Learning Not to Live By Stereotypes

Perhaps one way out of our gloomy mess in Arab-Israeli peacemaking is at least to explore whether there is a way out of our stereotypes.

Take Avigdor Lieberman for example. The Left is accosting the new king-maker in Israeli politics as being a racist, anti-Arab, and even a wannabe dictator of Israel. All of this might be true, but his supporters are also pointing out that he backs a two-state solution, and is prepared, because of his suspicion of Arabs, to withdraw from occupied territories.  That may sound counter-intuitive, but his backers claim that his very distrust and dislike of his Arab neighbors lead him to want a divorce. He doesn't seek to occupy Arab territory and he's against peace moves; he just wants total separation and that means leaving the territories.  The ultimate logic of this argument is that he may actually be the only Israeli politician today who could seriously push for some kind of new arrangement with the Palestinians. In other words, because Lieberman "hates Arabs", he would be more ready to end the Israeli occupation than other Israeli right-wing politicians.

That idea is strongly dismissed in the press and the blogs, but is it worth considering whether he can have any kind of positive impact? If he does the right thing, does it matter why and who he is?

While the Center-Right is trying to sell us on Lieberman, the Left is whispering about Hamas. Most do not quite say it, but the implication is that Israel and the United States should talk to Hamas to see whether or not it is accurate that Hamas (or at least Gaza Hamas) is prepared for a long-term cease fire. A hudna would emerge as part of a general deal out of the Gaza war, which would free Gilad Shalit once and for all, open the borders, end the violence, end the smuggling of arms, and free a large number of Palestinian prisoners. The Left, for all of its opposition to the Gaza war, is prepared to use it to advance its agenda, a worthy goal, and the assumption is that Hamas would keep its word.

There's another new counter-intuitive line making the rounds-that right-wing Israeli governments can be more agreeable to deals with their neighbors than their centrist or leftist or national unity counterparts.  That takes a distortion of Israeli history to argue, but at least people are challenging well-developed assumptions, and trying to produce new interpretations.  That beats adopting the same old hackneyed arguments that have helped to produce the current stalemate, but only if the new approach leads to new revelations and answers.

There is even an argument making the rounds that it is easier to make a deal with Hamas than the Palestinian Authority. The latter wants a total accommodation that will deal with everything, including refugees, Jerusalem, and borders. Even Ehud Olmert's offer to Abu Mazen was dismissed out of hand because it wasn't comprehensive. So, the argument goes, it is easier to deal with Hamas: quicker results, and who knows what a long hudna would bring?  According to this argument, Hamas is a better "peace partner" because it is less compromising than Fatah, so it will just settle for a long ceasefire. Here's a challenge to most stereotypes, but could it be right?

What is the evidence that Hamas would indeed be interested in such a deal? How does it get tested without Israel or the United States or anyone else breaking their opposition to terrorism, and even to dialogue with terrorists? What if, like the Center-Right on Lieberman, the Left is correct on this one?

But here's the mother of all challenges to current wisdom: an argument that is not rooted in facts, but nearly everyone believes it, and this myth has produced the Obama-ization of Israel and perhaps everyone else. Never has President Obama suggested, in any manner, shape, or form, that he plans to pressure Israel to make concessions. Never has he even hinted that a major change in American policy toward Israel is forthcoming. Yes, he has talked about the importance of moving toward accommodation no matter who is in charge among Palestinians and Israelis. On the other hand George W. Bush often did this as well, but within a year or two of his coming to the presidency, no one really took him seriously.

The difference is that even vague hints from Barack Obama are taken as the Lord's edict. In addition Obama has done what Bush never did, which is to appoint a prestigious envoy to get to work. But even George Mitchell, assumed to be Obama incarnate in parts of the Middle East, especially Israel, has not suggested practical American pressure. The intriguing thing is that Obama does not have to do any of this, because the Israelis, and Arabs as well, have so convinced themselves that their image of Obama as a kind of 21^st Century and milder Jimmy Carter is accurate. Hence, he needn't take any action to change his image, and, in some ways, he may not be able to do so. Obama seems even to be engaged in the formation of the new Israeli government, as the assumption is that a far-Right coalition would soon find itself in deep trouble with the United States "by the second time Obama and Netanyahu meet".

Here we go again. Is anyone listening? Neither President Obama nor Secretary of State Clinton is talking about pressures, or cutting down aid to Israel, or creating some kind of crisis with the country. They may have that in mind. They may step in at a crucial moment. They may use Senator Mitchell to try to pressure when they think it appropriate or necessary. But, the prediction that this will happen is based not on evidence, but faith.  This is not Jimmy Carter.  If nothing else, the economy will prevent this president from spending his first two years preoccupied with this issue, and he cannot even spend the time that President Clinton did at the end of his White House years.

So, it may indeed be a positive development that the parties have inculcated what they think that Obama would like them to do because undoubtedly this approach moves forward whatever peace process might possibly emerge, but it is still based on a series of assumptions rather than specific evidence for what Obama, Clinton, and even Mitchell are actually doing. At least not yet.

We all assume that Lieberman is trouble, Hamas will never make a deal, Obama is intent on pressuring Israel, and Israeli right-wing governments are always disasters.  If we're going to get anywhere on the peace process in this sorry era, we have to be constantly questioning our too easily accepted and unquestioned premises.

Message to Senator Mitchell: Don't necessarily believe what everyone tells you.  Look for the unexpected, and don't assume any prevailing assumption.  If everyone tells you something is obvious, remember: this is the Middle East.  Question it; it might be obvious, but it's never a foregone conclusion.

You'll only succeed if you discover that some prevailing stereotypes are wrong.