Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Crazy like a Foxman
The New York Times reports that President Obama will appoint former Senator George Mitchell as his chief envoy on Israel-Palestine. According to Jewish Week, ADL national director Abraham Foxman thinks Mitchell is an inappropriate choice because he is "fair," and has been "meticulously even-handed." As Matt Yglesias points out, fairness is a quality that we normally prize in an envoy.
Foxman says this approach is wrong because our policy hasn't been "even-handed" in the past. But has he noticed that our long-standing policy of one-sided support hasn't been working out so well for the United States, or for Israel? Experienced Middle East diplomats like Aaron David Miller and former Ambassador Dan Kurtzer understand that our mediation efforts will fail if we act like Israel's lawyer, and make it clear that we need envoys who are seen as credible by both sides. To repeat myself: it's time to redefine what being "pro-Israel" means. I think Obama may get this, even if Foxman doesn't.
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
The fact that Foxman can
The fact that Foxman can actually get away with making statements like this without being called a total shill for a foreign state is amazing to me. If you're going to pick an envoy who is one-sided in his support for one of the negotiating partners, why even bother negotiating?
Mitchell's a good a choice as any, I suppose - but it needs to be clear that he's going into it with the explicit, full backing of his superiors, so that he can make real promises and agreements. He also needs to be tougher on the Israelis - no more of this dancing-around-the-issue on the West Bank settlements. Mitchell should say, outright, to Israel, "They need to go, and let's try to work out a security arrangement that will protect Israel with them gone."
George Mitchell
I must say I thought Barrack Obama was going to pick
Dennis Ross/Martin Indyk to be the Mideast envoy. So i guess George Mitchell is much better, but I don't know much about his stance on this issue.
More importantly I think, is what is going to be our overall policy, do we ignore 2006 elections results in
West Bank/Gaza, and talk to Mahmoud Abbas who sits in an unconstitutional chair who has limited following, and formed an illegitimate government. Or do we deal with a unity government that has legitimacy and the following of the public, that can actually make and enforce agreements.
Israel Lobby Question??
Stephen in your book you described the Israel lobby as very influential.
So my question to you is do you think that Obama can actually forge a fair peace between Palestine and Israel?
Can Obama be a honest broker and put pressure on Israel like
H.W Bush 41?
Mitchell
I lived in Belfast (back in Hyde Park now) when Mitchell was chairing the negotiations between the Irish republicans and the unionists. He was fair (sorry Abe - this Jew thinks that being "fair" might actually help!), low-key, patient, and cautious.
All in all he did a very good job of:
-- Keeping the participants eyes on the prize;
-- Helping them to forge the sort of relationships that helped move the process forward, if sometimes at a glacial pace;
-- Not in any way appearing to favor one side or the other;.
-- Not hogging the spotlight and taking credit - he always gave the kudos to the participants.
And he did a good job - the negotiations worked and turned into the Good Friday Agreement, signed in 1998. And the peace process has matured and is now embedded in Northern Ireland - ten years on nobody has the slightest thought of going back to war. If the Israel/Palestine conflict can be in the same sort of shape as N. Ireland is now in 2019, he will have been a huge success.
And Mitchell is a Clinton person - so much for the notion that Hillary is too biased towards Israel. The fact that both Obama and Hillary can agree on Mitchell is a good sign that everyone will be pulling on the same oar.
@jsinaiko Good to read a
@jsinaiko
Good to read a report from one close to the problem. Mitchell is highly regarded in Ireland. Best of luck to him in his new role.
@jsinaiko Thanks for the
@jsinaiko
Thanks for the heads up from one who was there - "and Jewish."
I understand that Mitchell, now 75, has prostate cancer, which can move in unpredictable directions. If Netenyahu is elected do you think there is any chance that he would consider bailing on the West Bank? Without a civil war?
What kind of ethnic mixture would work to protect Israel's border with a Palestinian-controlled West Bank?
Mitchell
I was one of only 1,500 Jews in N. Ireland at that time - the question always was: "are you a protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew?"
I would answer that I'm a Buddhist Jew.
Good question about Bibi. I sure hope the Israeli body politic doesn't go that direction. Notwithstanding his troglodyte attitude towards the Palestinian issue, he'll reinvigorate the neocons back here - he's one of their mentors after all.
Any Israeli PM with any guts would need to consider getting out of the West Bank - and until they get serious about that there really isn't much reason to have negotiations. That said, who knows? Who would have thought that Begin would be the guy to make a deal with Sadat? But IMO, he would be the worst of a bad lot in the upcoming election.
I didn't that Mitchell was ill. That's too bad. In N. Ire;and he had a good staff - he spent a lot of time there but he also was back in the US a lot. But the bottom line was that he was a true honest broker. On the day he was appointed a loyalist I knew told me that "he's a Kennedy Catholic." I had to explain that he's from Maine, not Massachusetts and is not all that close to the Kennedy family. Later that evening a republican friend told me "I hear he has a cousin in MI5." I had to explain that the guy is Lebanese and has no relatives in the UK. But it was then that I realized that the guy would do fine; both sides were spinning him!
Of course Israel/Palestine is much more difficult and if his health is shaky it's unclear whether he'll be able to be as dynamic as he was ten or twelve years ago.
What would protect Israeli border? How about this. OK, no right of return, but along with really, actually leaving the West bank, and in livable condition, not trashed, so that Palestinians cam move right in, how about paying every Palestinian who left what is now Israel in 1948 a fair market price for the land they lost. I'm not talking about a few bucks, but actual market prices. Might cost a couple of billion, maybe more. But it would show the Arab community that Israel is serious about making peace and - just as important - being a decent neighbor. Then they could get down to the business of sharing the shrinking water supply, doing business, making money, etc.
"Evenhandedness"
For years, America and its sole democratic ally in the Middle East faced a hostile and intransigent alliance of Arab dictatorships and Soviet military might. Today, outside of Qatar, Kuwait, and perhaps the UAE, most of the Arab countries remain backwater slums — a noxious brew of official repression, human rights violations, misogyny, the persecution of religious minorities, and Islamic social retardation.
If you're going to argue, based on straightforward realpolitik, that the US should sell out Israel in exchange for cheap Arab oil, petrodollars which can be recycled into the ailing economy, and a desire to appease 1.2 billion hostile Muslims, why don't you just drop the pretense and say so instead of waltzing around with the notion of “even-handedness”?
If you're going to argue,
If you're going to argue, based on straightforward realpolitik, that the US should sell out Israel in exchange for cheap Arab oil, petrodollars which can be recycled into the ailing economy, and a desire to appease 1.2 billion hostile Muslims, why don't you just drop the pretense and say so instead of waltzing around with the notion of “even-handedness”?
Because the idea is not to sell out israel, it's to be even-handed.
Same old story - more or less
Same old story - more or less accuse anyone who objects to anything that Israel does is a Nazi or a commie or an appeaser looking for cheap oil.
Don't you realize your strident and prejudiced point of view actually hurts Israel's chances to become something other than the outcast state it is quickly becoming?
Israel has to live on the same planet as the rest of us - and deal with the same realities. Bush and his minions found out the hard way that the "reality-based community" trumps it's delusions of unlimited power. Israel needs to figure this out on a regional level.
The new US administration has no intention of "...in exchange for cheap Arab oil, petrodollars which can be recycled into the ailing economy, and a desire to appease 1.2 billion hostile Muslims..."
That doesn't mean that all of us must fall in line in lockstep to the violent, right wing, counter-productive policies that the present Israeli government insists on implementing.
When "Israel, right or wrong" types like you start to get serious about real dialogue with the rest of the world, we might take you more seriously. Till then you are just another right wing apologist for unsupportable policies.
Same old story - more or less
You're hallucinating; I didn't accuse anyone of being either of the above. Re-read my posts. It is a cornerstone however, of the realpolitik advanced by those like the academic who hosts this site, that US foreign policy accommodate the interests of the oil-rich Arab states so as to ensure a steady flow of reasonably-priced oil. Those states have launched at least three wars of annihilation (by their own characterization) against a US ally; several remain in a state of war with that ally; and it is arguable based on their bad faith ultimatum as to whether they are truly interested in an equitable and durable peace with that ally.
I'll ignore the gratuitous and banal label just as I would expect you to ignore the label of "antisemite".
Get real. American policy on
Get real. American policy on the ME and Israel is formulated on the basis of the American Jewish lobby and powerful Jewish voters and financial contributors. It's about internal American electoral politics, not peace in the ME. Or oil.
And "Israel right or wrong" is not a banal label - it's an accurate characterization of people like you who never saw an Israeli action they didn't support, no matter how self-destructive or brutal.
If all you can do is hurl insults and not address the questions I asked you, what's the point of a discussion?
I suggest you join the IDF if you feel so strongly about it all - you are just another chicken hawk who is willing to fight to the last drop of someone elses blood.
Please do not respond to this. Conversation over.
uh-huh
The "even-handed" solution envisaged by Walt and Mearsheimer, the Saudis, the Arab League, and the PA calls for Israel to divide her capital, shrink her width to 9 miles, surrender the high-ground overlooking her population centers, and agree to bisection.
That’s not even-handedness; it’s assisted suicide.
That’s not even-handedness;
That’s not even-handedness; it’s assisted suicide.
It isn't suicide unless you assume that israel will still be at war and will be too weak to win.
You are assuming your conclusions. You don't want peace because you think you can't have peace, or something like that.
You don't want peace because
Say what?
That's precisely the point. Given the parameters of the "two-state solution" currently on the table and the military strength and totalitarian ideology of its adversaries, Israel (or any other country under the same circumstances) would not survive a future war.
If you're going to argue,
Very well. I'm willing to break an unprofitable and largely obsolete alliance with a herrenvolk democracy in order to find a new strategic arrangement that puts us on better terms with both the Arab states and the Arab populations in that neck of the woods.
By the way, that would be even-handedness, since we'd be treating the Israelis just like we'd be treating the Arab states - as a regional contender with its own set of issues. That's what bothers Foxman and his ilk; they don't want Israel to be treated like any other state in that region. They want it to be special, for the US to continue showering money and arms buyback deals for . . . what, again?
What exactly does Israel bring to the table for the US in that region? They don't even have the excuse of standing against the Soviets anymore, who were backing some of Israel's neighboring Arab states. They were of little help in both Gulf Wars, and they could actively plunge the entire region into war if they ever get hold of bombers and/or refueling aircraft with long enough range to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
Please. Israel never had the right to all of Jerusalem in the original UN partition, and they could easily move the Knesset back to Tel Aviv, where most of the embassies are (and where the Israeli government was seated until after 1967).
At the narrowest point. Of course, that fear is pretty close to meaningless when you consider that Israel has nukes - any state whose army gets in a position to seriously threaten to bisect the country is going to get plastered.
They survived up until 1967 that way, and in any case, they still have much superior firepower - if the Palestinians start lobbying rockets from their new statelet, they get glassed.
At no point would Israel be "bisected", unless you are talking about the possible trade of a land corridor to connect Gaza to the West Bank. Even then, they could run it through the southernmost part of the Negev, which is mostly worthless desert anyways.
Or perhaps you are talking about Israel losing its right to the West Bank.
What exactly does Israel
There are many items I could list here from intelligence to technology but given the nature of this forum, let's just say that Israel makes it possible for the US to continue normal trade arrangements with the Arab states. By the way, what exactly does Egypt (for its $2 billion in US aid) bring to the table for the US in the region?
You mean other than agreeing not to defend her citizens while under attack from Iraqi scud missiles so as to ensure that the US-Arab coalition held together?
The original UN partition plan is a dead letter. It was rejected by the Arabs states and the Palestinians with a declaration of genocidal war against Israel. Jordan occupied the east after the 1948 war, banned Jews from the Holy sites, desecrated Jewish cemeteries, turned synagogues into stables, and used the area as a staging ground for terrorist attacks in Israel. Israel will never again risk the division of the city.
No nation-state wants or should have to rely on a "Samson option" to survive. It is also frankly, not in the best interest of the Arabs or the West to place Israel in a corner where a hair-trigger threshold is established for the use of nuclear weapons. Nine miles of territory between the Western border of "Palestine" and the Mediterranean Sea simply provides no credible strategic depth for defense of the country.
You really need to read a bit on the history of the conflict. You can begin here.
Yes, that's precisely what I'm referring to. A Palestinian sovereign "land corridor" running between Gaza and the WB would clearly cut Israel into two pieces (as well as "Palestine") and cavalier dismissal of it does not change the fact that outside of the example perhaps, of the US and Alaska, there has never been a viable non-contiguous nation-state in history.
If that's how you truly perceive the Jews (or perceive the Jews as perceiving themselves), you've really got a lot to learn.
By the way, what exactly does
You mean aside from being one of the key leading states in the Arab World? It helps keep Egypt from even considering breaking the peace with Israel - not that this would be our concern, were it not for the fact that we've been sucked into being Israel's patron.
I would be very interested to see some specific reasoning behind your argument there, seeing as we had normalized relations with the Saudis (our key Arab partner in the region) before Israel even existed, much less was our patron.
Care to do that, rather than vaguely alluding to your knowledge?
Which wouldn't even have been an issue were it not for the fact that we've been sucked into being Israel's patron, and are widely seen as such. Had the US had a much more even-footed relationship between the Arab World and Israel, the above wouldn't even have been an issue for the stability of the coalition.
I wish them the best of luck in ever getting to a peace with the Palestinians, then, since they seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too - they're not brutal enough to simply ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from the area, but they also apparently want to remain a Jewish state and aren't willing to make any concessions for it. They're going to wake up one day and find themselves in a no-longer-Jewish Israel, or at the very least a Lebanon equivalent due to the increase in size among the Palestinian population in the entire area in question.
Why not?
"Hair-trigger" my ass. It's not as if any serious military effort to split the country would come upon them suddenly.
Unless you can post a credible scenario in which an enemy power might seriously occupy and split the country asunder at the 9-mile point without running the risk of getting plastered, try again.
In any case, why is this any of the US's concern? I honestly don't give a shit if the Israelis think 9-miles at the narrowest point is "too little strategic depth" for a nuclear power, anymore than I think that Pakistan was justified in promoting and sponsoring the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to create "strategic depth" vis a vis India.
By the way, is that "9-mile" figure the narrowest point if they went back to the 1949 borders, or if they went to the current borders for Israel proper, which actually covers 78% of Mandatory Palestine?
Interesting site. Of course, considering that Israel actually did win in spite of having the lack of strategic depth that you are bemoaning (and this was before they had nuclear deterrent), that kind of undermines your point, does it not?
Hence why I suggested running it along the southern edge of the Negev, and building the appropriate infrastructure. Of course, simply having a right-of-way for transport between the two areas would be better.
Interesting that I never even mentioned "the Jews", instead talking about Israel - but you brought it up. Unlike you, I don't conflate Jewishness with the sanctity of the state of Israel.
In any case, my point still stands - Israel explicitly maintains itself as a Jewish state, and its founding purpose was to provide a home for a select group of people. A "herrenvolk", hence why I used the term.
Care to do that, rather than
You've demonstrated such limited knowledge of the history of the region and the conflict and your views are so blinkered by that limitation and your bile that honestly, there is little to be gained by taking the time here to spell things out for you.
Let me try however, to highlight one pervasive blind-spot in your perspective that is widespread amongst other Israel-haters operating under the guise of realpolitik. You obviously view the US relationship with Israel as one that constrains America’s relations with the (presumably more valuable) Arab world. You see "patronage" of Israel as a liability for the US and something that America would be better off abandoning. Unfortunately, you’ve got it backwards. The fact is, the US specifically leverages its alliance with Israel to project and protect its power in the Middle East and wield influence with the Arab states.
Israel has one of the ten largest and the second most advanced and well-trained armies in the world. Despite this, it very nearly resorted to the use of nuclear weapons in 1973 when the Arabs launched a surprise invasion on Yom Kippur, sliced through Israeli territory, inflicted heavy losses, and the US under Kissinger deliberately delayed resupply operations (to give Israel a "bloody nose").
That near-catastrophic defeat demonstrates the fallacy of your claim that, “it's not as if any serious military effort to split the country would come upon them suddenly”. As you see, such an attack has already occurred and given the lack of strategic depth I have cited, could easily occur again. We’re not even talking nine miles here; a Palestinian state in the WB would be a stone’s throw away (pun intended) from Israel’s most significant religious, cultural, and political institutions and afford control of the high ground and invasion routes above Israel’s population centers.
The fact that you do not appear to grasp the sober implications and risks (to the entire region, Europe, and America) of shrinking Israel to a size which leaves it heavily reliant on nuclear weapons to deter its adversaries demonstrates that your time would be better invested on other sites or with books that discuss these matters. You will also be able to answer your own naive question, “why is this any of the US's concern?”.
Your reference to “herrenvolk” was vile and your protestation that you were not referring to the Jews, transparently disingenuous. You even contradict yourself and admit as much in your last paragraph.
You've demonstrated such
I'll take that as a concession on your part.
In what way? It's not as if we haven't or couldn't have normalized relations and trade with the other powers in the Arab World if we dropped the patronage for Israel (or, more realistically, balanced it with some other states in the region, including Israel's regional rivals). As I mentioned, we have normalized relations with Saudi Arabia from the 1930s onward, long before we had anything resembling the current relationship with Israel.
Moreover, it's not as if we don't have other partners in the Middle East through which we could project military power. Kuwait has been more than happy to let us base there, and even the Saudis were open to basing when there was a serious threat at hand. Then there is Turkey.
They have one of the best air forces in the world, but their army is decent, at best. They only look good because the armies of the surrounding Arab states are terrible, and the main non-state actors they go against (Hezbollah, Hamas, among others) don't have anywhere near the resources, numbers, and equipment that the IDF has.
Only because of extreme incompetence on their part with regards to absorbing the warning signs of an Egyptian counter-attack into Sinai. Do you seriously think they'll make a mistake that stupid again, or that the Egyptians (among other neighbors) would risk it, knowing that if they go too far Israel could nuke or even just bomb their capitals?
So, in other words, you're over-generalizing a single example where Israeli intelligence and command didn't take a series of warnings of an Egyptian military build-up seriously, and generalizing it to all potential future wars should Israel give up its "strategic depth". Never mind that there are some very striking differences between post-1967 and the present situation, among them
-Israel isn't sitting on occupied Egyptian or other territory, with only an armistice between them and Egypt.
Assuming that they don't mind being driven over the Jordan River when the Israeli retaliation comes. Jordan was in the exact same situation before the 1967 war, and it didn't exactly turn into the military disaster you seem to make it out to be. Moreover, you're assuming that the Palestinian government in the West Bank would be too stupid to realize what making a manuever would mean (by "Palestinian government" I mean an actual government with recognized treaties with Israel and the surrounding states - don't try to compare this to Hamas, where Hamas wasn't recognized in its territory by anyone, and Israel was blockading the territory it controlled).
I understand the risks quite well. It is you who is arguing that Israel's survival would be immediately endangered by giving up strategic depth in certain areas, based on an example which is quite different to the current situation. It is you who is arguing that Israel would be at a hair-trigger risk of using nuclear weapons if they have to give up any territory, even though they would probably be quite hesitant to use nukes on a neighboring Palestine - and they've handled having a hostile neighbor that close before, in the 1967.
Moreover, you have yet to really provide a good argument that forcing Israel to make these concessions would threaten American security, or that weaning Israel off the aid to which it depends upon from the US would hurt us as well. Instead, you've stated, ipso facto, that "the US uses Israel to leverage its power and influence in the Middle East", even though others have (inadvertently) pointed out that Israel has been a liability when it comes to projecting US power. As another poster pointed out, the US had to put pressure on Israel to restrain from striking back at Iraq in Gulf War I because it would fragment the U.S.- Arab coalition. Why? Because Israel is identified with the United States.
Try again when you have some better examples, which don't amount to pointing out that Israel would be harmed if it gave up territory. I don't particularly care if Israel would consider itself threatened - does it, or does it not threaten the security of the United States?
Like most Israel-supporters, you automatically assume that since I criticize Israel for its foundation as a Jewish state, I must therefore be attacking all Jews. You have no proof or real reasoning for this, of course, except to claim that all Jews must support Israel - nonsense, and racist nonsense at that.
Let me explain to you, again (since you apparently can't read that well), why I referred to Israel as a "herrenvolk democracy". It is a democracy, but a democracy where full rights only belong to a specific ethnoreligious group, a "chosen people". That is what Israel is, and it openly describes itself (both in the past, and in the present) as a Jewish state. Its leaders (including Olmert) openly worry about the "Jewishness" of the state being diminished, leading to its destruction - which would only be a problem if Israel were fundamentally founded as a Jewish state, and it is.
It's exactly the same thing if some group of people were to form an "Aryan state", where only white people (and white people of a certain religion) were permitted to have full rights. Even if said state was a democracy, it is still a democracy only for the "chosen people".
I'll drop the "herrenvolk" label, though, in the future discussion, since it has connotations of "master race". Perhaps "Chosen people" democracy would be better.
Hardly. I pointed out that you tried to conflate my criticism with Israel with anti-semitism, and pointed out that I'm criticizing Israel as a "herrenvolk state" - by which I meant a state founded upon the idea of being a special home for a "chosen people". You then try, disingenuously, to paint me as an anti-semite - as if all Jews must support Israel, and criticizing Israel or its foundation as "Jewish state" is anti-semitic.
To be more clear, I oppose the idea of founding nation-states as a "home" for a specific ethnicity or religious group. I would be just as opposed to the "Aryan state" mentioned above.
You have a blind-spot on the
You have a blind-spot at the end of your nose the size of Jupiter.
Funny, how you see America's relations with the Saudis as "normalized" while you view America's relations with Israel as one of "patronage". I suppose it doesn't trouble you that the US has been supplying tens of billions of dollars worth of arms to the Saudis for years and that the two countries have an implicit understanding for America to defend the House of Saud from all enemies, domestic and foreign.
Here's a question for you: did you support the first Gulf War, i.e., the liberation of Kuwait? If so, why?
I've already detailed the atrocities the Jordanians committed in the eastern part of Jerusalem while it was under their occupation and their subsequent use of the WB as a platform for invasion in 1967.
That's the point. Due to technical constraints and fallout (as well as the obvious moral implications), Israel would be quite hesitant to use nukes on a neighboring Palestine. That's why a reliance on them due to limited strategic depth is so problematic. You've clearly not spent any time in the military.
So what? A vast number of countries are identified with the US via a whole range of military, political, and economic institutions -- not the least of which, NATO. Does that create friction with countries like Russia and China sometimes? Of course. Does it mean that America should abandon those alliances to appease Putin or the Chi-Comms?
The problem with the US-Israel alliance rests with the Arabs. It's their neurosis. Yet it doesn't in the least, prevent them from selling us oil, buying our arms, or crawling to us when they need us to protect or liberate their regimes.
Jeez, your ignorance is breathtaking. Israeli Arabs have full rights under the law and freely participate in all public institutions including the Knesset as MPs and Judges on the Supreme Court. They also have a higher standard of living than Arabs in any Arab country. The sole difference between Jews and Arabs in Israel is that the latter are not required to serve in the IDF. And by the way, as a practical matter many Arabs do not pay income taxes in Israel because the government looks the other way to avoid unrest.
The reason that Israel is concerned with remaining a Jewish state, i.e. a Jewish majority, is not because the Jews there seek to deny rights or view themselves as "superior" to non-Jews but conversely, because for 2,000 years the Jews lived as a victimized minority in countries dominated by Christian and Muslim populations. Wherever they have settled, Jews have been subject to regular persecution, pogroms, and of course, the Holocaust. That is the basis for Israel as a Jewish-majority state, not your cockamamie "Aryan state" analogy.
By the way, do you see any problem with 21 Arab Muslim-majority states where Christians are officially discriminated against, prevented from practicing their faith, and subject to intimidation and violence? How about enlightened Malaysia that maintains the bumiputra system which systematically discriminates against non-Malays, i.e., non-Muslims, in both the public and private sectors?
Wake up, Brett.
I suppose it doesn't trouble
The Saudis generally pay for their weapons, and supporting Saudi Arabia doesn't embitter the greater aggregate of the Arab population in a way like our support for Israel does.
And as I pointed out, it didn't turn out to be the disaster you seem to think it would be; they both successfully struck the Jordanian military, then drove them out of the West Bank in spite of lacking said high ground. Are you planning on absorbing all of the ramifications of the 1967 War except for that one?
Nukes wouldn't exactly be their first option, unless you seriously think that any independent Palestine in the West Bank would be enough to override the Israeli conventional military superiority.
It does, however, engender a not-inconsiderable resentment among their population, a small number of which then do nasty things like launch terrorist attacks and provide support for said groups. That's not a problem with, say, the Chinese population, which tends to not do those things - or at least do them to Americans.
Moreover, it did prevent them from selling us oil in the past, in 1974, when the US was caught openly providing arms to the Israelis.
Equality on paper isn't the same as equality in reality, and discrimination against the Israeli Arabs is rampant. Olmert has even admitted as such in public.
And the fact that pretty much any Jew can immigrate to the country and quickly become a citizen. Can you say the same for any particular Arab? At the very least, it takes quite a bit longer, even if it the spouse of an Israeli Arab.
A partial mistake, on their part. While I'm not seriously arguing that they should be conscripted into the IDF for obvious reasons, some "public service" equivalent should have been implemented.
Do the Gypsies have a right to a sovereign nation as well? Does every victimized group throughout history? I'm sorry, but I don't accept that being victimized by Europeans (since most of the key founders of Israel, and the origin of the Zionist project, were with European Jews) gave them some right to set up a nation in Mandatory Palestine in the middle of a population of people who, by and large, had little directly to do with their suffering. Particularly since they then went and displaced much of said people from their homes, and took advantage of a favorable relationship with the British compared to said population in order to get the favorable balance of territory when Mandatory Palestine was carved up.
In other words, you admit that Israel is a Jew-centered state, founded around setting up a Jewish home - which means that it was founded for a specific ethnoreligious group. That is no different from founding an Aryan-centered state, since it both cases it amounts to founding a state for a specific ethnic group. The fact that the Jewish population suffered doesn't change that fundamental fact, anymore than if the founders of the hypothetical Aryan state had spent 500 years in dhimmitude in the Ottoman Empire before going on to carve a state out of Great Britain (displacing the local Britons in the process).
Yes. I don't see what your red herring is implying, other than that the Muslim World, by and large, isn't a nice place as well. That has no relevance to the issue about either Israeli security, American security, whether or not the Israeli founders were in the right in founding their state where they did, and the morality of what Israel does in either its own territory or the territories it is occupying.
I'm assuming that you are saying that since the Muslim World isn't a shining beacon of democracy and prosperity, we have no right to treat any criticism and/or animosity towards Israel that might emerge from them seriously. Of course, since the validity of a claim or criticism in no part depends on who is saying it, this point is rather tired and irrelevant.
Interesting that you try to criticize me for a point I never made. You could, of course, actually try to answer the main point of my argument, which was that the liability of patronizing Israel is greater than whatever benefit (and I've yet to see you offer any specific examples of one since you broadly claimed that Israel helped leverage the US's influence in the region).
Woken people generally answer the main points of an argument - in this case, why Israel's security should be America's problem and why we should maintain the current relationship. After your broad claim at the beginning of the argument, you have largely evaded answering that point in our discussion. You did offer a semblance of an answer (to J Thomas, and not me) in claiming that having an Israel more likely to use nukes threatens the economy of the US and Europe, but you have otherwise generally avoided any specifics. I've questioned whether or not the situation in which the US minimizes patronage of Israel would lead to the situation you've claimed.
Instead, you've repeatedly diverted the discussion into whether or not a certain territorial arrangement improves Israeli security (which doesn't address the question of whether or not it should be the US guaranteeing that security, but I bit), and you've taken my initial comment about preferring not to maintain a special relationship with a state like Israel (I used the term "herrenvolk democracy", but I've outlined exactly what I meant throughout the whole argument) to start up another red herring about whether or not Israel being a Jewish-centered state does or does not constitute a state being founded specifically for an ethnoreligious group.
Just in this post, you have yet again diverted the discussion from the original point, by arguing that the Jewish population had a right to found Israel as they did due to their suffering. Again, not relevant to the main point of the discussion, but what the hell - I answered it. You see, I generally answer your claims, while you haven't really answered my main claim.
I should point out, since I had a discussion with J Thomas about State Legitimacy, that I think it was wrong to found Israel on the main principle on which it was based - the idea of creating a special nation-state home specifically for a single ethnoreligious group. Israel is a legitimate nation-state in the present because, like all such legitimate nation-states, they hold a specifically defined territory, are capable of defending it, and are recognized by most of the international community with regards to that claim.
Fairness?
Apparently, some of your readers think "fairness" is giving an aggressor who made war on israel repeatedly half of what he wants but could not get by conquest.
There is a big difference between some irredentist terrorists in Northern Ireland and a vast array of Arab nations determined to destroy Israel by war, or failing that, by salami tactics, using the non-Israeli Palestinians as a proxy. There is enormous evidence of this, from actions at the UN to squalid refugee camps in Arab countries and (from the Arab war legacy) in the West Bank and Gaza, to refused resettlement by Arab states.
The Republic of Ireland was a normal state with normal relations with Great Britain during most of the recent pre-Mitchell conflict in Northern Ireland. The same cannot be said for most Arab countries with respect to Israel. A first step for any "fair" settlement, and indeed evidence of bona fides must he such normal relations between at least Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Israel, not even a "cold peace" along the Jordanian and Egyptian model. Only then can work on the Palestinian track have the possibility of success.
The Irish are a post-renaissance people who can be trusted to accept a stable and fair peace. The Arabs are not. That is not racism, but historical fact: a core value of Islam is the temporary truce to build strength until one can defeat "the enemy". It is called Hudna, or lately Tadiyya. It was taught and practiced by Mohammed and is alive and well in Inter-Arab politics to this day, not just with respect to the Jews and Arabs (for that is at the core of the issue and goes well back before modern Israel) but also between Arabs and themselves. Any notion that a negotiated "peace" can be stable is sheer fantasy and flies in the face of regional history, ancient AND modern.
Finally, since the Arabs chose war over peace repeatedly rather than accept the UN partition, that deal is now permanently off the table. Appeal to it as a territorial basis for peace is just more salami tactics seeking to destroy Israel. Israel already suicidally tried pulling out of Gaza in the past, and we all saw the results, ranging from destruction of valuable infrastructure because it once was Jewish, to ethnic cleansing of Gaza, to terror bombings and missile attacks. Third country and UN forces proved a cynical joke which failed to make a dent in such belligerence.
I turn now to the "Palestinians". They tried to overthrow the government of Kuwait and got kicked out; they tried to overthrow the government of Jordan and got kicked out; they tried to overthrow the government of Lebanon and got kicked out. Such character clearly has little to do with Israel. It is long past time when the democratic world takes its head out of the sand and sees this. Such an international pariah entity can only be dealt with by quarantine or distribution, not statehood.
Of course there is the humanitarian problem. Nevertheless, the Allies did not send food and medicine to the Nazis during the belligerent period of World War II, nor later to Northern Korea or Northern Vietnam, and we should not do so in this case. As another has suggested, the Arab prison camps should be taken away from the UN agency giving permanent handouts, and transferred to the UN agency responsible for cooperative peaceful resettlement of refugees in countries willing to accept them. And the real refugees are those in camps, not those already resettled and their descendants.
It may be pointed out that no country will accept any significant number, given their belligerent history. With the vast territories of Arab countries, if this should prove to be so, it will put paid to much anti-Israel propaganda. We can then consider the creation of a "safe space" elsewhere there is available land. Many have called for resettlement of Israelis out of the Middle East, Although that is a nonsense, given the success they have made of their country, if it is credible for Israelis, it is credible (and far more hopeful) for "Palestinians:.
David Sternlight, Ph.D.
Los Angeles
Um, I wasn't comparing NI to
Um, I wasn't comparing NI to Israel/Palestine.
What do you propose? Liquidate the Palestinians? Kill them all because they are evil? You write about them as if they are some sort of monolithic inhuman horde. Shameful of you.
Oh, I see - "quarantine or distribution." Kind of like what the Nazi did to the Jews.
I suggest you get your butt out of LA, go to Isreal, join the IDF and kill a few Palestinians. that will make their eventual "quarantine or distribution" that much easier.
You know, the Jew were subjected to that sort of thing only 60 odd years ago - many members of my family were killed as a result of that. Unless you explain what "quarantine or distribution" actually means, it sounds as if you are advocating a war crime or even a crime against humanity. You know, like those guys who were hung after being tried at Nuremberg.
Dr. Sternlight, as a Jew I find your racist and self-hating rant highly offensive. This goes beyond politics and/or policy; you are advocating international criminal activity. Shame on you.
Fairness?
Duplicate posting deleted by author.
Decriminalize religion in all land controlled by Israel
Respectfully: the non-Jewish population of multi-cultural Palestine was, in effect, criminalized by the system that made Jewish identity normative after 1948.
Non-Jews' resistance to losing their citizenship, homes and rights was turned into a mass criminal offense.
Hundreds of thousands have been incarcerated, tortured and have died in the wars and occupation that followed.
Non-Jews are not even allowed to convert to Judaism to save their lives, property and children.
Like race was decriminalized in South Africa, religion must be decriminalized in the Middle East.
Let's stop policing the ethnicity and religion of these human beings, and let them live in equality.
The people of Palestine were moderate, secular Christians and Muslims before this violent tragedy came upon them, causing the radicalism we see today.
If American supporters prevent normalcy and a secular state from coming to the region, they will be responsible for the additional terrible loss of life that will come at the end of this tragic experiment.
People like Professor Walt see the folly and the self-destruction of Israel, and are trying to save the lives of all people concerned. Some state models are just a perpetual motion machine of injustice-driven conflict.
Criminalization of religion
It is the Arabs who have criminalized religion in many areas under their control. It is tantamount to ethnic cleansing. In contrast, there are many mosques, churches, cathedrals, and other non-Jewish holy places in Israel having (pace internal security in a few rare hot spots, mostly El Aksa) freedom of access and worship. Arabs are Israeli citizens in enormous numbers, and recently the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that hostile Arab political parties could not be decertified because of their ideology.
It is the Arabs who have deliberately destroyed many non-militarized holy places of others, and not vice-versa.
This is another of the thousands of cases of anti-Israel propagandists (however educated of language and expression) seeing the mote in their own eye and projecting it on the Israelis.
An aside
Congratulations to Foreign Policy for giving Prof, Walt both a platform and a blog, despite M&W'S hysterical claims of a so-called "Israel Lobby" suppressing dissent. Refutation is not suppression.
Let's hear no more of such pandering to demonization, however couched in academic terms; let's instead deal with facts on the ground, history, and substance,
Further, though M&W's logic is, I think, sometimes specious and their selective reading of history and national interest sometimes at least arguable, they have, as far as I know, always followed the rules of civilized discourse, for which they are to be commended.
Sternlight, I thought about
Sternlight, I thought about responding to you.
But then I reconsidered. You are a zionist. There is no point attempting rational discourse with you. You are impervious to any reasoning that gets a result you don't want.
Life is too short to spend much time arguing with irrational fanatics.
Every1 thinks this conflict
Every1 thinks this conflict started in 1947 but it didnt it actually started at the turn of the 20h century. When the early zionists wanted to establish a home for the jews they quickly realized that there was a large arab population and virtually an irrelevant amount of jews in the area. So in public they used the slogn a land without a people fora people without a land. One of israel zangwill's popular sayings. But in private they understood that the land was populated so their first strategy was to go over the head of the native population and aly themselves with the imperial power at the time and try to etablish a homeland. They did this at the start by buying land and employing only jewish labor in the hopes that this will force the peasant population to migrate out of palestine. After a while they realized that this necesarily wont work either especially after the riots around the 1920's. ben gurion himself privately admitted that there is no solution to the arab problem because there is no way to reconcile zionism the belief that jews are entitled to that land when it was predominantly arab for over a millenium. So in public they would talk about co-existence but in private they would talk about ways to transfer the local population voluntarily or by some other means. They realized that the native population would never agree to allow themselves to become the minority in their homeland and they wouldn't agree to transer themselves out of the area. i dont knnow any native population that wouldnt resist. it as always the zionist goals to have a state over all of Palestine this was explicitly stated at the Biltmore conference in 1942. In 1947 there was a partition to divide the country 56percent going to the jewish state when they were only about 33 percnt of the population and owned about 7 percent of the land. While the arabs got about 44 percent and owned teh vast majority of the land and had about 67 percent of the population. Even then the zionists only accepted the partiton as a tactical move because it was unworkable it had a population of 44 percent that was arab.
There is enormous evidence of
Yes, because there couldn't possibly be other reasons why the surrounding Arab states would hesitate to integrate large groups of desperately poor refugees. Jordan from the 1970s, which had to deal with a revolt by said Palestinians, would be very interested to hear this argument.
Tell me, if Mexico collapses into a failed state (I don't think it will, but what the hell - it's a hypothetical), is the US in the wrong if it doesn't do everything possible to integrate the no-doubt enormous masses of migrants heading north over the border?
I was waiting for the Islamic essentialists to pop out of the woodwork. Tell me, if this is the case, then why do the governments of Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan, all of which are overwhelmingly muslim (and the former led by a muslim head of state and head of an Islamic party) have a long-term peace with Israel? And don't try to weasel out of this by saying "Well, their governments aren't Islamic enough!"; you made a point about how this supposedly applies to all Arabs (and yes, I know that the Turks aren't Arabs, but they are very much a part of the region).
Egypt and Jordan, both of which negotiated said peaces with Israel in the twentieth century, would be very surprised to hear that (and none of that bullshit about how they are "cold peaces" - many peaces are as such, and the exchange of money has been part of peace treaties going back into ancient history).
If by "pulling out of the past" you mean embargoing all but the bare minimum humanitarian supplies to keep the population of Gaza from starving to death, and that after undermining the elected Palestinian government. Considering that the Gazans (and Hamas) were in a corner, is it really a surprise that they were willing to start up a fight again with Israel?
Aside from the fact that they and their parents were kicked out of Mandatory Palestine proper, right?
Generally speaking, the refugees have to agree to be settled, unless you want to starve them out (which is a good way for Israel to alienate everyone, including its patron). And who is willing to put up the money and other resources necessary to integrate a large number of poor refugees into surrounding countries, and why, honestly, would they want to do it? So Israel can have the comfort of never having to do anything for them?
You mean aside from Israel, right? I don't see why the whole world should bend over backward just so Israel doesn't have to make any compromises regarding the Palestinian refugees. Part of that is very much their problem, and they owe part of the solution.
You know, I would have a lot more respect for pro-Israel arguers if they just came out and said that they want to more or less ethnically cleanse the remainder of the Palestinians from "Eretz Yisrael". I'd be somewhat concerned with their brutality, but nation-building is a bloody business.
Second-class citizens. The fact that they are better off materially than their counterparts doesn't change that, anymore than pointing out that blacks in Segregated America were better off materially than black Africans somehow invalidates the immorality of said discrimination.
Of course, what really causes the Israeli government to shit itself is the prospect that those Palestinians will one day decide that fighting for a separate Palestine is meaningless and impossible, and instead decide to fight a South Africa-style struggle to get full and equal rights for all the Palestinians over all of the territory that Israel currently controls.
And then, once the dust settled after the war following Israel's declaration of independence, they were sitting on 78% of the territory. I don't blame them for taking it (it was a war, after all, and even though the partition shafted the Palestinians), but they need to understand that this has bearing on any type of Two-State discussion.
"It isn't suicide unless you
"It isn't suicide unless you assume that israel will still be at war and will be too weak to win."
That's precisely the point. Given the parameters of the "two-state solution" currently on the table and the military strength and totalitarian ideology of its adversaries, Israel (or any other country under the same circumstances) would not survive a future war.
When israel came into the middle east, the neighboring nations were extremely weak monarchies. Egypt and syria became strong enough to seriously threaten israel in 1973 *because* israel provoked them to that.
Middle east governments have traditionally been corrupt, nonresponsive, arbitrarily cruel, and weak. To the extent that hamas and hezbollah become competent governing agencies because they see they must become strong to face israel....
Israel's problems are self-created. There are lots of other nations that are not defendable. The czech republic, for example. Their land is flat, it's perfect for mobile warfare. What's the chance that the czechs will ever have more tanks than the next big invader?
Israel traditionally was part of an important crossroads and had indefensible borders -- this is why the time that old israel lasted as an unified undefeated nation was two generations -- David plus Solomon. They sent slave labor to tyre for military and other aid, they were a vassal state, but they beat back every invasion for two generations after the one that got David installed as a puppet king.
If it's true as you say that modern israel is in a state of perpetual permanent war, why should the USA give undivided support? Why should we pay for your forever war?
It would be to our advantage to pay for your evacuation. Israeli military technicians could help the USA at least as much if they were in the USA. Israeli spies in russia etc could report just as well. We'd be better off giving israelis a good home than helping them keep on fighting.
Israel's problems are
Your analogy is risible. The Czech republic is not surrounded by twenty hostile nations with a combined population of 350 million people, most of whom are ideologically and fundamentally opposed to a non-Islamic sovereign and whipped into a frenzy on a steady diet of the most vile Naziesque propaganda one could imagine.
The US currently provides in the vicinity of $2.4 billion/year in military aid to Israel. There are strict restrictions on this money in that most of it must be spent with American defense contractors. Thus, the aid directly benefits the employees and shareholders of these firms as well the US economy in terms of increased GDP. Additionally, much of the acquired technology is re-engineered, improved and shared with the US military.
Also, with the single-minded and obsessive hatred of Israel permeating on sites like this one, you may not have noticed that the US government has been funding and selling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of arms to nations around the world for years.
hus, the aid directly
At what political cost? You're evading the question.
We don't generally give them away without some serious expected returns, which is what the buybacks amount to with regards to the aid (and the military aid isn't the only kind - the US also gives aid in the form of low-interest loans under which, as J Thomas pointed out in an earlier thread, Israel isn't under any real obligation to pay back on time).
We especially don't generally give them away when it works to sour our relations with most of the surrounding countries, many of whom are sitting on important energy assets that the US economy depends on. Or are you forgetting the other ramification of the 1973 War, when the Arab World got an OPEC embargo placed on the United States?
The fact is, the US
The fact is, the US specifically leverages its alliance with Israel to project and protect its power in the Middle East and wield influence with the Arab states.
I tried to figure out how that would work. Here's the closest I came to a method:
Say the USA wants some kind of concession from saudi arabia. Like, we want them to drop their oil prices so instead of selling a billion barrels of their dwindling oil at $150/barrel instead they sell two billion barrels at $30/barrel. We want them to give us an extra billion barrels of oil and get paid $90 billion less total. So we tell them, "You know that little country near you, the one that's full of crazy militarists? If you don't give us your oil and money, we'll turn them loose. They'll take riyadh, they'll take mecca and medina, they'll take your oil fields, and in two weeks you won't have a country any more. So what do you say? You're going to give us what we want, now aren't you? It's a nice country you have here, hate to see something happen to it." So they give us everything we want.
But what if there was no israel there for us to use that way? Couldn't we tell the saudis, "You know those big military bases we have in kuwait? If you don't give us your oil and money, we'll launch our armies. They'll take riyadh, they'll take mecca and medina, they'll take your oil fields, and in two weeks you won't have a country any more. So what do you say?"
How useful is it to have israel do it instead of doing it ourselves? Would it be that much better if we could say we weren't the ones who took mecca? I don't see it. Every time israel invades lebanon with or without our permission, the USA gets blamed for it. Wouldn't we still get the blame if it was mecca instead? And if somebody's going to get the oil I'd just as soon it was the USA instead of some foreign nation that doesn't actually follow our instructions very well.
I just don't see the big advantages israel gives the USA for power projection. It's only zionists I hear that claim such advantages.
You're getting warmer. But
You're getting warmer. But it's highly unlikely that America would ever seek to explicitly threaten the Saudis -- or need to. Though they effectively control the price of oil through monopolistic practices, outside of their investments in Western companies and government bonds, oil provides the only source of foreign revenue for the Kingdom. Without it, the House of Saud would quickly be ridden out of town by the locals. So they will continue to sell it at affordable prices. Nobody likes paying $4/gallon for petrol but it won't drive the US to invade.
A far bigger problem for the Saudis, Europe, and the US would be if Israel were coerced into a bad deal with the Arabs, i.e., the "two-state solution" and that emboldened the Palestinians or Syrians or others to exploit Israel's new insecure borders and attack. If Israel were to face a situation similar to that it faced in 1973, it might indeed resort to the use of nuclear weapons. And those will not be aimed at the invading armies; Arab capitals and oil fields will be targeted.
Now, consider the impact of that scenario on the economies of the US and Europe and you begin to get a sense of why it's in America's interests -- based on realpolitik -- to support Israel's security.
A far bigger problem for the
That's the key, isn't it? "If Israel were to face a situation similar to that it faced in 1973". I've pointed one reason why I think that is highly unlikely - that Israel isn't currently sitting on any of the local Arab states' turf (especially turf adjoint to any particular state's source of major income, like the Suez Canal). Others would be that none of the surrounding states like Syria, Egypt, and Jordan have a patron like they did when the Soviet Union was still around (Egypt is dependent on us for weapons sales, for example), when they had a major source of cheap hardware. The technological and military disparity is probably even wider than it was back in 1973, and, of course, Israel has more nukes than it did back then.
This is particularly relevant in the case of an independent Palestine, with official borders and a recognized government. There is very little chance of them getting weaponry on the level where they could seriously threaten the existence of Israel (launching rockets harms Israel, but doesn't destroy it or its territorial and/or national integrity), and Israel has dealt with a situation before when a neighboring state held the high ground in question and was preparing for war. Dealt with it successfully, as I've pointed out.
In other words, it is highly unlikely, even in the advent of a loss of US patronage (or since that is unlikely), that Israel will lack for options short of nuclear war in a potential conflict with Palestine, or her other neighbors. Unless, of course, the Palestinians and other states suddenly started getting lots of patronage in the form of weaponry and equipment in the way the Soviet Union provided to several of the Arab states, but I haven't heard you seriously argue that that is a risk.
Israel has one of the ten
Israel has one of the ten largest and the second most advanced and well-trained armies in the world. Despite this, it very nearly resorted to the use of nuclear weapons in 1973 when the Arabs launched a surprise invasion on Yom Kippur, sliced through Israeli territory, inflicted heavy losses, and the US under Kissinger deliberately delayed resupply operations (to give Israel a "bloody nose").
Well, but israel had refused to negotiate peace with egypt before that. Israel's public position was that arabs couldn't fight so israel didn't need peace, that they were better off with land than with peace because arabs could never threaten them.
Then it did get serious and rather than negotiate they threatened nukes.
It's absurd that israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.
The fact that you do not appear to grasp the sober implications and risks (to the entire region, Europe, and America) of shrinking Israel to a size which leaves it heavily reliant on nuclear weapons to deter its adversaries demonstrates that your time would be better invested on other sites or with books that discuss these matters.
You have done a reductio ad absurdum argument and derived the wrong conclusion.
Israel cannot survive depending on nuclear weapons. If israel does use nukes it's real unlikely israel will survive another ten years. And israel can't survive holding the west bank and gaza, not in the long run. Too many palestinians. A final solution might work, but that would sicken too many israelis -- likely israel wouldn't survive that either.
If there's going to be an israel in the middle east, israel needs peace. If you can't get peace, you should evacuate before it's too late.
You will also be able to answer your own naive question, “why is this any of the US's concern?”.
The USA would be better off distanced from this issue. I say that american interests would be served well if israel did get into a nuclear war, although I'm sure many americans would disagree. Here's my reasoning: A whole lot of people worldwide have the insane idea that nuclear weapons are a solution to some problem they think they have. This is because after WWII we got 60 years of theory on the subject with no actual experience. When the world sees one small nuclear war and the aftermath from it, people will learn better. They won't understand until they actually see it happen. But it's good for the world for that war to be a small one, that destroys a minimum of people etc. Israel is about as small as nations get, and is an excellent candidate to participate. Ideally their opponent would be lebanon, though some larger nation might have to do. While we might be better served by a couple of 'stans fighting, or a couple of african nations, israel has practically volunteered for the role and US foreign policy will be considerably simplified after israel is gone.
I'm talking a little bit more cold-blooded than I usually feel, but it's in response to your idea of israeli nukes as some kind of solution to your problem. That's cold-blooded and stupid.
If you re-read my posts above
If you re-read my posts above carefully, you'll see that it is precisely my point that Israel cannot and should not have to rely on nuclear weapons for her survival. This is truly a lose-lose-lose scenario for Israel, the Arabs, and the US. (Also see my post "You're getting warmer" just above).
But it's highly unlikely that
But it's highly unlikely that America would ever seek to explicitly threaten the Saudis -- or need to.
Agreed. So how does it help the USA for israel to threaten the saudis? Israel's threats against middle east nations are not for the US benefit and do not benefit the US.
If Israel were to face a situation similar to that it faced in 1973, it might indeed resort to the use of nuclear weapons. And those will not be aimed at the invading armies; Arab capitals and oil fields will be targeted.
Now, consider the impact of that scenario on the economies of the US and Europe and you begin to get a sense of why it's in America's interests -- based on realpolitik -- to support Israel's security.
You make a strong and chilling argument that israel should not be allowed nuclear weapons.
It is strongly in american and european interests that the middle east should become a nuclear-free zone. This would be true even if israel did not exist. But israel does exist and does have nukes, and as you point out israel is a clear potential threat to europe and america.
The USA would be better off
I generally couple my argument for reducing American patronage of Israel with a greater argument about disengaging from the entire region, and taking foreign and domestic actions (like acting to reduce oil consumption at home) to ensure that. In this case, I think I got sucked in to arguing that detaching from Israel would somehow make our access to Arab energy resources better by improving our relations with said states, but my usual stance (and I'll return to it, here) is that we should get into a situation where reliance and connection to the Middle East in general (Arab or otherwise) is minimized.
who were more likely.....
let's be clear that we are not going to use military force to either spread nor protect "democracy" abroad. (remember what kind of trouble we got us in for doing just that very recently.)
As for if Israel’s interests equal US interests: for those who claim to know history so well, what’s our diplomats’ position on the very creation of Israel? I shall not argue right or wrong but the historical consensus is here, Truman's decision to recognize Israel is “opposed by almost the entire foreign policy establishment“ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602447.html).
Now, who were more likely to think in terms of US national interests, Truman or Marshall (with his group of professionals)? And who was more likely to think like a politician :)?
if you have not read, read, very interesting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602447.html
It's an interesting
It's an interesting historical "what if?" to consider what might have happened if the UN Partition Plan hadn't gone through. My guess is that Ben-Gurion and his supporters probably would have declared an independent state of Israel anyways, and then tried to carve out a state from Mandatory Palestine. No idea on how recognition of this would have gone from the US and USSR, or how the boundaries would have ultimately ended up.
enjoy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602447.html
last comment in response to Holbooke's above linked article re israel's birth.
wtb3w wrote:
After 60 years the U.S. State Department is still anti-Israel. This is really too bad because the promises voiced by God in Genesis 12:3 are everlasting. They have no time limit. With that in mind do you really want to be on the wrong side by going against God?
5/9/2008 1:35:50 PM
telling, uh,
This is a fine debate, but...
The original quip by Mr. Walt was simplistic, but the debate that has grown around it is informative. But for all the history and hypotheticals, one fact remains. Israel's enemies publicly vow to destroy her, and show no shame about the lengths they will go to achieve this. This notion that what is lacking is "fairness" or that we needn't be Israel's lawyer in peace negotiations reveals a willful abandonment about the moral condition of the issue. This relativistic approach is exactly why the State Department is held in such low esteem by so many - it insists that stability is worth all the murder and mayhem that may accompany it. Palestinian culture is macabre celebration of death and hatred - recognizing that doesn't make you a Jew-lover, it signals that you know the difference between peace and hudna.
I haven't lost hope that peace may one day be possible, but I've lost a lot of respect for the Leftist perspective that permeates the State department and many of the authors featured on this site.
This notion that what is
This notion that what is lacking is "fairness" or that we needn't be Israel's lawyer in peace negotiations reveals a willful abandonment about the moral condition of the issue.
No, the problem here is that this is not a conflict between right and wrong, or good and bad. This is a conflict between wrong and wrong, bad and bad.
Neither side has any particular moral standing. Both sides are guilty of extremely bad behavior.
It would be stupid to support israel in a one-sided resolution that could not in fact resolve anything.
Yes, because there couldn't
The difference is that the Arab refugees were caused by the Arab states making war on Israel and thus they are culpable; if Mexico collapses it will not be because the US attacks them.
Because they are neither theocracies nor despotic dictatorships
Tsk, tsk, "bullshit"? Actually the answer is the same as that just above.
There are plenty of people "in a corner" who don't seek to get out by making war on their neighbors. Here's a novel idea: ending one's avowed aim of destroying that neighbor and making peace.
(well, you get the idea; little point further analysis of that post.)
The difference is that the
So they are responsible for permanently integrating the refugees, even though in many cases they represent a huge security and economic burden, because 60 years ago they started a war against Israel? That doesn't follow, anymore than the US would be responsible for permanently any refugees sent north if the US ever invaded northern Mexico.
Egypt is a despotic dictatorship under Mubarak - and has been under the thumb of one dictator after another for decades. Jordan's not quite so bad, but the power rests in the hands of the royal family, meaning it is an authoritarian state at best.
But we weren't talking about that - you made a broad claim about the inability of Arabs to make a lasting peace. Do you reject that claim now?
It is, nonetheless, an example of a lasting peace treaty between Israel and Arab states that wasn't either just an armistice or a hudna.
So what was Hamas and the Gazans to do? Try to build up, when Israel was blocking all but the bare minimum of humanitarian supplies, and pressuring the Egyptians to do the same from their side (with US help)? Simply lay back and take whatever punishment Israel dealt then, including the assassination of six Hamas men that led to the unraveling of the six-month ceasefire?
Frankly, Israel left Hamas no other realistic options, and it had the gall to act like it was the victim of the situation.
In other words, you wanted Hamas to basically take everything the Israelis threw at them (including a refusal to lift the blockade in exchange for extending the ceasefire), and then beg for peace (peace which Israel has no intention of giving, since it views Hamas as a terrorist organization and targeted its leadership in spite of the ceasefire). It would have been political suicide for them - which is what Israel wanted, of course.
Hasn't anyone here read the
Hasn't anyone here read the Hamas Charter? ( http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm )
Israel is supposed to trust them?
Why?
Hasn't anyone here read the
Hasn't anyone here read the Hamas Charter?
Israel is supposed to trust them?
Israel encouraged Hamas in the early days to sow dissention among the arabs.
You reap what you sow.