| « | Fran's Sunday Ruminations: Some "Mustn'ts" |
»
|
|
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Outrage in Annapolis
As many know, this week President Bush has called Israel and Palestine to negotiations in Annapolis, Maryland in another effort to find a solution to the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Brokering an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal seems to have become somewhat of a tradition for legacy-minded presidents, and unfortunately it appears as though President Bush has not escaped this temptation. I say unfortunately, because every well-intentioned president from Carter to Clinton who has attempted to broker such a deal have typically made fools of themselves once the results of their work came to fruition. Invariably. Israel, at the urging of the United States, has signed over some valuable piece of territory to the Palestinians as well as any other number of promises, and in return the Palestinians have launched wave after wave of terrorist attacks and even elected a terrorist group dedicated to Israel’s destruction to lead the country. No one argues that this is not true because given the facts it is impossible, yet this cycle of insanity has been endlessly repeated by heads of state and academics everywhere who have bought into the inane theory that the Palestinian case is somehow above the usual “give a mouse a cookie” rule that obtains when dealing with terrorists.
I had higher hopes for President Bush, who began his term in office with a fairly sensible pro-Israel policy. Many have pointed out that President Bush has done quite a bit to advance the Palestinian cause, and perhaps he has, but he never seemed willing to completely throw Israel over the boat as some others might have. Before today, I was willing to believe that the current round of negotiations in Annapolis would amount to nothing more than the usual farce that always results when one deals with the Palestinians, but then I woke up and read this speech:
The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin—to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion, and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel’s security.
The highlighted section represents an enormous reversal of policy from Bush’s previously stated position that he would not support a solution which shrank Israel’s borders to their 1949 position. Furthermore, keep in mind that this is not just a proposal for an end goal in an eventual peace settlement; Bush is actually asking that Israel concede its most strategic territory as a starting point for negotiations. Thus, having enormously weakened its bargaining position, Israel will then be in a position to demand...what, exactly, from the Palestinians? Certainly not security guarantees or resource sharing agreements which Israel would be in no position to enforce, and does anybody think Palestine or the other Arab states would be more willing to take Israel’s claim of its right to existence seriously after it had shown such weakness? I cannot believe I am hearing this from a president whose overall foreign policy, despite suffering problems in the execution, has been basically sensible. This is sheer lunacy, and Israel should walk away from the negotiations immediately before its continued presence risks placing a stamp of legitimacy on this hideous idea.
More generally, the Annapolis negotiations are representative of a fundamental flaw in our approach towards Israel. Typically, I am not terribly sympathetic to the realist school of international relations, at least as a comprehensive epistemological system, but in this case some realist ideas ought to be injected into our discourse about our relationship with Israel. Too often, proponents of Israel fall into the trap of making a purely moral or aesthetic case for Israel’s existence, which allows detractors like Mearsheimer and Walt to dismiss their arguments as purely subjective and therefore invalid from a policy perspective. My instinct is that this occurs because proponents of Israel feel that making strategic claims about our relationship with Israel is denigrating to the special situation of the Jewish people. On the other hand, the other side of the question also approaches the topic from a purely moral perspective (in this case, in favor of the Palestinians), but then add the risible but “realist” claim (in the sense of dealing with national interests and strategy) that our support for Israel is the root cause of most other conflicts in the region. The latter point is virtually dogma in diplomatic circles and filters its way into the discourse of even pro-Israel presidents. Because proponents of Israel are usually unwilling to make strategic arguments about our relationship with Israel, it also often goes unchallenged.
In fact, the strategic case for our alliance with Israel is much stronger than the case against. A good summary of these arguments can be found here:
My answer, to anticipate my conclusion, is this: U.S. support for Israel is not primarily the result of Holocaust guilt or shared democratic values; nor is it produced by the machinations of the “Israel Lobby.” American support for Israel--indeed, the illusion of its unconditionality--underpins the Pax Americana in the eastern Mediterranean. It has compelled Israel’s key Arab neighbors to reach peace with Israel and to enter the American orbit. The fact that there has not been a general Arab-Israeli war since 1973 is proof that this Pax Americana, based on the U.S.-Israel alliance, has been a success. From a realist point of view, supporting Israel has been a low-cost way of keeping order in part of the Middle East, managed by the United States from offshore and without the commitment of any force. It is, simply, the ideal realist alliance.
In contrast, the problems the United States faces in the Persian Gulf stem from the fact that it does not have an Israel equivalent there, and so it must massively deploy its own force at tremendous cost. Since no one in the Gulf is sure that the United States has the staying power to maintain such a presence over time, the Gulf keeps producing defiers of America, from Khomeini to Saddam to Bin Laden to Ahmadinejad. The United States has to counter them, not in the interests of Israel, but to keep the world’s great reserves of oil out of the grip of the West’s sworn enemies.
The rest of the piece fleshes this out with details, but suffice to say that the key point is this: the value of our relationship with Israel persists precisely so long as it continues to control territory that other Arab states find valuable. In other words, its ability to influence the behavior of other states in the region both in its own interest and in ours is solely dependent on it retaining a strategically advantageous position. Should it relinquish this position, either by being defeated in war or by negotiating it away, Israel will not only become unable to guarantee its own security, but will lose its ability to regulate the stability of the entire Levant region. At base, this is what makes President Bush’s position on the current negotiations as well as the position of many academics (at least, those who are not overtly anti-Israel) so idiotic. If the Israeli government adopts Bush’s negotiation strategy, Israel’s citizens ought to begin breaking out the lifeboats on the Mediterranean, because they will undoubtedly be pushed into the sea.
Comments
Aaron, this event is beyond disgusting… It undermines any and all of our efforts in the Middle East. Israel should give not one inch of land and should further populate the West Bank.
Posted by Beach Girl on 11/27/2007 at 07:16 PMThe role of the superpower empire is not to mete out justice but keep/protect the behemoth empire from sinking.
The major mistake of everyone was to assume that the US,(nations) would be a fair player towards the Jews.
That is a rare once in a million years occurence on this planet and has already happened.
Israel’s God will settle the score and soon. Vengeance is all His.
I wrote this in response to FM Livni crying that no Arab would get near her.Poor Dhimmi Livni
I feel sorry for you that your enemies did not want to be seen close to you or shaking your hand.
Your delusion that they really want peace with Israel must have been shaken for a minute ?
If you had played the part of the infidel Jew and served them their meals or did a belly dance for them they would have recieved your Dhimmi status.
Israel and Islam cannot co-exist.
There’s never going to be real peace with Islam .
One will have to disappear and I am confident that soon the lie of Islam will be no more.
Only then will Arab and Jew live together in peace.Posted by marcel on 11/29/2007 at 09:05 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
