Share this story!            

Washington acts as ‘Israel’s attorney’: former US official

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: A former State Department official said on Monday that America has acted as “Israel’s attorney” rather than an a detached player during negotiations for a just settlement of the Palestinian issue.

According to Aaron David Miller, who for a quarter of a century was a Middle East negotiator and adviser on Arab-Israeli affairs, “For far too long, many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as, catering and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations. If the United States wants to be an honest and effective broker on the Arab-Israeli issue, than surely it can have only one client: the pursuit of a solution that meets the needs and requirements of both sides.”

In an op-ed piece in Monday’s Washington Post, Miller writes that “practically speaking, Israel sits on land the Arabs want, so without Israel’s trust and confidence there can be no peace process.” He says that having worked for the past six secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli negotiations, he had come to believe in the importance of a strong US-Israeli relationship, but adds, “Paradoxically, it is our intimacy with the Israelis that gives America - only America - the capacity to be an honest and effective broker.” Arab governments accept that and despite Washington’s diminished credibility in the region, they still expect the US to play a positive role. America, he points out, has been able to bring about a settlement of disputes only when it has used its diplomacy wisely and functioned as an advocate and lawyer for both sides.

According to Miller, “Unfortunately, too often we lose sight of the need to be advocates for both Arabs and Israelis. The most recent example of this was the Clinton administration’s effort in 1999-2000 to broker final deals between Israel, Syria and the Palestinians. With the best of motives and intentions, we listened to and followed Israel’s lead without critically examining what that would mean for our own interests, for those on the Arab side and for the overall success of the negotiations. The ‘no surprises’ policy, under which we had to run everything by Israel first, stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility required for serious peacemaking.

If we couldn’t put proposals on the table without checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they said no, how effective could our mediation be? Far too often, particularly when it came to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, our departure point was not what was needed to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides but what would pass with only one - Israel.”

The former State Department official believes that the US can still be a close friend of both the Israelis and the Palestinians by ensuring that “the needs of both sides are met. “

He adds that the Bush administration is “not off to a particularly good start,” as “it has been exceedingly deferential to Israel’s political and security needs without any equivalent sensitivity to the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, who has all the right instincts and intentions but needs our help.” He argues that if the administration gives Abbas “the same kind of letter of assurance on core Palestinian needs that President Bush gave to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last year on Israeli needs,” it would be the right thing to do.

He urges the Bush administration to “recalibrate its role - lawyering now for both sides.” Palestinians, he points out, need a settlements freeze and a pathway to permanent-status negotiations, while the Israelis need a comprehensive end to violence and incitement.

Miller concludes, “If the administration is prepared to be tough, fair, and an advocate for both Israelis and Palestinians, it may find itself with a real opportunity not only to make Gaza work but also to move on and lay the basis for two states living alongside one another in peace and security.”

Home | National

Share this story!