Trita Parsi: Is De-escalation Feasible in the Middle East?

Parsi, from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, talks with Zach and Liz about the Israel-Hamas war.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Trita Parsi: Is De-escalation Feasible in the Middle East?

This is the audio version of The Reason Livestream, which takes place every Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern time.

"Despite clear interests on almost all sides against a regional war [in the Middle East], all sides are acting in a manner that makes such a war increasingly likely," writes Trita Parsi in an October 15 article calling for the Biden administration to push for "de-escalation" between Israel and Hamas. Parsi is the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a D.C. think tank that promotes a more restrained U.S. foreign policy. He is the former head of the National Iranian American Council and the author of several books, including A Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S.

Parsi says that although the Biden administration is "well aware" of "escalation risks" that might lead to a broader regional war, talk of de-escalation remains off-limits. HuffPost reported late last week that it has obtained State Department memos instructing employees to avoid terms like "de-escalation/ceasefire," "end to violence/bloodshed," and "restoring calm" in press materials and statements.

Is de-escalation feasible after Hamas slaughtered Israeli civilians and continues to hold more than 200 hostages? How should Israel respond to the worst terrorist attack in its history? What can U.S. policymakers do to make the prospect of a bigger war less likely?

We discussed these questions and more with Parsi. We also revisited the topic of domestic reactions to the Hamas attack, namely the comments of a Cornell professor who claimed to be "exhilirated" by it.

Sources referenced in this conversation:

"Biden refuses to talk 'ceasefire' even though it could prevent a regional war," by Trita Parsi

"Stunning State Department Memo Warns Diplomats: No Gaza 'De-Escalation' Talk," by Akbar Shahid Ahmed

"Source: Iran warns Israel through UN against ground offensive in Gaza," by Barak Ravid

"Iran says 'preemptive action' by resistance front expected in coming hours," by Reuters

"Talks fail to let aid reach Gaza; Israel evacuates Lebanon border," by Nidal Al-Mughrabi, Dan Williams and Yusri Mohamed

"Biden is expected to request $100 billion for Israel, Ukraine and other crises," by Karoun Demirjian

Comments

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

No

Shortest column ever

[Minadin]

We successfully de-escalated Japan in 1945.

[Vernon Depner]

Can't really nuke Palestine without also destroying Israel.

[Nardz]

It's funny watching Reason struggle to say something relevant while being so far out of touch and having little to no information on what is currently happening in the world.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1715451285690896401?t=-eNu1TMApm6hn-Smn3XBqg&s=19

Multiple U.S. Defense Officials are now reporting that the Interceptions over the Red Sea almost 2 Nights Ago by the USS Carney (DDG-64) were much more Significant than had previously been stated, with the Destroyer said to have Intercepted at least 4 Land-Attack Cruise Missiles and 15 Drones launched by the Houthis in Yemen all within a 9-Hour Period, in which the “Targets” were Detected following the Coast with Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea and were clearly Aimed at Israel.

[Shlomo's Shiksa]

The Houthis need anti-ship missiles.

[Nardz]

Delete

[Reshufflex]

Some folks need to bleed just to feel alive. Hamas, I’m looking at you. When that’s what grounds one’s existence, good luck trying to reconcile madness or to introduce sanity.

These psychos see massacres as Tuesday-just another day; another step onto the ladder of some delusional paradise.

Drop the bombs and start over.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Despite clear interests on almost all sides against a regional war

Who falls outside the 'almost' in this scenario?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Hamas?
Iran?
Biden?
Saudi Arabia?
Egypt?
Hell, all Muslim countries.
Hell, all Democrats and a lot of Republicans.
Putin, since it distracts from arming Ukraine.
Xi, since it distracts from arming Taiwan.

OK, "almost everybody". That's my final answer.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Interesting commentary. Especially on Biden's horrific speech.

[netizen]

That was a hard listen. Mostly dodged questions, argued against a straw man (or at least weak man). I'm sure he's sincere, but extremely naive.

[CE]

Sure, the Palestinians could de-escalate by rounding up Hamas and turning them over to Israel for justice.

Which is what good, decent people would do, rather than continue to be associated with murderers and rapists.

[Shlomo's Shiksa]

Israel could arm Fatah and send them into Gaza to clean house. All they need is a time machine to send them back to 2007.

[JFree]

Netanyahu wanted Hamas strong as a both a divide/conquer strategy re Palestinians. And a way of avoiding any move towards a two-state solution which would stop new settlement conquest.

That’s what failed. Netanyahu’s strategy. He knew exactly what he was dealing with and Israelis paid the price. Obviously Gazans paid the price too but no one gives a shit about that.

English language Israeli press is far more intelligent about what's happening than the US press.

[Bill Kelsey]

I've been reading about that on Haaretz myself. Bibi kept Hamas alive just to screw up the Palestinian case, keep them divided, and prevent any solution from taking place, lest the West Bank settlers be limited. As that information gets more traction it could bring down Bibi at last and also severely damage Hamas' credibility.

[DRM]

Hamas expected that its attack on Israel would be followed by the same ineffectual limited air strikes and counterproductive hostage negotiations as had been the Israeli pattern for the last sixteen years.

Now that it turns out Israelis are not quite as idiotic as one would extrapolate from their past behavior, and so are actually going to take action that actually hurts Hamas, pro-Hamas scum are desperately trying to gather international pressure for a cease-fire to prevent Israel from taking such action.

The correct response from the rest of us is to treat everyone calling for a de-escalation or ceasefire as the advocates for murdering and kidnapping civilians at music festivals that they are (wittingly in most cases, unwittingly in the case of a few naive-but-useful idiots).

[Vernon Depner]

It's not clear yet what Israel is going to do. So far, "the same ineffectual limited air strikes" is all we've seen.

[Doug Herbert]

I feel like this podcast was a missed opportunity. Mr. Parsi made a number of assertions that are at odds with my understanding of the history of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, for example, his assertion that a true two-state solution had never been offered by Israel (which seems to ignore the 2000 and 2008 peace offers by Israel). This is only one of several examples.

Mr. Parsi might have been able to explain these seeming factual discrepancies in an informative way if he had been asked about them. But the hosts just took them at face value, which basically turned the show into a monologue by Mr. Parsi — a monologue that had me continually saying to myself, “Wait, what about these facts that you’re ignoring?”

I kept contrasting this conversation to the very informative interview that Nick Gillespie did with RFK, Jr. Mr. Gillespie let Mr. Kennedy have plenty of space to set forth his ideas, but rather than just accept Mr. Kennedy’s assertions at face value, Mr. Gillespie followed up with deft questions that quickly revealed just how goofy RFK Jr’s ideas are.

My strong impression was that Mr. Weissmueller and (to a slightly lesser degree) Ms. Wolfe just did not know enough about the modern history of the Middle East to conduct a knowledgeable interview with someone deeply versed in the field like Mr. Parsi. That led to a frustratingly uninformative interview.

More broadly, I found myself wondering why Reason was even having an interview about the Middle East situation. Reason is not a general news outlet, but instead focuses on issues specifically of interest to libertarians.

Foreign policy is, in my view, not such an issue. Except for a tiny group of extreme anarcho-libertarians, libertarians generally agree that national defense is a legitimate government function. But questions of how that national defense can best be implemented is not ones into which libertarians have any special insights or concerns.

[JFree]

his assertion that a true two-state solution had never been offered by Israel (which seems to ignore the 2000 and 2008 peace offers by Israel)

There was no serious 2000 offer by Israel. Here’s the map of what was offered by Israel. That is chopped-up bantustans and apartheid at best. A one-state solution plus an organ grinders monkey

The 2008 offer by Olmert was serious. But he didn’t actually give a map to Abbas. Only showed it to him and wanted him to initial an agreement that day Olmert was in political trouble at the time. He could have accepted a deal – but didn’t have the leeway to negotiate a deal – not domestically in Israel and especially not since US Jews opposed and organized against that peace conference. Olmert effectively resigned in July 2008. And Abbas is, like all Palestinian leaders, incompetent and mostly corrupt.

The problem with a two-state solution has always been that Israel doesn’t want it at all (see assassinations of Bernadotte and Rabin) and Palestinians do not have any governing institutions that are worth a shit and no bench either.

[Doug Herbert]

JFree, you're making my point for me. As you probably know, journalists who covered the 2000 peace talks dispute the map that you've linked to and insist that there were no "bantusans," a word the Palestinians used at the time to justify their rejection of the Israeli offer of a two-state peace treaty.

And your dismissal of the 2008 offer of a peace settlement with a two-state solution because Olmert was supposedly politically powerless is equally contentious.

That's my point. Both sides have widely varying stories (and check out tonight's story in the NYT saying Hamas has clearly lied about an Israeli missile hitting the Ahli Arab hospital for just one example of why you don't just blindly accept the assertions of one side in this dispute).

Mr. Parsi glibly laid out one version of the facts, but a version that anyone with even a passing knowledge of the history of this dispute would have known were contentious at best and misleading at worst.

To simply air a monologue by either side in this dispute is useless or worse than useless.

If the interviewers don't know enough about this conflict to ask knowledgeable followup questions, they should not run the interview.

[Oafish]

I wonder, are Mr Malley and Mr Parsi acquainted?

[Dr. Aaron]

Doug, I agree with you.

[wchen3]

The episode degenerated into the hosts trading diatribes against "woke-ism" based on a recording of one professor.

The balance of power comment was likely referring to Israel's first world military power that has been given to it by the US in the form of many Billions of dollars of military aid.

The Palestinian people do not have anyone giving them such military power and so Hamas must resort to very low-budget tactics, which are often derided as "terrorism".

The bottom line is that when two sides fight an asymmetrical battle, there will likely be different standards of morality with respect to harming civilians, etc. It's pretty disappointing to listen to seemingly informed people rant about this as if it is evidence that the Palestinians are culturally inferior, etc. Try giving them $50B in military aid and see if they still use car bombs, etc.

Israel is among the most authoritarian states that the US aligns itself with, and living there, particularly as a Palestinian, would be a nightmare for anyone with libertarian sensibilities.

The hosts seem to view strong US support for Israel's humanitarian atrocities as inevitable, yet prefer to focus on how Hamas might be eradicated.

Labeling Hamas as a terrorist organization only serves to hinder the peace process, as Hamas is likely to become more moderate as it gains power and can exert influence through more moderate methods.

I would expect libertarians to object to much of what animates Israel in US policy (evangelical extremism), and what animates it domestically (a love of authoritarian rule).

I propose the US allow any Israeli or Palestinian to immigrate to the US and receive instant citizenship and a $25K welcome stipend instead of military aid to Israel.

[Dr. Aaron]

Mr. Parsi is an obvious anti-Semite who does not believe that Jews have a right to live. He speaks of the occupation of Gaza. Not a single Jew has lived in Gaza since 2005. He speaks of an opportunity for dialogues. Israel has been trying dialogue since 1948. All we got is 1400 murdered Israelis. Mr. Parsi says Iran does not want war because their economy is in shambles. That is exact time the tyrants do start wars. His denial of Iranian involvement leads me to believe he is a player for the mullahs. Mr. Parsi does not have America's interests at heart. He does not have the interests of the Iranian people at heart. He is speaking like a stooge for the mullahs.