MIDEAST

How We Got to This Point

Three recent books chart the winding path from Kermit Roosevelt with his suitcases stuffed with cash to George W. Bush's gloomy Nobel Prize prospects.

Barbara Kinney / The White House-Getty Images
Fleeting Hope: (From left) Israel's Yitzhak Rabin, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Hussein, Clinton and PLO leader Yasir Arafat in 1995
 
Sponsored by
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

 

Barack Obama said virtually nothing last week about the fighting in Gaza. We only have "one president at a time," his aides argue, and he has already called for a robust American peacemaking effort. Still, as the bombs began falling it must have been tempting for the president-elect to simply avert his eyes. Cries of "all-out war" make the risks to U.S. credibility abroad and the political costs at home seem infinitely more acute. Fighting in the Holy Land has been raging for thousands of years, the familiar reasoning goes; it would be hubris to think America could end it.

Yet three excellent recent books suggest that such logic is seriously flawed. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly, diplomatic distance virtually guarantees the status quo. Because Israel is so much stronger, power dynamics in the conflict are "deeply unbalanced," write Daniel Kurtzer and Scott Lasensky in their trenchant guidebook, "Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace" (191 pages. U.S. Institute of Peace. $16.50). "Left on their own, the parties cannot address the deep, structural impediments to peace." Over the past half-century, the price of a generally desultory American policy has been compounded.

That's the takeaway from Patrick Tyler's ambitious new history, "A World of Trouble: The White House and the Middle East—From the Cold War to the War on Terror" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 628 pages. $30). The bottom line, according to Tyler: "After nearly six decades of escalating American involvement in the Middle East, it remains nearly impossible to discern any overarching approach to the region such as the one that guided U.S. policy through the Cold War." Still, starry-eyed naiveté is no way to solve one of the world's most intractable conflicts. Martin Indyk's nuanced new memoir of his tenure as a Clinton-era peace negotiator, "Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East" (494 pages. Simon &Schuster. $30), demonstrates how hard the balancing act can be.

American diplomacy in the region wasn't always so feeble. Back in the fall of 1956, intelligence reached Washington that Israel was massing troops near Gaza in the Negev Desert. U.S. officials discovered that Israel had conspired with Britain and France to seize the Suez Canal, which popular Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had nationalized the summer before. The Americans were furious at their allies' back-room plan. Israel's then foreign minister, Golda Meir, made an argument much the same as what Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said since then: "Imagine attacks from enemies camped on the Mexican and Canadian borders inflicting those kinds of casualties in America." But President Eisenhower wasn't buying. As Tyler recounts, Ike went on television and demanded a withdrawal, later withholding oil shipments and loans to Britain. The conspirators were forced to comply.

In the years after World War II, Nasser wasn't yet a reflexive U.S. antagonist. American diplomats and spooks assiduously (albeit clumsily) courted Arab nationalist leaders in both Syria and Egypt. Theodore Roosevelt's grandson, the CIA agent Kermit (Kim) Roosevelt, handed out suitcases filled with millions of dollars in cash to potential allies. His efforts were transparent, and Nasser considered it bribery. As Tyler recounts, the Arab nationalist used the money to build a tower topped with a revolving restaurant in central Cairo. Egyptians referred to the eyesore as "Roosevelt's erection." By the mid-1950s, Nasser was poised to sign a $100 million arms deal with the Soviet Union, and Syria was in similar talks.

In the meantime, Israel and America were growing closer. U.S. intelligence operatives were grateful for Israeli espionage help as the Cold War intensified. In 1966 the Mossad delighted the CIA's Tel Aviv station chief, John Hadden, by delivering a fully functional Soviet MiG-21 to the Americans for inspection. When Hadden was caught copying names from mailboxes in a neighborhood in Dimona—the location of Israel's secret, undeclared nuclear program—Mossad agents only laughed and began referring to Hadden affectionately as the "bastard," Tyler writes. The following year, Israel defeated several Soviet clients at once during the Six Day War, and respect for the Jewish state deepened among American cold warriors.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: isjust @ 01/14/2009 4:34:13 AM

    To our Muslim brethren, we beg of you to not let the terrorists within continue terrorising the Jews with their

    suicide bombings of Jewish women and children on busses, weddings, restaurants, and nightclubs:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1197051.stm

    We beg, please stop train your children from age 4 to be suicide bombers to kill us:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=JhVDwrfoTOg

    Please stop saying that it is all because of Israel, what about what the palestinians did to the christians in

    Lebanon:
    http://multimedia.heritage.org/content/wm/Lehrman-092706a.wvx

    Please don't support their lies that the Jews "stole palestine" from the "palestinians"
    http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm

    At that point maybe we'll start talking about peace! Now what do you support?

  • Posted By: Aardwolf @ 01/12/2009 1:26:23 PM

    schucthtern, your rationale makes good sense, would love to say no thats bullsh**..but I cant. I will say that the palestinians have not now, nor did they ever allow for the possibility that they can coexist with the Israelis. they are refugees because they put themselves in that position, Mandatory palestine never included either the west bank or gaza..they belonged to egypt and jordan. both countries are happy enough to let the Israelis deal with what is essentially their problem. If a seperate palestinian state where to be established in the west bank, it would be basically carved from jordanian territory. there is a knee jerk reaction in islam to possess every square speck of dirt that ever had a muslim so much as poop on it. regardless of how they got it to begin with...I mean come on,...Jerusalem..City of the Jews...they built the dump, its named after them, and while I could give a rats behind about the "holy" places there,..they have exactly 0 religious value to me personally. there are alternatives to butchering each other over them. obviously fighting since 1948 hasnt gotten them anywhere but "Got-my-ass-kicked-ville" maybe then try the other route...negotiate realistically...you lost, deal with it and move on to something you can reasonably expect. th palestinians need to stop playing the victim, they arent victims. they are just as bloody as Israel...just considerably weaker.

  • Posted By: schuchtern @ 01/12/2009 11:12:24 AM

    Yes, it is all of our responsibility to make sure that both the Isrealis and the Palestinians are protected. The UN made a decision to buy up some Palestinian land and fund the Jews in a post-Halocaust europe to a safer place. Since then the isrealis have been indiscriminately supported by the US and UN, and have forced the palestinians onto a small strip of land. This is an OLD issue, and it's beyond me to figure out how we are supposed to get God down here to ask "who's land IS it?" because it does go deeper than just a line in the sand. In the mean time, genocide is not an option - even if logic tells us that danger is bad and when you are in danger you should run away, it could make the Palestinians seem deserving of this fate. But we are not being sympathetic. If Canada launched so much as a water balloon at us, we'd have their asses in a second, flat. Even if Canada could whoop our arses, we wouldn't give up OUR land! It doesn't make logical sense, but when you believe you are fighting for your home, it doesn't have to make sense. You might be willing to die fighting for your home.

 
 
The Peek
 
 
MEDIA

Just a year after buying The Wall Street Journal, the press rapscallion has revitalized the fusty paper.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu