Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
It's time to redefine "pro-Israel"
Over at Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald has posted some typically sharp and forceful comments on the gap between American public opinion on the conflict in Gaza and the public stance taken by our politicians. Citing a recent Rasmussen poll, he shows that Americans "are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip" (44-41%, with 15% undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive -- by a 24-point margin (31-55%)." Yet Democratic party leaders like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are standing squarely behind the brutal Israeli offensive and the Bush administration has put the blame solely on Hamas and blocked a UN Security Council statement calling for an immediate cease-fire. So far, only a couple of members of Congress have offered even the mildest criticism of Israel's actions.
This pattern of behavior is all-too-familiar. During the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, numerous surveys showed that American public opinion was deeply divided about the conflict and the wisdom of Israel’s assault on Lebanon. A USA Today/Gallup poll in July 2006 found that 38 percent disapproved of Israel's actions and that 65 percent of the respondents said that the United States should take "neither side" in the conflict. An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 32 percent thought Israel was using "too much force" and 46 percent thought Israel and Hezbollah were "equally to blame." Echoing these findings, a Zogby poll in August 2006 found that 52 percent wanted the United States to remain neutral.
Did U.S. policy reflect the people's will, even a little? Hardly. "Pro-Israel" groups went into overdrive, targeting any politicians or human rights organizations that dared to question what Israel was doing to the civilian population in Lebanon. The Bush administration backed Israel to the hilt and delayed a ceasefire resolution -- just as they are doing now -- in a futile attempt to give Israel time to eke out a military victory. Not to be outdone, Congress passed a resolution of support by a vote of 410-8, after deleting a clause from the initial draft that called for both sides to minimize harm to civilians. The result of all this "support" was a major setback for Israel, however, as the ill-conceived war undermined Lebanon’s fragile democracy and left Hezbollah stronger and more popular than before. Delaying the ceasefire also cost more Israeli and Lebanese lives.
And here's the real tragedy: giving Israel unconditional support wasn't a true act of friendship then and isn't a genuine act of friendship now; on the contrary, it's positively harmful to the long-term interests of the Jewish state. Those congressmen, senators, and other government officials who are falling over themselves to defend Israel's behavior, along with the usual apologists like Marty Peretz and Alan Dershowitz, are no friends of Israel, though they undoubtedly think they are. Their support helped Israel shoot itself in the foot in 2006, and they are helping it do the same thing today.
Pundits like Walter Russell Mead are fond of claiming that the U.S.-Israel "special relationship" reflects shared religious traditions and the will of the American people. The evidence suggests otherwise: although most Americans support Israel’s existence and have more sympathy for them than they have for the Palestinians, they are not demanding that U.S. leaders back Israel no matter what it does. But that's what American politicians reflexively do, even though it encourages Israel to continue immoral and self-destructive policies (including the continued expansion of settlements) and contributes to Arab and Islamic anger at the United States.
The only thing missing in Greenwald's excellent analysis is a full explanation for this phenomenon. Part of the reason, he notes, is the one-sided coverage that this issue receives in American mainstream media. But if you really want to understand the gap between what the American people want and what our foreign policy establishment gives them on this issue, well, I've got a book for you to read.
Bottom line: the sooner we redefine what it means to be "pro-Israel," the better for us and the better for Israel. Needless to say, it would be much better for the Palestinians too.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images News
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
Welcome, Professor Walt!
Welcome to the blogosphere, Professor Walt! You are perfectly suited to be a blogger since you don't undertake primary research and you present your opinions as facts.
So, you're still trying to sell copies of your book? I would think after all those negative reviews (including Foreign Affairs and the Nation) dismissing your book, you would have called it quits by now.
Why?
With all due respect,
Why do you feel the need to attack the author rather than debate the message? If you have merit, then debate the message. If you feel that there is no sense debating the message because it will fall to deaf ears, then try putting out a couple of thought provoking questions instead, or don't say anything.
Attacking the author may paint the attacker as unsure of their own message. Which I'm sure you would not want others to think is the case, so just focus on the message.
Wonderful post, Professor Walt
Professor Walt, Sincere thanks for this post. As an American, it neatly sums up how I feel about the whole situation regarding Israel, etc. In fact, I've sent the link to friends overseas to give them a clearer picture of the reality facing Americans at this time.
If Israel's system were imposed in the United States
Your religion would be checked, and you would lose your property and be shipped off to a stateless, walled camp.
This didn't just happen in 1948. It is an ongoing process of ethnic cleansing today. I know people who came home to find their furniture in the street and flag-wielding settlers on their roof saying they were the rightful occupants, because of their religion.
All of this is paid for by your tax dollars.
South Africa decriminalized race, making all people equal before the law. Justice is conflict prevention.
There is no need to redefine
There is no need to redefine what it means to be Pro-Israel. Pro-Israel means you respect the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, and you respect its statehood. Respect for statehood implies a respect for territorial integrity, including sovereignty over air-space, and hence the right to the lawful exercise of sovereignty. In as much as Hamas wages war against Israel, it is a de facto enemy. If not for its unofficial status, Israel would have a causus belli.
American coverage may indeed be less favorable to Hamas than European, or Al Jazeera, but this is to compensate for the general bias in the world media. If people were more respectful of sovereignty in general, world-wide, and were not easy to buy with images of sobbing children - who are put in harms way by Hamas, then we'd see a more mature and weighed reaction to the conflict. Unfortunately, you cannot have an environment in which some media outlets fan the flames of Israel bashing, without corrupting objective media. Call it the Grisham effect in the media, or what some pundits described with the words "Fox effect."
I cannot understand, how any sane human being, after watching the Mumbai Massacres, can defend Hamas's actions and right to exist. Israel is doing the world a favor, not to mention the Palestinians, by ridding us of these terrorist beasts. That there is collateral damage in the process, is regrettable, but this is precisely the kind of tragedy Hamas must take responsibility for. Judging Israel on the basis of middle class fantasies in which you get the bad guy but don't touch the innocent, is childish. In that case, all the civilian casualties who are dead in Afghanistan, justify an immediate pull-out of Afghanistan, and apologies for having invaded it in the first place.
The tragedy of the media's role in the present conflict, is that the media are responsible for depleting people's understanding of the world. The image dominates the rational, and people cannot think beyond a few propagandist pictures of pain and suffering. That there is a logical chain of responsibility for the suffering and pain, and that it goes straight to Hamas and its allies, involves too much thought.
No to israeli death squads.
Pro-Israel means you respect the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, and you respect its statehood. Respect for statehood implies a respect for territorial integrity, including sovereignty over air-space, and hence the right to the lawful exercise of sovereignty.
It does not mean you respect israeli death squads sent into occupied or foreign lands.
Perhaps israeli sovereignty means you should accept israeli assassination teams that kill israeli citizens or foreign citizens who are in israel at the time. It cannot mean it's OK to assassinate people elsewhere.
Israeli death squads? On
Israeli death squads? On occupied land?
No, this rhetorical device doesn't work, sorry.
Hamas is occupying the Palestinian people, and using their territory to stage terrorist acts against Israel. If the Palestinian people don't assert their sovereignty, and take control over Hamas, then Israel in an act of self-defence, takes out Hamas, as an exercise of sovereignty.
Israel is defending its sovereignty, and people. It is making sure rockets, and terrorism stop. It is in effect, in a state of war. As for death squads - that's just ridiculous.
Except when you talk of Hamas. Now there you have your death squads. No different from the fanatics in Mumbai. And by condoning Hamas, you condone terrorism, on the same scale as in Mumbai. So you are a Jihadi supporter, pure and simple.
Allan, are you claiming that
Allan, are you claiming that israel does not do many political assassinations inside gaza and the west bank?
Why would you make such an obviously false claim? Are you a zionist, that you would tell obvious lies about israel?
The Beauty Of Hamas And The Ugliness Of Israel, Parts 1 & 2
These YouTube videos speak for themselves:
The Beauty Of Hamas And The Ugliness Of Israel, Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9_LatFA_hA
The Beauty Of Hamas And The Ugliness Of Israel, Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM8Sa_oFc9o
What's interesting
...is the number of usually generally engaged writers/bloggers/organizations who've become absolutely silent on Gaza, where they would have usually been expected to at least blather some attempt at being "even handed": blaming Hamas for most things but Israel for overreacting.
This time they're as afraid of being branded as defenders of war crimes as they of being called anti-Semites: cowardice as rational action.
That silence is as big a change as the Bush Administration's at the UN this week.
I'd add also given the title of this post that it's even more important that Israel redefine itself, but that's a question for people before governments.
Realism is only a strategy, not a morality.
Two omnibus posts on Gaza
Joshua Landis
and at TPMCafe
Pro-Peace anyone...
I guess 60 years of constant war has not been enough for either side. Fueled by their thirst for retaliation they keep attacking each other cease-fire after cease-fire. What is the purpose of the cease-fire when both sides know they are going back to war after x days? It is sad neither side has the capacity to begin unconditional negotiations. Hamas made the gravest mistake after they got elected. Instead of using their newly gained power to start peace-seeking talks they used their economic power to build up arms. The only thing both sides are doing now is sowing the seeds of hatred in each others societies for generations to come. The pro-Israel stance of the U.S. does not even matter anymore if Israel does not heed the big brother's words of advice.
Ethnocide...
...That's what certain politicians are waiting for taking a strong action that could bring up to a real cease-fire in all Israeli occupied territories.
God bless your attempt to stop these people very soon.
My best regards.