Talking to enemies

Editorial

Moshe Dayan famously expressed a truism about diplomatic discussions: “If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.”

So simple in theory, less so in practice.

This week, Irwin Cotler, the Canadian parliamentarian and respected international commentator, declaimed the impending address by the Iranian dictator and declared would-be genocide-perpetrator to the United Nations.

“When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives in New York to address the UN General Assembly,” Cotler wrote, “a man who should be in the dock of the accused will instead be given an international podium – a cruel parody of law and justice that will put us on the wrong side of history.”

It is hard to disagree with Cotler. Yet, not impossible.

It is certainly a despicable scene to see this hateful figure, who has threatened to annihilate Israel, treated by the UN body with respect. And yet, the very purpose of the UN, all artifice and acknowledged failure stripped away, is to provide the ultimate forum for the sparring parties of the world to find recourse through words, not violence.

So, with whom do we side? With the rational revulsion of Cotler to the spectacle of the UN welcoming this contemporary Haman? Or with the sensible idealism of Dayan, that peace requires speaking with one’s enemies?

In an ideal world, more talk would always be the answer, particularly if the alternative is war. When we reach a point where we are defining other parties as “enemies,” and war seems probable or inevitable, the magnitude of the disagreement has, by definition, surpassed the realm of easy negotiation.

In this case, Iran’s apocalyptic theocrats have demonstrated almost no amenity to good-faith negotiation. Indeed, there is the fear that any semblance of Iranian negotiation and cooperation is merely a tactic to buy time to advance their nuclear agenda. In such a case, what is there to talk about? And if there is nothing to talk about, what then?

When the Canadian government recently broke off diplomatic relations with Iran, it was natural to feel a sense of national pride and gratitude for this condemnation of Iranian aggression and Canadian solidarity with Israel, on the one hand. On the other hand, there is the knowledge that, when diplomatic relations end, there are no additional steps before war when relations deteriorate further. Is it too soon to stop talking to Iran?

Would we have entered into discussions with other malevolent figures in history? Which enemies are worthy of attempting discussion and which are not? Remember, today’s enemy is viewed through a particular lens and hindsight tells us that some enemies have proved more dangerous than we believed, others less so. There was a time when entering into discussions with representatives of Palestinian terrorism (that is, with the PLO) was an unthinkable position for an Israeli leader or government. For most of the 1990s, it was official Israeli policy and now most Israeli leaders wish they had a serious negotiating partner on the Palestinian side.

U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney, in recently and involuntarily released taped remarks, made the comment that as president he would seek to kick the Palestinian question down the road, because, in his perception, the Palestinians do not want peace and so there is little or nothing to discuss. Despite the pillorying he received in some quarters for these observations, Romney was largely correct: Palestinian leaders have shown more interest in perpetuating the conflict than resolving it. Yet, should we stop trying to persuade them to live in peaceful coexistence?

A major difference between the Palestinian and the Iranian cases is this: while many or most leaders in both jurisdictions openly dream of a region and a world without Israel, Iran is striving for nuclear weaponry to make those dreams come true. Most Palestinians – adherents of Hamas and, despite half-hearted contradictions, many or most of those who support Fatah – idealize a Jew-free Middle East, and probably a Jew-free world. Yet both Hamas and Fatah lack the military resources at present to make their grandiose plans real. There is time to discuss with Palestinians a permanent end to conflict, even if a resolution seems far off. There may not be enough time to talk sense into the Iranian leaders.

Returning to Dayan’s dictum ... making peace demands talking to your enemies. But according to Israel’s prime minister, the issue is no longer “making peace” with Iran, but preventing the annihilation of Israel. Is there still time to talk?

^TOP