Thursday, July 17, 2008

Israel and Problems

In a recent speech to AIPAC, the highly influential Israel lobbying group in America, Obama said, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." Shortly thereafter he said to Fareed Zakaria:  "I think the Clinton formulation provides a starting point for discussions between the parties." The Clinton plan was for a divided Jerusalem. He said he wasn't sufficiently careful with his syntax on the prior occasion.

Making a divided Jerusalem the starting point of negotiations is clearly disadvantageous to the Israelis, and they are much mispleased with this aboutface. Clinton's starting point was more pro-Israel in 2000. Of course, the Israelis would prefer to propose a solution in which they derive all the benefits--but the Palestinians will never (and should never) concede all points. The outcome of negotiation is failure or compromise--neither side dictates except by imposition of simple force. Obama probably could not do worse than any preceding President; each left office with this issue unresolved.

The Israelis get away with playing an evil game, such as we would be most reluctant to countenance in any other ally, by using the excuse that their adversary is still more brutal.
The assumption that Israel is the white knight facing off against the Muslim devils is foolish and grossly oversimplified. Israel established its independence by means of terrorism, butchery, brutality, deviousness, and many other less than lovely qualities. Today the West Bank is pockmarked with innumerable Jewish settlements scattered all over a territory to which they have no legal claim. This is simply an ostentatious and unnecessary provocation of the Palestinians and their supporters. It is the "might makes right" philosophy in action. There is little underlying moral difference between the two religions: both are essentially tribalistic in outlook and espouse "eye for an eye" moral codes. The difference arises instead from cultural history and present circumstances. In particular, the Jews have had benefit of exposure to Western ideas for centuries, have understood and largely absorbed the Western tradition (and were in fact contributors to this intellectual background), whereas the Muslims have only a despotic political tradition and no civil society per se, just the overweening religious structures. Finally, as the weaker party in the power relation, the Muslims have been driven to more desperate measures (overt terrorism) to persuade the Israelis that they still have some power and some basis for leverage at the negotiating table.

The American-Israeli relationship is not a fair deal for the U.S. It never was, nor is it today. Their efforts to make peace with their neighbors have been insufficient--and we have borne a substantial portion of the costs created by their foreign policies. Salting Palestinian wounds by planting settlements all over the West Bank is not excused by the madness of Hamas.
They ought to keep in mind that without us Israel would be a radioactive desert within 20 years.

No comments:

Post a Comment