Customer Reviews

Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Martin Indyk, an Australian citizen and lobbyist for the Israeli government, ended up as the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and the first Jewish ambassador to Israel from the U.S. during the Clinton administration. Rather than explaining how he pulled off this trick, he provides a conventional account of peace making in the Mideast during the two terms of the Clinton administration. There are significant gaps in his narrative--he hardly covers the Israeli-Syrian negotiations of 1996. He also examines the policy of dual containment applied to Iran and Iraq. Because of the scope it tends to be rather uneven, but unlike Dennis Ross he is more open about mistakes made by the administration in dealing with Arafat and the Palestinians at Camp David in 2000. He basically supports previous accounts by Clinton, Ross, and Madeleine Albright in blaming Arafat for the failure of Camp David and the peace process. But like Aaron Miller he is willing to admit American mistakes and make recommendations for future administrations. This is recommended for those wanting an overview of American Mideast policy during the Clinton years.

I've been trying to learn more about the Israel/Palestine problem ever since realizing how much Muslim extremism is rooted in, or fed by, the situation there. This book sounded interesting and informative, so I checked it out. Mr. Indyk may be a smart and accomplished man, but he seems to be wearing blinders. Israel is chronically in violation of international law and of multiple UN resolutions, but Mr. Indyk covers these critical contextual aspects of the situation superficially if at all. For reasons that still aren't entirely clear to me, American foreign policy, of which Mr. Indyk was recently an instrument, has apparently long been very unbalanced and very pro-Israel. I would much prefer a more balanced perspective, both in my government and in this book.

I would strongly caution anyone not to buy this book until they listen to Mr. Indyk's 1/8/09 interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. There was a man on that program with him who had a different perspective, calling attention for example to international law, to the huge consensus of world opinion that says Israel is wrong, and most relevantly to specific very significant inaccuracies in Mr. Indyk's book. Mr. Indyk failed entirely to rise to the occasion and refute the criticism, instead falling back on the dubious refuge of those whose statements don't withstand scrutiny - he attacked his critic as a "propagandist" without providing evidence or justification. In my book, anyone who resorts to those kind of labels in lieu of factual arguments isn't much worth listening to. He even made a very dismissive statement about international law, calling it something like "paraphernalia".

Listen to the interview online; if he sounds like someone you want to hear more from, or if you're really interested in his inside accounts, buy the book. For my money, I feel sure there are more clear-thinking insiders who've written memoirs we can read and learn from.

The 400+ page account should be read entirely as a personal perspective rather than a true representation of the facts or a 360 view of the events. As long as it is read that way, there are few criticisms that can be lodged against the book. However, the book should in not be read as an unbiased or factual representation of historical events. I think it is mistitled. This is not the account of an innocent (i.e., unbiased) observer. The author is not open to hearing others' viewpoints, and does not reference them in the narrative.

The most dishonest book I ever read in my life.

The standard Zionist position that Martin Indyk takes is that Jews showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs' inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

He distorts most of the narrative in the history of the region. I do not recommend this book.

He is lying to his readers!

This is a superb book for readers like me who are not that well-informed about the Middle East but want to know and understand more. Indyck gives us just what most of us need: a clear and cool appraisal of what is going on there, and - above all - an EXPLANATION of it all. I thoroughly recommend this book for both beginners and more advanced readers!

This book is terrific. For outsiders to the world of diplomacy, Indyk provides a very personal,knowledgeable, and informative account of how the multiple variables of time, circumstances, personalities, and agendas all interact. Indyk profiles the many players with the insight of a wise clinician and provides an informative post-mortem analysis. Hopefully, this will result in more effective diplomacy or at least an avoidance of previous presumptions. From a clinical perspective, the only certainty is that it is all uncertain and there are no guarantees. Diplomacy is often an experiment where the inputs are not always as desired, the process unpredictable and the outcome never certain and often surprising. There is no science in diplomacy and the outcomes are shaped by forces and trends too often not appreciated, anticipated or understood by the participants.

What also comes across is Indyk's humility, earnestness and ability to engage others in perservering to change the Mid-east paradigm.

Anyone who hopes to grasp the complexities of the U.S. presence in Israel and the Middle East, the 2006 war in Lebanon, or the current conflict in Gaza, should read this book. Ambassador Indyk's account of the Clinton administration's attempts to reconcile Israel and Palestine--attempts to bring about a lasting peace that fell short--should be required reading for those on all sides of the political spectrum. Understanding the context and history of previous attempts to forge a meaningful peace couldn't be more timely, and a first-hand history of the Israel-Palestine conflict is what Innocent Abroad delivers. A must read for anyone who wants to transcend the heated, ideological tone that so often weighs down any meaningful discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A real strength of this book is its focus on understanding in a non-ideological way what actually happened and then using the facts to draw some broad conclusions.

The writer was a participant in so many of the crucial encounters that he is as well placed as anybody to report these facts. He also made a point of making contemporaneous notes of these encounters which helps to ensure the accuracy of what he writes.

Indyk brings to the book a lifetime of analyzing the politics of the Middle East in various capacities in academia and in prestigious think tanks and this combined with his diplomatic experience as an Ambassador to Israel for many years and senior official in the State Department puts him in an ideal position to write this book and adds enormous credibility to what he writes.

Indyk also writes well. The prose flows. The book reads like a fascinating political travel adventure. It is apparent how much editing went into this book.

The reviewer who accuses Israel of being chronically in violation of international law and of multiple UN resolutions repeats the inaccuracies that many who seek to demonize Israel (and often Jews) frequently propagate. The truth is the opposite. A great book to provide the facts on this and other contentious issues is Mitchell Bard: Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. You can read this online at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org. The same reviewer also accuses American foreign policy of being very unbalanced and very pro-Israel. The fact is that Washington's close relationship with Israel is crucial because it assures the Palestinians and other Arabs that the United States has leverage with Israel and it assures Israel that if it makes concessions it can rely on the United States to help protect it should those concessions be exploited by Israel's enemies to threaten Israel.

This book is highly recommended.

Peace? Innocence? In the Middle East there is no paper so thin that there are not two sides.

This has become a controversial and timely book because of the Gaza War and the Israeli elections of 2009. It appears some judge the author based on events that occurred after the book was published. Some say his approach (not Bushes) is now vindicated, others question his perspective, while others say the events have overtaken everyone's analysis and defy analysis.

"Innocent Abroad" has become a barometer for how much one supports: current or former U.S. policies, the concept of negotiation, the use of power and soft power, or any of the participants: Hamas, Palestinians, Syrian's, Israeli's, Iranians, U.S. and others.

After reading the book, Tom Friedman wrote "Gaza today is basically ground zero for all three of these struggles

(1) Who is going to be the regional superpower Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Iran?
(2) Should there be a Jewish state in the Middle East and, if so, on what Palestinian terms? And
(3) Who is going to dominate Arab society -- Islamists who are intolerant of other faiths and want to choke off modernity or modernists who want to embrace the future, with an Arab-Muslim face

"This tiny little piece of land, Gaza, has the potential to blow all of these issues wide open and present a huge problem for Barack Obama on Day 1.".

Obama's great potential for America, noted Indyk, is also a great threat to Islamist radicals -- because his narrative holds tremendous appeal for Arabs. For eight years Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda have been surfing on a wave of anti-U.S. anger generated by George W. Bush. And that wave has greatly expanded their base."
---------------------------------------------------------------

Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic Magazine: The Four Questions: Martin Indyk on the Failure of Peacemaking

27 Jan 2009
Martin Indyk's new book, Innocent Abroad, about the failures of American peacemaking in the Middle East, is an incisive, honest (sometimes caustically so), and -- I know this might sound strange when talking about a 528-page book about a peace process that ultimately went nowhere -- compulsively readable tour of the recent, and tragic, past. I asked Martin four questions (actually six, but I like calling this feature the Four Questions) about his book, and his work. Here is our exchange:

Jeffrey Goldberg: When I was listening to Barack Obama talk about the events of the past month, particularly when he spoke of Hamas, it almost sounded as if he were giving us George Bush's understanding of the Middle East. Do you see significant change coming down the road?

Martin Indyk: I too was struck by how close Obama stuck to requirements enunciated by Bush: the need for a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem; Israel's need for security and its right to defend itself; Hamas's need to recognize Israel, forswear violence, and accept previous agreements; and the need to support the Palestinian Authority (particularly as the primary vehicle for channeling aid to Gazans in the wake of the latest conflict). But Obama's appointment of George Mitchell as Middle East peace envoy and his immediate dispatch of this heavy-hitter to the region, together with his promise of sustained, persistent American diplomatic engagement, highlight his differences with Bush who preferred to sit back and leave the parties to their own devices. This return to energetic peacemaking diplomacy of the kind the United States undertook in the 1990s actually makes Barack Obama sound more like Bill Clinton than George Bush. The peace process is back!

JG: Name the single thing American negotiators could do differently that might produce a better outcome than the one you experienced.

MI: If you confine me to one thing, I would say they have to hold both sides to their commitments: the Palestinians have to stop the violence and terrorism and dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism; and Israel has to stop the settlement activity (including natural growth) and dismantle the unauthorized settlement outposts. These are not moral equivalents but they are equivalent in the damage they have done to the hope of peace and the viability of a two-state solution. Nothing did more to undermine Clinton's peacemaking efforts so it was no coincidence that at the end of the Clinton Administration George Mitchell made the same recommendations in his report on the origins of the intifada. Those recommendations were incorporated in the Road Map which the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority accepted and committed to implement.

JG: Could the Jews in the settlements east of the security barrier be removed by force without sparking civil war?

MI: I don't believe that force would be necessary if the evacuation is presented to the Israeli public as part of a package that would include the following elements: financial compensation equal to that provided to the Gaza settlers; resettlement in the blocs that would be incorporated into Israel by agreement with the Palestinians; an end to the territorial claims of the Palestinians; security arrangements that ensure that all violence and terrorism against Israelis ceases; international guarantees of freedom of access for Israelis to Jewish holy places in Judea and Samaria; and peace with all the Arab states.

JG: Would the Palestinians respond to a reversal of the settlement project by marginalizing Hamas?

MI: Hamas enjoys popular support in the West Bank as well as Gaza because it has been seen to be more effective and less corrupt than Fatah and the Palestinian Authority. Under its current leadership Fatah is incapable of reforming itself and as long as that is the case Hamas will enjoy an advantage. However, the Palestinian Authority under non- Fatah PM Salam Fayyad is showing that it can establish order and promote economic development in the West Bank. This has improved its credibility and is one reason that Hamas decided to break the ceasefire in Gaza (because they felt they were losing ground politically). In the wake of the Gaza war, a real West Bank settlements freeze and the dismantlement of unauthorized outposts would do more than anything else to enhance the PA's credibility because it would show in a tangible way that moderation pays where violence only brings devastating destruction.

JG: You say George W. Bush is at fault for ignoring the conflict until well into his second term. But he inherited an intifada, a Sharon government and the controversy over the Karine-A, a boat full of weapons dispatched by Iran to help Yasser Arafat. What was he supposed to do, given these unhappy realities?

MI: I was Bush's ambassador in Israel for his first six months in office, which coincided with Sharon's. What he should have done was intervene to stop the violence and terrorism of the intifada. Remember the intifada had only been raging for three months when he entered the White House (it continued for five years on his watch). Sharon was willing to deal with Arafat - he sent his son Omri to meet with him as a manifestation of that, telling me that Arafat would understand the gesture of sending him his first born son. He was willing to freeze all settlement activity for six months if the violence stopped. When Hamas bombed the Dolphinarium discotheque in Tel Aviv in June, 2001, killing 19 Israeli teenagers, which signaled the advent of suicide bombing, Sharon did not retaliate. In the face of ever-increasing Palestinian terrorism, Sharon actually waited for 15 months before he sent the Israeli army into the West Bank to reoccupy Palestinian cities and towns. He was waiting all that time for Bush to intervene and pressure Arafat to stop the terrorism. But Bush was determined to remain detached, explaining to me at the time that "there was no Nobel peace prize to be had here."

JG: Does the road to peace run through Jerusalem, or Tehran?

MI: I don't believe Tehran can veto peace if Israel and the Arabs are committed to making it. But Iran certainly has the ability to subvert the process of peacemaking through support for its violent opponents - Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestine Islamic Jihad. Iran would have real problems maintaining that support if the Syrians, who provide the conduit, were to make peace with Israel. That is why it is so important to advance on the Palestinian and Syrian tracks simultaneously while making clear to Iran that if it wants to become a supporter of peace it is welcome, but if it wants to oppose peace it will be isolating itself. During the Clinton years we chose to isolate Iran; this time around Iran should be the one that has to make that choice.

JG:Which is the more durable Middle East problem: The Arab-Israeli dispute, or the Sunni-Shia dispute?

MI: History has already rendered that judgment in favor of the Sunni-Shia dispute which has been waged for hundreds of years and shows no signs of abatement. If one takes the long view of history, the Arab-Israeli conflict has actually progressed toward resolution, notwithstanding the regular interruptions caused by the eruption of wars and intifadas. The proof of that lies in the steady progression of Arab states which have made peace with Israel, starting with Egypt in the 1980s, Jordan in the 1990s, and the offer of peace from the 23 Arab states of the Arab League in the first decade of the 21st century. Slowly, incredibly painfully, and accompanied by violence, heartbreaking setbacks and misery, Arabs and Israelis are coming to terms with each other. But when you look at the progress that has been made over the last three decades it has only been produced by the active diplomatic intervention of the United States, working with courageous leaders like Anwar Sadat, Menachem Begin, King Hussein, and Yitzhak Rabin - leaders who were willing to say "enough of bloodshed!" and break the mold of conflict. Such leaders do not appear to be present today on either side. But it's the nature of the Middle East that something always turns up, and it's not always bad.

Full Article: January 7, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist New York Times
The Mideast's Ground Zero
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

The fighting, death and destruction in Gaza is painful to watch. But it's all too familiar. It's the latest version of the longest-running play in the modern Middle East, which, if I were to give it a title, would be called: "Who owns this hotel? Can the Jews have a room? And shouldn't we blow up the bar and replace it with a mosque?"

That is, Gaza is a mini-version of three great struggles that have been playing out since 1948: 1) Who is going to be the regional superpower -- Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Iran? 2) Should there be a Jewish state in the Middle East and, if so, on what Palestinian terms? And 3) Who is going to dominate Arab society -- Islamists who are intolerant of other faiths and want to choke off modernity or modernists who want to embrace the future, with an Arab-Muslim face? Let's look at each.

WHO OWNS THIS HOTEL? The struggle for hegemony over the modern Arab world is as old as Nasser's Egypt. But what is new today is that non-Arab Iran is now making a bid for primacy -- challenging Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Iran has deftly used military aid to both Hamas and Hezbollah to create a rocket-armed force on Israel's northern and western borders. This enables Tehran to stop and start the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at will and to paint itself as the true protector of the Palestinians, as opposed to the weak Arab regimes.

"The Gaza that Israel left in 2005 was bordering Egypt. The Gaza that Israel just came back to is now bordering Iran," said Mamoun Fandy, director of Middle East programs at the International Institute of Strategic Studies. "Iran has become the ultimate confrontation state. I am not sure we can talk just about `Arab-Israeli peace' or the `Arab peace initiative' anymore. We may be looking at an `Iranian initiative.' " In short, the whole notion of Arab-Israeli peacemaking likely will have to change.

CAN THE JEWS HAVE A ROOM HERE? Hamas rejects any recognition of Israel. By contrast, the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, which controls the West Bank, has recognized Israel -- and vice versa. If you believe, as I do, that the only stable solution is a two-state one, with the Palestinians getting all of the West Bank, Gaza and Arab sectors of East Jerusalem, then you have to hope for the weakening of Hamas.


Why? Because nothing has damaged Palestinians more than the Hamas death-cult strategy of turning Palestinian youths into suicide bombers. Because nothing would set back a peace deal more than if Hamas's call to replace Israel with an Islamic state became the Palestinian negotiating position. And because Hamas's attacks on towns in southern Israel is destroying a two-state solution, even more than Israel's disastrous and reckless West Bank settlements.

Israel has proved that it can and will uproot settlements, as it did in Gaza. Hamas's rocket attacks pose an irreversible threat. They say to Israel: "From Gaza, we can hit southern Israel. If we get the West Bank, we can rocket, and thereby close, Israel's international airport -- anytime, any day, from now to eternity." How many Israelis will risk relinquishing the West Bank, given this new threat?

SHOULDN'T WE BLOW UP THE BAR AND REPLACE IT WITH A MOSQUE? Hamas's overthrow of the more secular Fatah organization in Gaza in 2007 is part of a regionwide civil war between Islamists and modernists. In the week that Israel has been slicing through Gaza, Islamist suicide bombers have killed almost 100 Iraqis -- first, a group of tribal sheikhs in Yusufiya, who were working on reconciliation between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, and, second, mostly women and children gathered at a Shiite shrine. These unprovoked mass murders have not stirred a single protest in Europe or the Middle East.

Gaza today is basically ground zero for all three of these struggles, said Martin Indyk, the former Clinton administration's Middle East adviser whose incisive new book, "Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Diplomacy in the Middle East," was just published. "This tiny little piece of land, Gaza, has the potential to blow all of these issues wide open and present a huge problem for Barack Obama on Day 1."

Obama's great potential for America, noted Indyk, is also a great threat to Islamist radicals -- because his narrative holds tremendous appeal for Arabs. For eight years Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda have been surfing on a wave of anti-U.S. anger generated by George W. Bush. And that wave has greatly expanded their base.

No doubt, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are hoping that they can use the Gaza conflict to turn Obama into Bush. They know Barack Hussein Obama must be (am)Bushed -- to keep America and its Arab allies on the defensive. Obama has to keep his eye on the prize. His goal -- America's goal -- has to be a settlement in Gaza that eliminates the threat of Hamas rockets and opens Gaza economically to the world, under credible international supervision. That's what will serve U.S. interests, moderate the three great struggles and earn him respect.