Political scientists fail to emphasize that whenever a democracy and a dictatorship negotiate publicly as equals, the dictatorship gains enormously.   Such negotiation places these two types of regimes on the same moral level. This moral equivalence corrupts public opinion in the democratic world, a world already mired in the university-bred doctrine of moral relativism.  Consider the case of Israel.

Negotiating as equals puts the democracy (or republic) at a disadvantage

It may sound quixotic, but Israeli politicians – Left and Right, secular and religious – degrade Israel by seeking the recognition of Arab regimes whose media, such as that of the Palestinian Authority, vilify Jews and the Jewish State.  To demand the cessation of this anti-Semitism as a precondition of negotiation would enhance Israel’s honor, a crucial element given the overweening pride of Arab-Islamic culture.

Bill Clinton, Yitzhak Rabin, and Yasser Arafat at the White House, 13 September 1993. Photo: Vince Musi/The White House

Instead, Israeli spokesmen are forever seeking to meet with Arab leaders such a Mahmoud Abbas, even though Abbas supports Arab terrorism. Moreover, for Israelis to negotiate with their Arab adversaries is to convey the impression that Arabs are no less disposed to candor and peace than Israel, and that agreements reached with Arab autocrats will bind their successors despite the fact that the latter represent no one but their own cliques and have no scruples whatever about adhering to the agreements of their predecessors.

On the other hand, for Israeli politicians to be candid about the bellicose and devious character of Arab regimes is to preclude negotiation.  Arab rulers need not worry:  It’s against the law in Israel to tell the truth about the militant nature of Islam, hence of Israel’s Islamic enemies. To do so is to impugn Israel’s own Muslim citizens and expose oneself to the charge of racism, in Israel a felony. It matters not that these citizens have ever been exempt from military service for security reasons, indeed, that most openly supported Israel’s enemies.

Facts such as these demonstrate that the contradictions between democracy and Arab-Islamic culture are so many and so profound that negotiation between Israel and any Arab regime will not enhance Israel’s security, let alone her dignity, so long as such states remain Islamic!

A Primer on Diplomacy

[adsense midpost]

The question before us is this:  How can democracies, in general, and Israel in particular, negotiate effectively with dictatorships?

Suppose we were to write a handbook for democratic negotiators based on the current and simplistic assumption that dictators have an intrinsic antipathy to compromise. The manual might say something like this:

The nature of dictatorships makes it inherently difficult for rulers of such regimes to compromise. The autocrat himself is little used to political compromise and tends to view it, as he does all domestic opposition, as a challenge to his authority, perhaps to his very life. This personal hostility to compromise or meaningful give-and-take is reinforced by the inherent instability and vulnerability of all regimes resting on coercion rather than consent.  The democratic statesman must take this into account, tempering his expectations and standing ready to take the first step, going the extra mile, and perhaps giving more than he gets.

Suppose, however, our manual for democratic negotiators were based on very different but generally more realistic assumptions about dictators.  It might read like this: