What would Kissinger do? That’s the question that Martin Indyk raises in a Washington Post op-ed and the subject is the conflict between Israel and Hamas:
Henry A. Kissinger trained his statecraft on the pursuit of order between states in the international system. He is therefore not usually remembered for his peacemaking achievements. Indeed, he was intensely suspicious of pursuing peace. And yet, in the Middle East, where he devoted much of his energies as secretary of state, he laid the foundation for an Arab-Israeli peace which has managed to withstand all the challenges of Middle Eastern wars that have followed. What lay behind this unusual and oft-overlooked achievement? And what might Kissinger, who died on Wednesday, have done to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian war that rages today?
In Kissinger’s mind, it was always critical to avoid bringing too much passion to the pursuit of peace. He recognized that kings and emperors throughout history — and the American presidents who succeeded them — would be tempted to use their immense power to try to end conflicts. But that instinct needed to be resisted, Kissinger believed, because giving in to it was more likely to lead to more war. He called this “the paradox of peace.†Instead, Kissinger favored an incremental approach to peacemaking: a step-by-step process that would ameliorate conflict and buy time for the warring parties to come to terms with one another, learn to live together and, eventually, end their conflict.
Although I think that Dr. Indyk makes a good point I also think he’s confusing two very different questions. Those are:
- What should be done about Hamas?
- What should be done to resolve the matter of Israel and Palestine?
Let’s consider the second question first. The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is what is referred to as a “wicked” problem. It has no solution as such. The only possible approach to ameliorating the situation is to establish and continue a process for resolving it. The Camp David Accords 40 years ago were the initiation of that process and there have been talks ever since. That process was greatly impeded by Yassar Arafat’s refusal to participate further. That has actually been the history of these talks. They will proceed for a while and then break up, each side blaming the other’s intransigence. That is to be expected.
This process should be continued and I believe that confidence-building steps would be helpful. There are any number of possibilities including beginning the land swaps that have been discussed and Israel’s reducing or eliminating the financial support it provides to West Bank Israeli settlements.
The first question is very different. The resolution of that is to apprehend Hamas members and execute them on the spot.
