Jaw-Jaw Beats War-War

By ANNE ROIPHE
Viewpoint from Issue 15, November 10, 2008 of The Jerusalem Report. To subscribe to The Jerusalem Report click here. I remember when Abie Nathan went to jail for talking to Yasser Arafat. Back in 1991, there was a law against it. Less than two years later, it turned out that Israeli prime ministers had to talk to that same no-good Arafat after all. So who was it who didn't want anyone to do any talking with the enemy? Those who were afraid of someone conceding too much? Or of being deceived or lured into a verbal trap, making a promise that would come back to bite? Or was it those who at heart did not want any motion toward peace, because that would mean compromise and compromise would mean that Israel could not keep the entire land? Those who found compromise a threat were those who loathed Oslo, who did not want to take even the most baby of baby steps toward a two-state solution. To avoid the conversation, to make it illegal, was a tactic, a barrier thrown up in the face of those who understood that an endless occupation would drain and endanger Israel in the long run. I'm not trying to rehash the old argument here. I am making the point that the idea of talking to one's opponent is always threatening to the bellicose. They have their reasons but their reasons are not always rational or promising. In America, we are hearing echoes of this as John McCain acts shocked, "just shocked," that Barack Obama would talk to Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "without preconditions" in an attempt to ease tensions, to get him to abort his nuclear plans and rejoin the family of nations. McCain would say it's the preconditions that matter. He would talk to him too if the little Hitler would just agree to put away his nasty toys before the conversation starts. I have no sympathy or empathy or regard for the Iranian head of state, but I can see that if he gives up his scary card before he sits down at the table, he won't get much there. A negotiation involves the other guy holding a hand, some kind of hand. If he has no hand, we have no problem. Of course, he is going to hold his cards close to his chest, despite the fact that we all know what they are. If I were him, I would too. This matter of preconditions is a way of stalling the dialogue, of setting up barriers, of ensuring that no surprises, like promising agreements, can emerge. Common sense says, "Talk to the guy, it won't hurt you, what can you lose?" But there is something real at risk if you offer to sit down with your enemy: You lose the ability to threaten war, bombs, invasion. Bombs and the furies of war wait on the sidelines, while leaders talk and break bread together. What the American right wants to see is American planes flying in formation over foreign lands. What the American right believes is that force will keep our empire strong, our image fearsome, and bring prosperity, at least to America. They don't want to see compromise, understanding, friendship grow on both sides. That would get in the way of the warrior Americans striding across the globe. You could argue that the wars in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq kept disaster at bay, saving American lives and our way of life. But, if we had not entered those wars, how different would the world look now? Would the mayors of every American small town be Communists if we had not dropped napalm on the farmers of Vietnam and would our own farmers be in collectives and our artists in gulags? Not very likely. If we had talked and explained and offered to work with those who thought differently, we might have saved millions of lives. This is not to say we should disarm and strew flowers at our opponents' feet. But if our army is strong, then we can sit at a table and credibly find out if there is a way to work out a problem. Could Iran's nuclear capacity be kept peaceful and its people prosper? Could we avoid confrontation and instead increase our diplomatic staff? The difference here is that talking first, without preconditions, is a necessary and grown-up way to behave in tense situations. Some who want to protect the military option would call this dangerous. Some like the fight, like the color and the glory and the blood. I think America could learn from Israel that, in the end, you must talk to the other side. Death is waiting for us to make the wrong move.• Contributing editor Anne Roiphe is a novelist and journalist living in New York. Viewpoint from Issue 15, November 10, 2008 of The Jerusalem Report. To subscribe to The Jerusalem Report click here.