Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

Today I want to call your attention to two recent speeches, each by an experienced U.S. diplomat. Both of these men had lengthy, varied, and distinguished careers, both served as ambassadors to important U.S. allies, and both are solidly rooted in a realist view of foreign policy. For all these reasons, their remarks are well worth pondering.

The first is by retired Ambassador Charles ("Chas") Freeman, who served the U.S. government in a variety of capacities over more than thirty years. And he would be serving our country today as chairman of the National Intelligence Council had he not been the target of a vicious and baseless smear campaign by prominent figures in the Israel lobby. (Obama's failure to defend the appointment was an early warning sign of his spinelessness on this general issue).

In any case, Freeman recently gave a fascinating lecture at the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, entitled "America's Faltering Search for Peace in the Middle East: Openings for Others?" Apart from being beautifully written, it is also one of the clearest and most common-sensical analyses of our predicaments there that I have read recently. Here's just one small excerpt (you really owe it to yourself to read the whole thing):

In foreign affairs, interests are the measure of all things. My assumption is that Americans and Norwegians, indeed Europeans in general, share common interests that require peace in the Holy Land. To my mind, these interests include -- but are, of course, not limited to -- gaining security and acceptance for a democratic state of Israel; eliminating the gross injustices and daily humiliations that foster Arab terrorism against Israel and its foreign allies and supporters, as well as friendly Arab regimes; and reversing the global spread of religious strife and prejudice, including, very likely, a revival of anti-Semitism in the West if current trends are not arrested. None of these aspirations can be fulfilled without an end to the Israeli occupation and freedom for Palestinians.

Needless to say, the fact that someone with his experience, insight, and independence of mind was blackballed from further public service tells you a lot about why U.S. foreign policy keeps spinning off the rails.

The second talk that I recommend is by Robert Blackwill, who served as U.S. Ambassador to India and on the National Security Council during the Bush administration. (Interestingly, both Blackwill and Freeman were aides to Henry Kissinger at earlier stages in their careers). Blackwill recently delivered the second annual Ernest May Lecture to the Aspen Strategy Group, on the topic of "Afghanistan and the Lessons of History." Not surprisingly, his talk draws on many of the insights that May and Richard Neustadt developed about the perils of misplaced historical analogies and sloppy historical reasoning, but he offers plenty of intriguing nuggets of his own. And the "lessons" he draws about our Afghan experience ought to be on the desk of every ambitious "nation-builder" in Washington. Here they are:

  • Ensure that the U.S. commitment in blood and treasure is clearly commensurate with U.S. vital national interests and does not push aside more important strategic challenges.
  • Keep U.S. policy objectives feasible. No dreams allowed.
  • Take into account that local realities dominate global constructs.
  • Stay out of long ground wars in general, and especially stay out of long ground wars in Asia.
  • Reject the notion that America has the capability to socially engineer far-off societies fundamentally different from our own.
  • Be cautious about making counterinsurgency the U.S. Army's core competence. Interacting with exotic foreign cultures on the ground, not to say dramatically changing them, is not exactly America's comparative advantage.
  • Accept that diplomacy is almost always a better instrument of U.S. national purpose than the use of military force.
  • Remember that often purported worst case consequences of U.S. external behavior don't ever happen, not least because we remain the most powerful and resilient country on earth.

There's a lot of wisdom in those two speeches, and I recommend them highly. Among other things, they remind us that while you don't have to be a realist to say smart things about foreign policy, it sure helps.

UPDATE:  The original post here inexplicably omitted links to the two speeches; I've added them now.  

MANPREET ROMANA/AFP/Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

SYVANEN

9:50 PM ET

September 2, 2010

state vs defence

These statements by two retired diplomats are very sensible and it is tragic that these views have had so little impact on US foreign policy over the last decade.

Here is a question for Walt (maybe a future column?). I have heard that much of US foreign policy is now being run by the military via the various regional command headquarters. That, for example, Petraeus is much more influential in any mid eastern capitol than are the given ambassadors. If that is true, then it suggests that career diplomats have less influence today than they did in the past. How far could this explain the excessive militarization of US foreign policy?

 

ANON_ANON

10:26 PM ET

September 2, 2010

Walt may not be a hypocrite

but I thought foreign policy for realists tends to be determined more by aussenpolitik than innenpolitik. Hence "the fact that someone with his experience, insight, and independence of mind was blackballed from further public service tells you a lot about why U.S. foreign policy keeps spinning off the rails" as opposed to structural factors - e.g., as Walt pointed out in his, "Why Wars Last So Long," a hegemon can afford to let them drag on - seems a bit striking. (Yes, I know Waltz - not Walt - claims his work is not designed to be a theory of foreign policy, but one can debate otherwise, and Waltz is not the first, last or only realist in town.) Is what makes Freeman so attractive to Walt the fact that he stood up to, or was found uncongenial by, the Israel Lobby?

 

STEVE541

2:33 AM ET

September 3, 2010

Credit source please!

I hate to get all pop-culture and sophomoric in an otherwise respectably intellectual forum, but it has to be said that bullet point #4 has been directly lifted from one of Hollywood's most important IR strategists: Vezzini (a realist in the Machiavelli tradition, if not in fact a contemporary of his) from Rob Reiner's "The Princess Bride." Money quote: You fool! You fell victim to one of the most classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia."

 

JOHN ADAMS

5:59 AM ET

September 3, 2010

Why does America need wars?

It is an honest question.

Aurangzeb Khan
lalqila.wordpress.com

 

VILKSSWEDENF0REVER

6:33 AM ET

September 3, 2010

Here's a link to Chas Freeman's speech

Since Dr. Walt didn't include it:, definitely a worthy read:

http://www.mepc.org/articles-commentary/speeches/america-s-faltering-search-peace-middle-east-openings-others

I couldn't find text of Blackwill's

 

MALICEIT

5:18 PM ET

September 3, 2010

Since when....

...you just cant be against Israel ? Without defending it?

 

DAVID IN DC

5:42 PM ET

September 3, 2010

...And he would be serving

...And he would be serving our country today as chairman of the National Intelligence Council had he not been the target of a vicious and baseless smear campaign by prominent figures in the Israel lobby.

Like that uber-"Lobbyist" Nancy Pelosi. Heh.

You will never, ever hear Steve admit this, but the reason his so-called "Lobby" is so successful is that Americans in general agree with their positions. Politicians aren't bending over backwards trying to burnish their pro-Israel credentials because they are afraid of "the Lobby". It's because they are afraid of the voters. The Lobby (really, I should say some members of what under Steve's definition is a large and mostly all-incusive group) only serves to highlight those policy makers' unpopular stances and actions, as they did with Freeman. In Freeman's case, he wouldn't have had to face the voters himself, but those appointing him certainly would.

 

DAVID IN DC

6:06 PM ET

September 3, 2010

Great case in point

Sestak backs off Israel letter

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/Sestak_backs_off_Israel_letter.html?showall

He was being attacked in TV ads for signing this letter. At issue isn't whether he is being attacked or not, "the Lobby" is only calling attention to what he did. It is whether the attacks are effective or not. In other words, with whom do the voters agree.

This also highlights that one of the conceits of the anti-Israel lobby is not always true. They like to say that "the Lobby" has to operate in the dark, behind closed doors, to be effective. Here they are operating in plain sight, shining a light on the positions each candidate in the race took on this position. The fact that both candidates are vying to establish their pro-Israel bona fides is all you need to know about what they think the people want.

 

SIN NOMBRE

9:37 AM ET

September 4, 2010

Fickle things voters are....

David in DC wrote:

"You will never, ever hear Steve admit this, but the reason his so-called 'Lobby' is so successful is that Americans in general agree with their positions. Politicians aren't bending over backwards trying to burnish their pro-Israel credentials because they are afraid of 'the Lobby.' It's because they are afraid of the voters."

But Dave, in the very next breath there you are noting the recent business with Sestak in which he clearly is bending over backwards because of the Lobby.

Of course the answer lies in the fact that the Lobby is influential with Americans "in general," meaning when you come around to it that you have a very big, valid point when you note that lots of American voters for *whatever* reason do end up supporting things the Lobby wants and it *is* at the voter level that pressure gets exerted.

While this is obviously a point of satisfaction for Israeli partisans I think there's reasons for them to worry however. Notice that for all the "agreement" of the American voter with "the Lobby" America still classifies the occupied territories as being illegally held and "an impediment to peace." And despite lots of talk of same chronically, America has never moved its diplomatic mission from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

So in essence you've got a limit to the voter pressure we were talking about in the form of seeubg lip service towards it from American politicians and it seems to me that lip service on their part is only going to grow, as is the overt "anti-Lobby" sentiment that's out there. Indeed Israel's ambassador Michael Oren has, to me, recently agreed with this idea that we've seen the high-water mark of American support for Israel. And if no two-state solution is reached and the Palestinians go for a one-stater, the dynamics there can seem to present the Palestinians vast potential to change American's perceptions due to the nature of the issues involved with that. Vast, totally game-changing potential.

In short I think it's of distinctly limited and very tenuous value to perceive any too great or durable strength in having the support of "Americans in general." In the first place they can be easily mis-read: While it can seem that they "supported" the Vietnam War in choosing Nixon over McGovern, in truth it appears they wanted out but just didn't want American to be seen as being chased out, and even then were so tired of the war that they rather quickly refused to support measures to prevent same.

And, in the second place, not only will they adjust their most fundamental of views over a relatively short period of time if it turns out they were wrong initially—such as obviously and rather quickly turning against the Iraqi invasion which they clearly supported initially—but then in addition sometimes all it takes is just one incident to alter their appreciation of the fundamentals of something too. Another U.S.S. Liberty is sunk, some smart arab move appearing to newly reveal that America's already tiresome quaqmire in the ME is because of its support of Israel, or the sudden rise of just one real articulate and persuasive American political figure even saying the same thing....

It's amazing how quick things can change in politics, true?

Because America can have different interests than Israel I think there's not only a distinct limit to the degree that American voters support Israel and that we might have already seen the high-water mark of it, but that what support there is given the situation is potentially very brittle. Sort of like ... earthquakes never seeming to become old hat even to people who've lived in their regions their whole lives.

.... Because something can seem so stable for so long we get lulled into it being hard to imagine even that the damned earth can suddenly re-arrange itself all of a sudden violently. And yet....

For the sake of Israel proper which I support I would hope that Israel would appreciate this risk. It is by no means beyond my imagination that some tectonic shift could occur in the opinion of the U.S. voter to the extent of him and her turning the coldest of faces to Israel proper even, just as they have done to any number of countries and governments that the U.S. had long previously pledged support if not undying love for. South Vietnam, the Marcos regime....

Also calls into question Israel's basic strategic thinking over the past decades of essentially writing off trying to accommodate anyone other than the U.S. and thinking the U.S.'s support would be all it would ever need. Never a good idea to put too much trust in a boat made of just one reed....

 

DAVID IN DC

12:20 PM ET

September 4, 2010

Hi SIN NOMBRE, With my main

Hi SIN NOMBRE,

With my main point, I'll simply note that you agree with me. You do for some reason have a "But Dave..." in there, but then go on and agree that at root "the Lobby" is successful because the voters agree with them (and really, as defined, Steve's Lobby itself is made up of a not insignificant block of voters). To expand a little bit on your "But...", I'll note that Sestak isn't bending over because of the Lobby. If nobody cared a whit about the TV ads Sestak wouldn't have tried to backtrack from his previous position, despite the ECI (about whom Steve has dedicated a blog post, FYI) having aired them.

This dynamic is completely different from the way Steve's theory works, who posits that Americans don't agree with his Lobby. (As a sidenote, in acuality they do, basically 100%, due to the way Steve has defined it. Steve's Lobby is made up of AIPAC, J Street, and everyone in between. It's like 31 flavors, something for everyone. For Steve, this is good news and bad news -- the good news is that his Lobby always wins and he can always crow "I'm right!", and does; the bad news is that it renders his theory incoherent due to a lack of distinction.)

The rest of your post is about Americans' attitudes towards Israel, and about this I am not too concerned. Israel will be fine. One hopes, as an American partisan, that they will be fine allied with us, because if we turned on them and they turned to China or Russia, it would be a distinct negative for us IMO. I also believe that you wouldn't see the attendent shift in Muslim/Arab attitudes towards China/Russia. Unfortunately, I imagine we would still be the Great Satan, while at the same time losing the benefits of our alliance with Israel.

Some more general thoughts:

The nature of Israel's adversaries is connected to both 1) the largest point of contention between Israel and the US, and 2) one of the main reasons they enjoy such strong support from Americans[1]. Case in point, you have Hamas gunning down a pregnant woman and her family in order to stymie negotiations[2]. Case 2 in point, you have Israel ceding land for peace and getting thousands of rockets fired from that land rather than peaceful gestures in return. One is a microcosm and one is macro, but both render the Palestinians as unsympathetic characters to Americans and also highlight the reason why Israel can't simply pull out and be done with it. In the imaginary world where the Palestinians suddenly became just like Americans, they would be much more sympathetic to Americans and at the same time people who Israel could conclude a deal with quickly. You can see the connected nature of these phenomena. Strictly food for thought.

[1] Steve recognizes this and so devotes a section of his paper to the subject. It is ostensibly presented as explanatory ("...since Israel is no better than...therefore there must be another explanation for the support...the Lobby..."). Their conclusion is based on the assumption that what they present is "true" and that people are aware of it. I don't think either assumption holds up, mooting this evidence as support for their conclusion.

[2] Steve and his fellow travellers have tried to link this event to Israeli actions. For instance, Israeli soldiers are being beaten to bloody pulp when they land on a ship in order to divert it to an Israeli port to inspect and deliver its cargo to Gaza. Eventually they defend themselves with lethal force. Steve goes further and tries to make the linkage to nasty speech, for Pete's sake. Americans just don't buy it. We aren't as stupid as Steve thinks we are. We recognize the difference between soldiers defending their lives, hate speech, and murdering entire families in cold blood on the highway.

Sorry for the length, but you get what you give :-).

 

SIN NOMBRE

2:15 PM ET

September 4, 2010

Reply to David

DAVID IN DC wrote:

"This dynamic is completely different from the way Steve's theory works, who posits that Americans don't agree with his Lobby."

Hey to you Dave. Hope you're good.

Boy, as to this issue it can always seem to toter on the brink of falling into metaphysics in a way, can't it? "Is it the lobby or the voters, but then without the people there'd be no lobby so what's the difference, except...."

To try to put it as clearly as possible I'd just say that while I agree with you that it's the voters in the end that scare the politicians, to a significant enough extent that one can indeed object to enough voters' positions are influenced by the lobby so as to be ... significant. Elsewise Dave how do you deal with what would seem to be the implicit admission of this by the lobby itself via doing nothing other than ... existing? (Not to mention its own crowing about its successes in ginning up and organizing voter pressure?)

I mean ... if the support of Israel was as ... organic as you say, then there'd be no need for all these lobby groups, right? Not an original question with me I'm almost sure, indeed I think Walt himself may have observed same, but it does seem to me to have some ... significant logic.

"The rest of your post is about Americans' attitudes towards Israel, and about this I am not too concerned. Israel will be fine. One hopes, as an American partisan, that they will be fine allied with us, because if we turned on them and they turned to China or Russia, it would be a distinct negative for us IMO."

That's not just a good point, but a good deep point. Indeed should undoubtedly form at the very least a kind of ... backstop to American thinking about just how far the U.S. should ever back off from supporting Israel. Of course it also implicates Israeli thinking in terms of how much better it is to be in America's orbit rather than Russia's or China's, and I suspect it would much prefer to be in ours. But they're realists and I have no doubt accept that sometimes you don't get your 'druthers and in fact its interesting how regularly one sees reports about this or that Israeli/Chinese transaction and etc. And then, it seemed to me at least, during this recent Russian/Georgian dispute it struck me that Israel wasn't at all dismissive of Russia's lack of appreciation for what seems to have been some support Israel had been providing Georgia or etc. Not dumb at all on Israel's part.

"The nature of Israel's adversaries is connected to both 1) the largest point of contention between Israel and the US, and 2) one of the main reasons they enjoy such strong support from Americans. ... You can see the connected nature of these phenomena."

I do, and think this is a penetrating observation I've never quite seen put that way before and have to think about it's extended implications. Offhand (which one should never speak from, but what the hell), just because damn near all such things never have totally determinative implications I doubt this does, but I wouldn't bet against its long-term importance either that's for sure.

I'd also say however that just as with the Russia/China thing razors have edges that cut both ways significance wise, and Israel I think does itself no favors with many of its tactics. Whatever the significance of your observation it would be lost entirely if it becomes a matter of the Israelis being seen as employing just different but equally beastly modes of action as its adversaries, and it might not even have to get that far given that people always tend to sympathize with underdogs which Israel clearly is not military-wise.

Still, there's a cultural difference that's important for damn sure that cuts in Israel's favor and so your point is as you say still food for (extended) thought. Still likely to have its pungency ... no matter what happens in the interim ... ten, twenty years down the line.

(And that's an interesting issue in and of itself, isn't it? Just how far down the road should any power be looking down the road in terms of deciding upon its present actions? Just how far *can* it given what its current public wants? And what time-line *do* those current publics look to? While just generally interesting, one wonders esp. about that with the ME and the current Israeli public and the Palestinian one. As to Americans', my sense is their answer would be "tomorrow," but....)

 

DAVID IN DC

6:52 PM ET

September 4, 2010

I mean ... if the support of

I mean ... if the support of Israel was as ... organic as you say, then there'd be no need for all these lobby groups, right?

You are correct that W&M observed the same. It was in the first footnote in their paper, and they went further than you, they said this:

Indeed, the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about. But because Israel is a strategic and moral liability, it takes relentless political pressure to keep U.S. support intact...

I count at least three logical fallacies in that partial footnote. I see a strawman - our support certainly isn't unconditional; an example of begging the question - they take it as axiomatic that Israel is a strategic and moral liability; and an erroneous conclusion.

Regarding the erroneous conclusion, to which you also allude, one only has to look around at our political landscape. Can we conclude that Americans are against every position for which people lobby? Hardly. Can we conclude that because liberal/conservative pundits, columnists and bloggers lobby for their causes (exactly analogous to what Steve's Israel Lobby does) that liberalism/conservatism is somehow not in our national interest, or that these movements would not enjoy grassroots support otherwise? Of course not.

Or to get really crazy, can we conclude that because there is an anti-Israel lobby (in which Steve is a major figure) which lobbies against support for Israel, that this is not in our interest and would enjoy no support otherwise? Obviously this is inane. There is a marketplace of ideas out there and each "Lobby", (or, to put it another way, we Americans with strong opinions) puts out their wares.

Of course it also implicates Israeli thinking in terms of how much better it is to be in America's orbit rather than Russia's or China's, and I suspect it would much prefer to be in ours.

I have to run, but I'll say quickly that IMO Israel is making some of the same calculations that we are and drawing the same conclusions. The US is more like them and there is an afinity because of that, and the US is a more stable ally. The same holds true in reverse. The Arabs have always been fickle allies for the US, when they weren't actively opposing us.

I appreciate the thoughts. If you're in the US, enjoy your long weekend.

 

SIN NOMBRE

3:39 AM ET

September 5, 2010

Reply to Dave

DAVID IN DC WROTE:

"I count at least three logical fallacies in that partial footnote. I see a strawman - our support certainly isn't unconditional; an example of begging the question - they take it as axiomatic that Israel is a strategic and moral liability; and an erroneous conclusion."

Well that's a damn near lapidary dissection Dave, but it *is* of only a partial footnote. Everyone knows that saying we support Israel "unconditionally" is first of all an opinion, and one being expressed in a manner well within the accepted bounds of modern rhetoric. Secondly and again everyone knows it's only W&M's opinion that Israel is a strategic and moral liability—which is why they went on at length in their book arguing that issue.

Moreover look at what you did there in then saying they arrived at an "erroneous conclusion." After all that's just *your* opinion, right? (Which everyone can see.) But *you* didn't label it as such. (And didn't need to because it was obvious.) Nevertheless the exact same lack of labeling is precisely what you indict W&M for.

"The Arabs have always been fickle allies for the US...."

Would like to hear more why you believe this, but a much bigger question has struck me to ask you given your obvious extended concentration on the whole mess. To wit, as the lawyers say, do you think that this I/P issue is really resolvable short of one side essentially ... obliterating the other?

I mean ... it sure can seem at times like this is one of those historical clashes that just lasted and lasted until, for various reasons, one set of peoples just ... "won," and the other side just essentially disappeared "politically" speaking at least. And in retrospect it seems like that was the only "solution" there ever was because the dispute between them just simply wasn't resolvable short of one side simply and totally triumphing over the other.

Here I suppose the general nature of same meaning ... the "Palestinians" either essentially being driven out of the West Bank and becoming citizens of another much larger state and the Gazans perhaps becoming Egyptians, or Israel being essentially "wiped out" as a "jewish" state and indeed becoming a predominately arab one due to demographics.

A terrible thought obviously, but we humans do seem to have some innate belief that every problem has a solution even if there's no logical reason why that should be so.

Anyway, would be interested in your take. And you have a great weekend too.

 

KIMAC

7:04 PM ET

September 3, 2010

So, what about Freeman's Remarks???

Getting past the usual thoughtless knee-jerks and what must be paid or quasi-professional disinformation specialists.... I was impressed by actually reading Freeman's remarks.

Objectively, he would've had to do a spine-transplant on the Europeans to see anything come of his ideas, but he at least laid out a scenario that was theoretically plausible for getting to some sort of peace. Something the various provocateurs in this blog never seem to get around to, and far more difficult than cutting and pasting stuff that somebody else made up to mislead or distract (something that Freeman indirectly talks about, BTW). I hope people will take the time to click on through to it, from Walt's link in his post.

What I was impressed by was how Freeman, after debunking the potential of these talks in DC, suggested essentially a Track II, as Oslo served in the early nineties. The differnence is that at that time, Israel embraced the Oslo initiative behind the scenes because they needed a "partner for peace" as emminently corrupt as Arafat in order to escape the Madrid talks, where Bush, Baker, and a legitimately competent Palestinian delegation were boxing their silly-assed ears off.

In this case, by inviting LEGITIMATE representatives of Palestine, ie Hamas, etal, and involving the KSA and others, it'd be possible to finesse the power of the Lobby to manipulate the US, which in the current scenario is a guaranty of failure, at whatever point it serves Israel interests. It'd be done independant of the US, and while it isn't as though the Europeans have the spine to start making Israel behave, at least they have the theortetical potential. It'd be a tough road to even get such a thing started...but at least it is a scenario, and I've heard few (if any) others that are remotely plausible.

Otherwise, this whole exercise, as Freeman puts it, is just a skit.

 

SCOTTINDALLAS

7:36 PM ET

September 5, 2010

DAVID

You know, those who were so unfortunate to have the name Hitler had to good sense to change their names, sadly neither you nor your parents show the same good Judgment. Voltaire has some great crib notes on the legacy of David. I find it hard to imagine that any people would celebrate such a mass murderer.

“I am a little upset that David, the annointed of the Lord, the man after the heart of God, a rebel against Saul, another annointed of the Lord, goes off with 400 bandits to impose a levy on the land, goes off to rob honest Nabal; and immediately afterwards Nabal is found dead, David marries his widow without delay.” (1Kings 21:1o-11)

“I have some scruples over his conduct with the great king Achis, lord, if I’m not mistaken, of five or six villages in the canton of Geth. David, then at the head of 600 bandits, made the rounds of his benefactor, Achis: he plundered everything, he killed everyone: Old men, women, children at their mother’s breast. And why did he massacre children at their mother’s breast? It was, said the divine Jewish author, “for fear lest the children bear witness to king Achis.” (1Kings 27:8-11)

“The bandits rose up against him and wanted to stone him. What did this Mandarin Jew do? He consulted the Lord, and the Lord told him that he must go and attack the Amakalites, (compared by Bibi to Iran) that there the bandits will gain great booty and enrich themselves.” (1Kings 30)

“Meanwhile, the annointed of the Lord, Saul lost a battle against the Philistines and killed himself. A Jew brought the news to David. David, who apparently had nothing to give the messenger for his good news, had him killed as a reward.” (2Kings 1:10)

David took over the whole kingdom. He surprised the little town or village of Rabbath and had every inhabitant killed by rather extraordinary devices: they were sawed in two; they were torn to pieces by iron plows; they were burned in brick furnaces; an altogether noble and generous way to make war.” (2Kings 12)

“After these fine expeditions there was a famine of three years in the land. I readily believe it, for with the manner in which good David made war, the ground must have been cultivated badly.”

“The people consulted the Lord and asked him why there was a famine. The answer was really simple: it was clearly because, in a country which barely can produce wheat, when the workers have been baked in furnaces and sawed in two there are very few people left to till the soil; but the Lord answered that it was because Saul had killed some Gabaonites.”

“What did good David do? He assembled the Gabaonites; he told them Saul was very wrong to make war on them; that Saul was in no way like himself, after God’s own heart; that it was just to punish Saul’s race; and he gave them seven of Saul’s grandchildren to hang, who were hanged because there had been a famine. (2Kings 21)”

 

SCOTTINDALLAS

8:16 PM ET

September 6, 2010

you try to divert attention just like that disgusting David

Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics released numbers today which show that almost a third of the population is under 15 years old.

What can we expect from the next generation?

A new poll reveals how deeply entrenched bigotry is in Israel.

A survey of Israeli teens revealed that most believe that Palestinian Israelis do not currently enjoy equal rights and, according to most of those holding that view, should not be granted equal rights.

Among those 15-18 year old Jewish Israelis polled, 50% said they would object to being placed in a classroom with one or more Palestinian Israelis. 32% do not want to be educated alongside students with special needs and 23% said they would not want gays or lesbians in their class.

96% of the teens want Israel to be a Jewish and democratic state and although almost a quarter of Israelis are not Jewish, 41% of those polled said that Israelis who are opposed to their nation being defined as a Jewish state, should be stripped of their citizenship.

Any glimmers of hope? 24% said they would refuse to perform military service in the West Bank.

Does that reflect significant opposition to the occupation? I suspect not. More likely it is mostly simply another expression of an aversion for Palestinians.

As for reports that Israel’s demographic make-up might be changing due to a surge of new immigrants, it turns out that only 14,572 arrived in 2009, contributing to a modest 1.7% growth in Israel’s Jewish population. At the same time, Zionists who perceive a Palestinian population controlled through occupation as a “demographic threat,” will find no comfort in the fact that Israel’s own Muslim population is growing at 2.8%.

From WarinContext.org The poll is from Haaretz

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More