

The US has limited options. The easiest is “top perpetuate the never-ending charade of the ‘peace process.’” Because of the disparity of power, this process will never end and will never satisfy the Palestinians.

A second option is to urge the Palestinians to accept their subordinate state in perpetuity. This “might yield a sort of peace, sullen but better than no peace at all.”

The third, most difficult option is “to peel away the advantages to which the stronger party has become accustomed. Reducing the disparity of power will level the playing field. Rendering the status quo less tenable might create incentives for meeting the other side halfway rather than issuing diktats or scoldings.” The US can nudge Israel by limiting its military support for Israel; it can “withhold diplomatic cover for Israeli actions inconsistent with US interests.” These moves would make Israel reconsider its intransigence, and might make them want the peace process.

Bacevich is cynical about US policies: “Which of these three options are our leaders in Washington most likely to choose? Count on them to take the easy way out.”