Warren Speaks!
Former Secretary for States Warren Christopher published an opinion piece today in The Washington Post arguing for an immediate ceasefire. Christopher bases his argument on his experience during past crises. Twice during his tenure as secretary of state he worked with Syria to negotiate a ceasefire following Hezbollah strikes against Israel. He writes (my bolding):
In June 1993, Israel responded to Hezbollah rocket attacks along its northern border by launching Operation Accountability, resulting in the expulsion of 250,000 civilians from the southern part of Lebanon.
After the Israeli bombardment had continued for several days, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin asked me to use my contacts in Syria to seek their help in containing the hostilities. I contacted Foreign Minister Farouk Shara, who, of course, consulted with Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. After several days of urgent negotiations, an agreement was reached committing the parties to stop targeting one another's civilian populations. We never knew exactly what the Syrians did, but clearly Hezbollah responded to their direction.
In April 1996, when Hezbollah again launched rocket attacks on Israel's northern border, the Israelis countered with Operation Grapes of Wrath, sending 400,000 Lebanese fleeing from southern Lebanon. Errant Israeli bombs hit a U.N. refugee camp at Cana in southern Lebanon, killing about 100 civilians and bringing the wrath of international public opinion down upon Israel.
This time Shimon Peres, who had become prime minister after the assassination of Rabin, sought our help. In response, we launched an eight-day shuttle to Damascus, Beirut and Jerusalem that produced a written agreement bringing the hostilities to an end. Weeks later, the parties agreed to a border monitoring group consisting of Israel, Syria, Lebanon, France and the United States. Until three weeks ago, that agreement had succeeded for 10 years in preventing a wholesale resumption of hostilities.
Sound like a compelling argument? Well, there are two problems.
First, on both occasions, as Christopher clearly states, the Israelis initiated the moves toward a ceasefire. I am sure that when the Israelis come to us and ask for our help in arranging a ceasefire, the Bush administration will do just that.
Second, has it dawned on Christopher that the fact that Hezbollah is once again lobbing missiles into Israel, and this time on a grand scale, that the previous ceasefires were nothing more than truces that allowed Hezbollah to further strengthen its position in southern Lebanon? In other words, the Israelis have twice sought a diplomatic solution with no results. And then you have the inter-Arab Taif accord, several UN resolutions, and the presence of UNIFIL in southern Lebanon. Why go down that road again? That’s why the Israelis, thus far, have tried to avoid a ceasefire. Just as the US government helped the Israelis achieve ceasefires in the 1990s when they sought them, we are now trying to help them avoid the imposition of one until they are ready.
The problem here isn’t inconsistency in American policy; the problem is the inability of Warren Christopher to recognize the implications of his own account of past event.
There’s an old definition of insanity for the layperson: insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes.
And with regard to Christopher’s argument that our support for Israel is hurting “our already tattered reputation,” no matter our policy it will get worse. If we refuse to sell out Israel, yes, our reputation will suffer. But does anyone think that if we abandoned Israel our reputation in the Middle East would improve and we’d gain the admiration, respect, and love of Hezbollah, Hamas, Assad, Ahmadinejad, and bin Laden?
The clouds have already gathered and the storm is coming. We cannot run from it, because we cannot run fast enough. We need the face our future and I prefer to do that with Israel at my side.
