Warren Christopher has a piece in the Washington Post today, and his critique of the Bush administration's approach to the Middle East conflict can be described as nothing short of
devastating:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's just-concluded trip to Lebanon, Israel and Rome was an exercise in grace, bravery and, to my regret, wrongly focused diplomacy. Especially disappointing is the fact that she resisted all suggestions that the first order of business should be negotiation of an immediate cease-fire between the warring parties.
In the course of her trip, the secretary repeatedly insisted that any cease-fire be tied to a "permanent" and "sustainable" solution to the root causes of the conflict. Such a solution is achievable, if at all, only after protracted negotiations involving multiple parties. In the meantime, civilians will continue to die, precious infrastructure will continue to be destroyed and the fragile Lebanese democracy will continue to erode.
He continues with his lesson in diplomacy below the fold.
Chrisopher moves on in his piece to describe his experiences in brokering a peace deal between Israel and Hezbollah between 1993 and 1996, and offers a detailed explanation of what the United States must do to approach this conflict in a meaningful and productive way.
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.
Christopher is making a clear distinction here, and one that hasn't been made nearly enough in the mainstream press, between the actions of this administration versus the foreign policy doctrine of the Clinton years. To Bush, peace without the total destruction of your enemy is nothing but a failure in disguise. There is no room for diplomacy in the Bush doctrine, rather only a victor and a loser.
Christopher continues on, offering forth why it is critical that the United States take an active role sooner, rather than later.
Syria may well be a critical participant in any cease-fire arrangement, just as it was in 1993 and 1996. Although Syria no longer has troops in Lebanon, Hezbollah's supply routes pass through the heart of Syria, and some Hezbollah leaders may reside in Damascus, giving the Syrians more leverage over Hezbollah's actions than any other country save Iran. Syria has invited a direct dialogue with the United States, and although our relations with Syria have seriously deteriorated in recent years (we have not had an ambassador in Damascus for more than a year), we do not have the luxury of continuing to treat it with diplomatic disdain. As the situations with North Korea and Iran confirm, refusing to speak with those we dislike is a recipe for frustration and failure.
Because Hezbollah has positioned itself as the "David" in this war, every day that the killing continues burnishes its reputation within the Arab world. Every day that more of the Lebanese infrastructure is turned to dust, Beirut's fragile democracy becomes weaker, both in its ability to function and in the eyes of its people.
The impact is not limited to Lebanon or Israel. Every day America gives the green light to further Israeli violence, our already tattered reputation sinks even lower. The reluctance of our closest allies in the Middle East even to receive Secretary Rice this week in their capitals attests to this fact.
It is time for the United States to step forward with the authority and balance that this moment requires.
I for one have said for the last week or so that the options for Democrats on this issue were limited at best. But as the days go on, and the deaths continue to mount, it has become clear that there is an alternative to silence, both for this administration and for the Democrats in Congress.
As this SurveyUSA poll released yesterday shows, the American people are ready for peace:
Does Israel have the right? Or does Israel not have the right? ... to attack Lebanon?
52% Does Have The Right
34% Does Not
13% Not Sure
Do you think Israel should continue its military activities in Lebanon? Or should it stop them?
48% Continue
42% Stop
10% Not Sure
Should United States diplomats attempt to negotiate a cease-fire between Israel and its neighbors? Or, should the United States stay out of it?
40% Attempt To Negotiate a Cease-fire
56% Stay Out Of It
5% Not Sure
Which best describes how you feel: The world is a dangerous place, but no more so than usual. We are headed towards World War III. World War III has already begun.
35% World No More Dangerous Than Usual
42% Headed Towards World War III
18% World War III Has Already Begun
5% Not Sure
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in the Middle East?
35% Approve
56% Disapprove
9% Not Sure
The Democratic leadership should be out right now drawing a distinction between the way a Democratic-lead government deals with a crisis in the Middle East, and the way this administration has approached the conflict:
or
Go check out the rest, and consider writing a letter to the editor to your local paper, explaining that you stand with a sane foreign policy, rather than the belief that war is peace.
(Originally posted at Deny My Freedom and cross posted at My Left Wing)