The Energy Wall - New York Times

This is not one of Thomas Friedman's better articles. Yes, he makes the good point that Israel is to the clash between Western and Muslim civilizations what the Spanish Civil War was to WWII -- a laboratory to try out new ideas, tactics and weaponry. Highjackings were perfected by the Palestinians before deployed on the broader international stage. He argues that Israel, seeing there was no one responsible to negotiate with, unilaterally disengaged and built walls to separate itself from its enemies, reduce the threat of terrorism, and put itself in the position to negotiate from a point of greater security. He argues that we must do the same, and build a wall of oil independence that inuslates us against the less responsible Muslim Arab states (he correctly points out that the more responsible and moderate ones, with whom we must engage and support, don't have oil or are running out of it -- they become responsible because they have to).

So why am I not thrilled with this article? Because he makes the faulty analogy that somehow Israel's unilateral withdrawal and fence-building has been effective. Yes, it has been tactically effective in the short run in stopping suicide bombers from getting through, for the most part, supplemented by very good, active forward intelligence and interdiction in the territories. However, the fences, it has now been shown, provide Israel territorial integrity, but not real security. This is a point made by Henry Kissinger at an event I attended last evening where he maintained that, even with these fences providing territorial integrity, Qassam and Katyusha rockets have deprived Israeli society of territorial security, and therefore the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem is not one of territorial compromise, which he (and many) believes is readily obtainable, but of security (and hence the appeal of resurrecting the Jordan-Palestinian confederation or trusteeship plan for the West Bank that I keep squawking about-- the Jordanians, more than anyone, can and need to maintain that security -- the Palestinians won't and can't). As long as their are Palestinian, Hezbullah, Syrian, Iranian or Al Qaeda "spoilers" to obtaining this security, to think that we can hide behind walls of steel or oil is simply isolationist "Fortress America" (or Israel) claptrap. Sure the wall helps, but, MR. Friedman, THEY WILL FIND YOU AND YOUR MODERATE FRIENDS, AND REACH OUT BEYOND THE WALL, AND YOU WILL HAVE TO DEFEAT THEM OR NEUTRALIZE THEM SOMEHOW.

This gets to a second point that Mr. Kissinger made -- nothing good comes from creating a power vacuum, and unfortunately, if we cut and run from Iraq right now, that is exactly what we would create for a toxic combination of Shiite radicalism led by the new superower of the region, Iran, and Sunni radical elements. Our moderate allies, principally the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians, are in super deep trouble already; if Iraq totally collapses into the hands of the Iranians and Sunni radicals, watch out. This is why I can't understand why the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians are not more proactive on helping to stabilize Iraq (it is clear why they were Israel's biggest secret cheering section in the Lebanese War, even though Israel let them down -- this is a commonality of interests for Israel to build upon, by the way). These countries should be leading an "Arab League Peacekeeping force" of 150,000 soliders to Iraq to supplement the 150,000 or so coalition forces there. The only thing you can conclude is that they'can't afford to back Bush -- but where is their Plan B?

The last truistic point on international politics made by Dr. Kissinger was that you must always talk, talk, talk with your adversaries, but don't expect to get any concessions or help out of it unless there is something to gain by the other side, through both carrots and sticks. The corollary of this is that concessions and progress on one front in the Middle East can help get a solution or concession (most likely only a temporary one, but a solution nevertheless), on another front. So while the Israel-Palestinian issue is not at the center of all the Middle East's problems (the belief of most Western policymakers is that it is, by the way, according to Dr. Kissinger), the Israeli-Palestinian issue is a related link to everything else, if for no other reason, as a concession point. Mr. Kissinger finally made clear, however that Hizbullah and Iranian radicals have as part of their DNA the destruction of Israel, and only the delay in that aim can be achieved, but their commitment to it as a final aim cannot be negotiated away (and hence, unless these ideologies ultimately change or wither away, the pressure by the Europeans to ultimately, completely throw Israel over the side will increase in coming decades, which is why Israel's relationship with the US is so important to its survival). Dr. Kissinger did say that good change is possible, and it has come before out of very challenging circumstances, but it will require alot of skilled statecraft and diplomacy, and significant blood could be spilled in the meantime.

Anyway, while I share Mr. Friedman's desire to achieve oil independence at all costs, let's not fall into the Fortress America trap that good fences are enough....


The Energy Wall - New York Times