Baby Steps

Like the rest of the entire universe, I too happened to catch the speech Obama so eloquently delivered to the “Muslim world” in Cairo. Rather than offer a play by play of Obama’s points and infusing them with my own unique, groundbreaking interpretations (something I’d rather leave to the likes of Stephen Walt or Marc Lynch), I thought I would just mention one thing in particular that resonated with me (experts analyze; amateurs muse).

In the context of the Arab-Israeli peace initiative, Obama made a distinction between the politics that saturate overt public statements versus those that are formed and harbored with implicit understanding of what reality requires of leaders:

“America will align our policies with those who pursue peace and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.”

This message is pretty straightforward: both parties recognize that neither can “have it all,” and rigidity has no place in a situation that inherently seeks compromise. But this got me thinking about the varying weight and credibility of the statements leaders (American, Arab, or Israeli) make in private versus those made in public. While conversations behind closed doors find legitimacy in the (ostensible) candidness and sincerity that privacy lends, public statements are more deliberate and bear the weight of accountability to the international community. Clearly, there is room for both to fall short, as both have time and time again: A leader’s off-the-record* statement is as good as unmade, and one (wo)man’s grand oration is another’s empty PR.

Obama implies that “off the record” politics tend to more adequately reflect reality, while the polemics of the public realm are inadequate but will inevitably dominate the discourse. If there’s anything that all public statements about the Arab-Israeli peace initiative have in common, it’s failing to deliver. So what, I ask, is the mechanism for credibility in this instance? Compromise is clearly in order, but is the mere public recognition of its necessity enough to bridge the honesty gap between public and private diplomacy? Moreover, it is the parameters of compromise, rather than the question of its necessity, that presents the biggest obstacle to reaching a lasting, equitable agreement, no? Yes, I know. We must first agree to compromise before we can hammer out the gritty-nitties. Baby steps.

*The issue of the settlement freeze most clearly demonstrates the danger of the "private" agreement; while "not everything is written down," how can you possibly claim to formulate consistent policy around implicit "understandings?" Do winks and knowing looks suffice?