Walt: Barack & Rahm Have to Know that Being 'Pro-Israel' Means Bringing Big Pressure Against Occupation Now

Steve Walt has good faith about Obama’s foreign policy. (Having lately seen evidence of his clairvoyance,) I asked him where he thinks we're headed, and he offered these comments by email:

I'm trying to keep an open mind on where we are headed.  My views have been somewhat similar to Juan Cole's [re Rahm Emanuel]:  what matters is not  what somebody did or said in the past, I just want to see what they do now.  My concern is that I don't think we get to a two-state solution without a lot of US pressure on both sides--and I mean pressure more emphatic and direct than even Bush and Baker employed--and I don't see anyone on the horizon who will do that.  

Perhaps I'm wrong: maybe the Israelis are going to be receptive to change provided we push a little and give them cover, and maybe Obama and Co. will provide enough pressure to get there.   But Obama will be sufficiently focused on the economy and Iraq and Afghanistan so as to not want to engage personally during the first year or two.  That means he'll have to delegate, and it will be to one of the usual suspects, with perhaps a bit of diversity in the team (but nobody outside the consensus).  So the danger is that once again we'll get lots of energetic activity but not a new deal .  

Or to put it differently: we'll maintain the special relationship--where the US gives lots of aid more-or-less unconditionally and U.S. officials never do anything tangible to end the occupation--instead of moving to the more normal relationship that would be better for us and better for Israel too.

[Weiss again. I said to Walt that he sounded optimistic.]

I am by nature something of an optimist, although I like to think it has been tempered by experience by now. 

It comes down to a simple question: do Obama, Emanuel, and whoever else they appoint realize that being "pro-Israel" today means openly opposing the occupation and using American influence (and leverage) to reverse (not just halt) the settlement project and bring about a viable Palestinian state? Until recently, being"pro-Israel" or a "friend of Israel " was interpreted to mean giving unconditional support and never voicing the slightest criticism. Whatever the intention, however, this policy is in fact "anti-Israel"; it has enabled a set of policies that have done great harm to the Jewish state. As a Jewish friend of mine puts it, our policy has encouraged "reckless driving." One might call U.S. policy "anti-Israeli in effect, if not in intention."

In the past few years, however, the definition of "pro-Israel" has begun to shift--think IPF, or J Street, or JVP, or Brit Tzedek v'Shalom--and in ways that might make a two-state solution possible. But time is short. If Obama and Co. understand this, and have some real "baytzim," [Rahm Emanuel has given us this word: it’s cojones in Hebrew] then they can work with the Israelis and thoughtful supporters here in the US to bring it about before it is too late.

But given everything else that is on Barack's plate, and the reluctance of most people in the foreign policy mainstream to say what they really think on this issue, it is hard to be optimistic. We shall see.

Comments

[MRW.]

Israel needs a one state solution. Avrum Burg is right. Israel needs to be a modern democratic state, with Judaism as its main religion, but offering citizenship to all.

Right now it's a tribal region without a constitution, and no more advanced as a nation than tribes in Oman or the outer deserts of the UAE.

Avraham Burg's new book is fabulous! Coming from someone so high up in the Zionist pantheon makes it doubly exciting to read.

[jonathan ekman]

Absolutely NOTHING in the Middle East Policy
of this country will change under the rule
of Our Dear Leader the Obamessiah! The appointment of Rahmbo is proof of this, as is the fact that Obama's very first action after beating Clinton last June was to genuflect before AIPAC.

[americangoy]

As an American, I am overjoyed that in the Yoo Ess of Ey, there are two competing sets of views.

The first one proposes that what is best for Israel is the unconditional support of that state by the Yoo Ess of Ey, up to and including the sponsorship of the (international law says so) illegal settlements.

The second one proposes that actually, what is best for Israel is for the Yoo Ess of Ey to tell that state that perhaps the settlements are a bad idea, and to smooth out the rough edges here are a few extra billions for yah...

Both viewpoints argue from the standpoint of "What is best for Israel?".

I don't see a third view point anywhere - the simple one.

WHAT IS BEST FOR THE UNITED STATES?

What a pathetic country this is.

[anon]

Interesting, what is good for the USA?

How nice to even raise the question.

Thanks, Phil.

No thanks at ALL to Witty & SOG, who view all as are you against Israel uber alles, or not?

[Doppler]

"But given everything else that is on Barack's plate, and the reluctance of most people in the foreign policy mainstream to say what they really think on this issue, it is hard to be optimistic. We shall see."

It is the reluctance of most people in the foreign policy mainstream, and in the media, to say what they really think that is the chief barrier to hope. Have we not the courage to speak our minds? Are we here afraid to follow the truth? With Walt & Mearsheimer showing us the way, all we have to do is speak truthfully about our reactions to what they say. Damn the torpedoes! Let's have an open debate.

[Richard Witty]

Whatever the intention, however, this policy is in fact "anti-Israel"; it has enabled a set of policies that have done great harm to the Jewish state. As a Jewish friend of mine puts it, our policy has encouraged "reckless driving." One might call U.S. policy "anti-Israeli in effect, if not in intention."

If this was their primary thesis and title, they wouldn't have been ridiculed so.

[Doppler]

Richard,

Ridicule isn't an appropriate response to serious thought. It has no place in serious debate, except as a concession that one has nothing to say on the merits. Let's all start calling out the name-callers and ridiculers as just having nothing intelligent to say.

[Committee for Historical Accuracy]

Phil talks of Walt's clairvoyance. Here's the money quote. (Remember this is from September 2002.)

"Americans do not yet perceive a cost to having a freewheeling foreign policy. We stayed in the Persian Gulf for ten years, and lost fewer than three hundred people. We knocked off the Taliban in a few weeks. But imagine going into Iraq. If things go badly, we end up there for a long time. There's a point where the costs start adding up. It will generate higher and higher levels of resentment. Empires start generating a lot of resentment. I'd leave Saddam right where he is. Keep him bottled up. Wait for him to die. What do we do if we're successful? How many coups were there in Iraq between 1958 and 1968? It's a country riven with internal divisions. That's why the Bush people didn't go to Baghdad in 1991. Iran is much more powerful and important than Iraq—how do Iranians react? I have limited confidence in our ability to run countries we don't understand. Why, in the middle of pursuing Al Qaeda, would you decide, 'Oh, let's take a big country and invade it and create a giant political mess there!' We've seen people attempting this in the Middle East before, and it hasn't worked. You never know how these operations will go. History is not on the side of the advocates here."

This man is now locked out of the NYTimes while William Kristol gets a weekly column.

[anon]

It really shows Witty's disproportionate POV.

This guy should be living in one of the settler camps on Palestine land.

I bet he loves to manipulate American boy scouts, so they can die
for his children. He especially loves the goys reared in trailer camps,

even more than Jerry Springer.

He gets to wave the flag of righteousness, not merely that of circus.

[Richard Witty]

Doppler,
The point of the majority of INDEPENDANT reviews of the article and book, was that they presented their thesis inconsistently and polemically (two SINS of academic "research").

For what its worth, if the book alone had been published first (far more balanced, clear, and less rhetorical than the article), the sales would have been far less, but the authors would have been criticized far less.

[Sword of Gideonthe point.]

And what would Phil ( Hitler had the right idea ) Weiss do.

[Rowan Berkeley]

There is no longer any such thing within the realm of the ecologically possible as a "viable Palestinian state," and, indeed, it only became respectable to talk of creating one, once this was clearly the case.

[Richard Witty]

There certainly is the possibility of a viable Palestinian state.

Its important to actually achieve, rather than use as a political posture.

Three decades ago, that was the RADICAL assertion by the PLO (unanimously regarded as representative of the Palestinian people). It was the rationale for terror throughout Europe and the world. Now that it might be possible, it is rejected by dissenters.

The questions regarding its viability are tangible ones, and an Israel that recognizes that a healthy and viable Palestine is a better political neighbor than a desparate one, will get there.

That is the ONLY path to any real peace in the region.

Currently, any effort for a single state, especially if accompanied with the loaded dice of unlimited Palestinian right of return, is likely to result in civil war, with more territory permanently conquered by Israel, and more permanent displacement of Palestinians.

[Rowan Berkeley]

haha, well, you've proved my point by your reaction, richard, at least as seen from this end of the telescope. But please note that I specified 'ecological' possibility. This was a deliberate choice of term.

[Doppler]

Here's another money quote:

"Military power is not necessary to wiping out Al Qaeda," Stephen Walt said. "It's a crude instrument, and it almost always has effects you can't anticipate. We're seeing that now. We didn't get Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. We're killing civilians. We're killing friendly forces. This is ultimately a battle for the hearts and minds of people around the world. When your village just got levelled by an American mistake, the conclusions you draw will be rather different from what we'd want them to be."

How long did it take the Bush Administration to admit there even was an insurgency? How many years? Until then, no one in the military could broach the subject: how best to wage a counter-insurgency? Which is to recognize that the "center of gravity" to be focused on in military operations - usually the enemy's stronghold, or the key piece of terrain - is in an insurgency "the hearts and minds of the people."

It's not that Walt was so clairvoyant, but that the Bush/Cheney/Neocon war cabal were so dunderheaded, or had other fish to fry, and the MSM was so compliant, in taking all eyes off the ball. When the center of gravity was at Tora Bora, Rumsfeld held back his troops. Bush said he wasn't so interested in bin Laden. It's as if they deliberately planned not to get him "too soon," so they'd have more time to play empire. There were also the screaming name-callers who ridiculed anyone who asked why we were hated by some people in the world, for not having a patriotic spine. What was always needed was to focus like a laser on Al Queda. We had almost universal support following 9/11, and could have gotten him at Tora Bora. Game over. GWOT schmwot! When London Bobbies captured tube bombers in London in a classic police action, Cheney was widely quoted as saying terrorists cannot be defeated by police actions [must keep war machine running].

Give Walt and Mearsheimer a regular column here. We need to hear wise counsel looking forward, speaking realistically, without concern over thought police, right now.

[Richard Witty]

Hard to know what you meant by the term "ecological" Rowan.

Perhaps you can explain what you meant.

[Robert Hume]

"WHAT IS BEST FOR THE UNITED STATES?"

No doubt about that. Send the settlers back to Israel. Leave the occupation Army until a peace agreement is attained, create a genuine two nations side by side living in peace.

The bitter gall will drain from the festering wound and Bin Laden will be reduced to a muttering old man for lack of recruits. The jewels of Western civilization, London, Paris, New York, Washington will not be destroyed.

Israel will benefit also, but the chief beneficiary will be Western Civilization.

[Robert Hume]

"WHAT IS BEST FOR THE UNITED STATES?"

No doubt about that. Send the settlers back to Israel. Leave the occupation Army until a peace agreement is attained, create a genuine two nations side by side living in peace.

The bitter gall will drain from the festering wound and Bin Laden will be reduced to a muttering old man for lack of recruits. The jewels of Western civilization, London, Paris, New York, Washington will not be destroyed.

Israel will benefit also, but the chief beneficiary will be Western Civilization.

[Glenn Condell]

Gulliver lay dormant, constrained by the slings and arrows of the puny Lilliputians, still breathing but motionless. Then the braying martinets who imprisoned him thumbed their nose at God once too often, so God gave them their comeuppance, a deluge which loosened Gulliver's moorings and washed many of the Lilliputians away. Some of the more prominent however were still barking orders, having clung to some of the high ground Gulliver's body provided.

Gulliver was now awake, conscious of the danger he was in, Lilliputian ropes holding him down as the waters rose. He began to strain upward and this effort squeezed loose from his clothing several realist scholars who, unbeknownst to him, had sallied forth with him on his adventures. They whispered into his ears (after shovelling away all the wax the Lilliputians had allowed to accumulate there) and the information they imparted had a slow but galvanic effect on Gulliver, who was now sitting upright, blinking and wiping the sleep from his eyes, deciding whether he felt strong enough to stand up, on his own two feet.

[Colin Murray]

Richard: Three decades ago, that was the RADICAL assertion by the PLO (unanimously regarded as representative of the Palestinian people). It was the rationale for terror throughout Europe and the world. Now that it might be possible, it is rejected by dissenters.

Colin: Three decades ago, there were 10,000 Jewish settlers in the OPT and no formal network of checkpoints designed to strangle Palestinian social, political, and economic life. Now there are 270-280,000 settlers plus more in occupied East Jerusalem, and a staggering web of permanent and 'flying' checkpoints. Have you seen a recent map of the distribution of checkpoints and settlements? There is almost zero chance a state can be formed out of that mess without an utterly dedicated effort by the Israel government to go in and remove by force at least 200,000 colonists, many of whom will NOT go willingly. There is zero chance that is going to happen. They could barely even remove a handful from Gaza, who were mostly spread out in settlements smaller than those in the West Bank, and who were not resisting violently. The chance for a two-state solution died a long, long time ago. As I've said before on at least one occasion, if Israelis were smart, they would be positioning themselves to get the best deal they could in a bi-national state. Alas, I think it likely that they will come around to that notion long after they have destroyed any chance of even that happening.

Unless President-elect Obama can muster some serious once-in-a-millennium level diplomatic finesse, with a hard-ass 'you are going to do what I tell because I tell you right now or I am going to kick your ass' fortitude, in another 30 years Israel will be running neck and neck with North Korea as the most reviled, backwards, and barbaric state on Earth. Thanks to necommunist chicanery (Madeleine Albright, now THERE is one classy lady) one half million Iraqi children (not counting adults) blew their lives' waters out their rectums in malnutrition-exacerbated death by disease. And that was BEFORE they suckered us into invading. Do you honestly think Israel is going to have a single supporter outside of North American if that happens in Gaza? The Israeli government has already tried, and failed, to limit international press coverage in Gaza. This one won't go down without the cameras rolling. And it is starting to go down right now.

This is a game of chicken you can't win. The clock is running down, you are two touchdowns behind, your coach sucks, your team is demoralized, and your fans are deserting in droves. Zionist settlers have been successful in creating 'facts on the ground'. Two-state is dead. It truly is time for a new plan.

[Colin Murray]

Oops, I forgot to put in map links. There are more I'm sure, but these are a decent start.

****
PCL collection at UT (best library anywhere)

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/israel.html

****
If Americans Knew map page

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/maps.html

****
United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/vMaps!OpenView

[Richard Witty]

I agree with you that the settlement blocs, and continued expansion have made the two-state very difficult.

I disagree with you about the necessity to remove 200,000. My preference would be to transfer the sovereignty to Palestine, allow the settlers (or Israel) to compensate to perfect title, and Israel offer to repatriate any that desire.

But that assumes that Palestine will change its laws to allow Jewish ownership of land, which Jordan didn't previously, and Palestine doesn't currently.

An ethnically cleansed Palestine is FARTHER from a single-state than a Palestine with a Jewish minority.

[Colin Murray]

Another oops. The most up-to-date site didn't make it to my list. I consider it 'required reading'.

Peace Now maps

http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=59&fld=60

[CHA]

Nice map collections, Colin. Thanks.

Two other important ones--

ICAHD's Matrix of Control map

UN's 2007 map of the occupation

[Rowan Berkeley]

Richard, ecological viability is a concept that combines economic considerations with geographical ones. In the same way, I can't help making the comparison, geopolitics combines political considerations with geographical ones.

[Richard Witty]

ALL proposals are impossible by that definition.

But, in fact they are not impossible, they just require work in design and negotiation, and work in solving the structured ongoing problems.

The ongoing problems inherent in a single-state are worse and less soluble from what I see.

AND, if your concern is to solve issues promptly, rather than create an additional generation of refugees, then the single state is a disaster.

[anon]

Seems pretty simple to me. The Jews were given a special dispensation by the state powers at the time to take the land of an other people, at a time when
colonialism was already passe, immoral. The justification was
the Shoah, which the dispossessed people had no part in. Who can deny this?

They've pushed the gifted legal and funded envelope too far.

There really are good people in the world other than Jews. And there are Jews who actually have principles beyond the principle of survival at any costs.

Darwinism has its limits. Hitler had to learn it. Now, so does Israel. Now, play that funky music, Wagner. Viking or Samson option anyone?
in their own mind.