There are Americans who worry about the money their government has given to Israel over the years, and conclude that Israel has responded by making problems for American interests in the Middle East.
The best way to deal with an issue like this is to ask, Compared to what?
The United States, by virtue of being a great power, has put a lot of resources into various places around the world since 1945, with more or less good fortune in what it has gotten.
Lets look at some indications of outlays and results.
The numbers are elusive and complicated, but what follows comes from spending a bit of time with Google.
US financial aid to Israel has been about $3b/year since 1973, or a bit over $100b in total. There have been no American combat deaths for the sake of Israel that I'm aware of. Some might want to put the USS Liberty (1967) and the explosion at the Marine barracks in Beirut (1982) somewhere in the calculation.
Compare that to Vietnam: $111b to $584b are the lower and upper estimates of outlays that I have found, along with 55,000 US military dead.
Iraq and Afghanistan together, perhaps $870b so far and 5,000 US military dead.
Taking account of inflation, and computing the outlays in current terms, would increase greatly the cost of Vietnam, and the aid to Israel in the years closer to 1973.
In aiding Israel, the US has helped a stable democracy defend itself, and contribute to stability in the region.
Some would say that Israel is the cause of instability in the region, but I view that as nonsense. Israel helped protect Jordan from Syria, and has propped up the Fatah government of the West Bank. It ended the nuclear aspirations of Saddam Hussein and so far those of Syria, as well as limiting the influence of Islamic extremists in Lebanon and Gaza.
Comparing the outlays and benefits associated with Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel has been a good deal for the US.
Expenditures on the Marshall Plan were also a good investment that moved Europe toward peace and prosperity. American aid to South Korea helped produce an admirable society, but at the cost of about 34,000 US military dead.
Now the issue of Israeli cooperation with American interests:
Recent reports are that Ehud Olmert offered more to Mahmoud Abbas, with the blessing of George W. Bush, than Ehud Barack offered to Yassir Arafat in 2000 with the blessing of Bill Clinton. (For part of what has been reported, see http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184852687&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
The Olmert offer came in the fading moments of his tenure as prime minister, and did not carry the agreement of the Israeli government. Foreign Minister Livni is said to have opposed part of the offer. Among the details were land swaps for the settlements Israel would keep, international control over the Old City of Jerusalem, and Israel's acceptance of 30,000 refugees under the heading of family unification.
We hear that if the Palestinians agreed, Olmert would have presented the deal at the United Nations. With the cheers of the world behind him, he would then offer it to his government and the Knesset as a "take it or leave it" package, with the expectation that his colleagues would approve.
At the time, Israel's attorney general was preparing multiple indictments against Olmert for various kinds of corruption.
Whatever Olmert's motivation, the Palestinians rejected the offer as insufficient.
So how should the Obama administration get what it wants in the Middle East? More troops in Afghanistan? Attacking Pakistan? Engaging with Iran? Or pressuring Israel to be more forthcoming?
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
In his Cairo speech, Barack Obama pressed at least as hard on the Palestinians and other Arabs as on Israel.
That view was lost in the onslaught from Israelis and their supporters who perceived any criticism to be off limits, and disproportionate to whatever the president said about Arabs.
A few days later I joined the criticism of the administration when Hillary declared that it would permit no construction in the settlements, and a senior aide included my own neighborhood of Jerusalem in that prohibition.
Despite my caution that she was violating US Government policy about our apartment, Varda went ahead and ordered new curtains.
Fortunately for our dining room, the latest from the White House is less autocratic. Israeli officials are reminding the president what he said in Cairo about the need for movement by the Arabs. Presidential aides have spoken of a constructive dialog with Israel. One of Bush's aides has said that the Obama administration is wrong about their being no previous agreement with Israel about limited construction in the settlements. Can we hope that Hillary will change her mind? If the Americans have not forgotten how to do politics, there may be a reasonable conclusion to this fracas.
Let me risk some predictions.
Israel will agree, once again, to limit construction in the settlements. There is a proposal to freeze building not already underway for six months. Settlers will say that the government is choking them, but the money and planning approvals for construction will dry up, perhaps not as completely as the policy suggests.
A settlement freeze will not be enough for Palestinian leaders. In the absence of an equivalent gesture to build confidence among Israelis, construction will resume.
Leftists in Israel and elsewhere will cry injustice and foolishness, but the settlers have more weight than they do in Israeli politics.
There will be spurts of construction and stoppages, most likely beyond the point where I am able to write about them. Eventually, Andorra may be larger and more powerful than what remains for a Palestinian state.
What do I want?
That is less important than what I expect. I have tired of schemes to divide the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, insofar as those who speak for Palestinians have rejected every offer. I respect the capacity of Israel's institutions to decide for Israel, more than I respect the plans made by American and European politicians, overseas Jews, Christians, or others.
Israeli politicians have been sufficiently balanced to guard against moving too far from what powerful others will tolerate. As long as that continues, I can grow older with a minimum of worries.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
I recently criticized the Obama administration for trying to micro-manage Israel. I argued that Israelis are better able to decide what is best for themselves than the American government.
A number of people put the note on their own lists. Among them was Naomi Ragan, who passed it on under the headline "Israeli Take on Obama's policies." In response I received a number of replies, most of them in support of what I had written, but many of them saying that I did not go far enough. Common to several was that Israel must stand up for its rights; tell the United States and other members of an anti-Israeli conspiracy where to get off; rely on its supporters and its own might. Some weighed in with their religious faith, both Christians and Jews, to assert the priority of Israel's claims.
I appreciate the moment of notice, but must respond with something essential for understanding Israel's situation.
Israel is not a great power.
There may be only two countries that qualify as great powers, the United States and Russia. We should not envy either of them. Both can do pretty much as they want to their own residents and others without fear of international sanctions. Both did well in World War II, but since then have not accomplished much in their international adventures other than killing many of their own soldiers, as well as many more soldiers and civilians in the countries they invaded.
Russia is far from a paradise. The United States is a decent place for those with resources, but is less desirable than much of Western Europe (and Israel) on numerous indicators of health, violence, income security, and the difficult to measure thing called quality of life. The problems faced by the Obama administration in trying to reform the health system illustrate why Americans in their large, wealthy, and democratic country, which spends more than others on health, cannot obtain world class service due to entrenched interests that profit from the status quo.
Like most countries of the world, Israel must play the political game of going along to get along. It cannot thumb its nose at a great power, or even at the middling powers that prevail in Europe. As long as Israel remains in their club, it will have access to economic and technological opportunities, cultural exchanges, and at least a minimum of political support.
More than the average country, Israel must tend to its relations with others. This reflects the madness of Muslim politicians and religious leaders, and their weight in the United Nations and other organizations.
As we read in the Bible that they composed, Israel's ancestors learned in ancient times how to preserve their community amidst powerful others. Jews have succeeded more often than not in a long and troubled history from the Philistines to the Americans. .
Currently the position of Jews--in their own country and elsewhere--is better than at any other time since the death of King Solomon.
When my late father-in-law was a young man in Dusseldorf, he thought that he was witnessing the height of Jewish achievement in Weimar Germany.
The rest of his story reminds us that Jews must consider likely pitfalls as well as opportunities.
In other notes I have described Israel's success in providing public services that match what should be expected from a country classified by the World Bank as one of the wealthiest, but not among the most wealthy. A disproportionate percentage of resources go for national defense. One can argue if the IDF has used too much or too little force, but the big picture is one of success.
Israel comes in for severe criticism, but much of that is either the blather of ideologues, usually impotent politically, or the lip service of government officials who are pursuing something from Muslim countries.
Coping is a skill described by many psychologists (many of them Jewish) for dealing with personal problems not likely to be solved completely. Its political equivalence is a skill essential to those who would lead Israel.
As I remind you occasionally, I welcome comments sent to my e-mail address, below.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
Living in Israel is pleasant. The weather and public services are decent. The data on life expectancy indicate that it is safer than the United States and much of Western Europe http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html.
The problem is reading about Israel, especially what comes from commentators who have not learned the value of moderation.
Disturbance comes from the right and the left. Two of my least favorites are Caroline Glick, who writes for the Jerusalem Post and Gideon Levy, of Ha'aretz. I do not read either on a regular or even occasional basis, but I know they are somewhere out there. I find them quoted by friends or sent as something that I must read and pass on. I never pass on and usually do not read, except when I ponder Jewish extremism.
Glick and Levy are not the only writers who torment us with their descriptions of Israeli imperfections. They are similar to others on their ends of the spectrum, predictable in what they write, and useful as examples of what not to read.
I have not done a study of either, other than looking at enough to know that I do not want more. Perhaps I am unfair and miss some nuances. I will consider any comments about shortcomings in my summaries.
A recent example of Glick is http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=43960
The sky is about to fall. The world is against Israel. Even allies are evil. Obama is threatening, and will pounce harder. The center and left of Israeli politics are hopelessly naive. They are serving our enemies by efforts to find accommodation with Arabs, Europeans, and Americans who will not be accommodated. Even the right of center is not reliable. Netanyahu's heart may be in the right place, and he is trying to evade the snares of international forces who pretend to be friends but really are enemies. Even he is trapped in the culture of politics where he must go along to get along. The only correct way is to be strong and uncompromising. There is no appropriate response to threat other than declaring the correctness of our path against local and international naysayers, and embarking on a forceful defense of what we know is true.
While Glick sees Israel as too passive in a hostile world (except for foolish politicians who do the work of enemies while thinking otherwise), Levy (e.g., http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057670.html) sees Israel as actively creating problems for itself. It is aggressively foolish and self destructive. It does too much and can do nothing right. What others consider to be victory is catastrophe, or a step toward it. There is no better example than the recent Gaza war, which he describes with certainty as an utter defeat, a moral disaster, and bound to produce more problems. Once the trumpeting of success has quieted, all will see the failure of the goals declared for the onslaught. Israelis are blind to their faults and their failings, but the world is not. Continuing in the current direction, which has been going on for ever, assures the increasing enmity of civilized people, the bankruptcy of our moral potential, and the country's doom.
Rather than surrender my license as an optimist, I will insist on the good in the misery of these extremists. Their existence illustrates our tolerance for dispute. They also recall the madness of the biblical prophets. They claimed to hear the words of the Almighty, insisted that no one else was behaving correctly, and perceived apocalypse in the near future. Yet what they wrote was included in sacred text, and has been honored until now. That is more than will happen to anything I have written.
Extremism is part of Jewish culture, even though it may cause discomfort. Perfection now. Damn those who do not agree.
The strength of Israel's democracy is apparent in the tolerance of views that differ so greatly, published in prominent journals, without censorship or retribution.
What saves the us from madness is the obvious success of Israel, and the balance in its institutions. The sky is not falling. Israel has not only survived but prospered. Its enemies are miserable. The military has succeeded in protecting the country, screening out or controlling the occasional problems among its recruits, and avoided excesses like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Grieb or Guantanamo.
Israel's officials include some who fail tests of moral rectitude, but most are sane and know how to get along with world powers. What they have done recently with respect to the peace process, as well as in Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2009 is less than heroic, and also less than apocalyptic. They have absorbed criticism from the Israeli center for doing too much or not enough. They are even further from the demands of commentators like Glick and Levy, and that is their wisdom.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
It is common to hear that Israel treats its Arab minority poorly, and treats the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza worse. Jimmy Carter limited his description of "apartheid" to the West Bank and Gaza, but others have applied it to Israel. Jewish leftists from Israel and elsewhere are leading some of the tunes, and joining others as a chorus.
Reality is different.
The dirty word "apartheid" does not belong. The barriers between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza reflect violence against Israeli civilians, and not racism. Within Israel, there are too many Arabs studying in Israeli universities and living alongside Jews to justify the term apartheid other than as an anti-Semitic screed.
There are gaps in opportunity between Jews and Arabs in Israel, but they are largely the responsibility of the Arabs themselves. And the problems of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza likewise reflect Arab more than Jewish activity.
The common problem of Israeli Arabs and Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza is a failure to recognize the legitimacy of Israel, and to participate with it. Rather than cooperating politically for mutual benefits, both groups of Arabs persist in extreme rejection. Palestinians hold onto keys to doors that no longer exist, and demand the return to conditions before 1948. They and Israeli Arabs deny any responsibility for the fate that befell them, and cling to a sense of having a monopoly of justice. Instead of accepting a decent offer, or its sweetening in the summer and fall of 2000, Palestinians embarked on an intifada. Rather than accept as a partial success the withdrawal of settlements from Gaza, they persisted in rocket attacks. These responses have earned them the deepened distrust of Israelis, and helped produce a government that is not inclined to offer the same deals as its predecessors.
Israeli Arabs have not learned the lesson of American minorities, i.e., to play within the system and exchange political support for material benefits. Most of the Arabs elected to the Knesset persist in harsh criticism from outside the major parties, rather than deals negotiated from inside. The Palestinians of Jerusalem refuse even to participate in local elections. They give up the opportunity to select a third of the local council and be a deciding factor in the mayor's election. As a result, they live in neighborhoods with substandard facilities.
When asked why they do not cooperate with the Israeli establishment, the Arab mantra is that cooperation is bound to fail due to Israeli racism.
No one should claim that it will be easy to overcome Jewish suspicion associated decades of Arab incitement and violence. Nevertheless, one can find encouraging instances of reward for cooperation. My best personal story is about an MA student who stopped writing his thesis in order to accept a position as Israel's scientific attache×™ in Germany. He had the help of an uncle who was a Labor Party member of Knesset and Deputy Minister of Health. If there was a bit of patronage in the selection, the man deserved the appointment. He was a scientist who spoke German. His PhD in biology came from Heidelberg University, and he was working as a scientist in the Agriculture Ministry when he began studying for an MA in public policy.
I've noted in previous letters that Israeli Arabs live better than American minorities. On measures of health they do better than the American white majority.
This does not keep Israeli Arabs from feeling out of the mainstream. I have traded stories of having to say the Lord's Prayer as a child in an American public school with a faculty friend who says that he feels good whenever he sees a street sign in Arabic.
The status of American Jews is nothing like it was 60 or even 30 years ago. Jews are presidents of universities that had Jewish quotas, and are at the top of corporations and government departments that would have excluded them completely or limited their opportunities.
If Israeli Arabs or Palestinians are to have similar experiences as Jews in the United States, they will have to shed their backward looking leaders. This will be difficult insofar as politicians and media throughout the Middle East continue to convey their stories of Israeli evil. Repressive regimes invest heavily in preserving Palestinian misery as a way of making themselves look good to their own people. It will not be easy for Israeli Arabs and Palestinians to stop languishing in their tales of suffering, and pursue benefits. The shift may elude yet additional generations. Until it happens, Jews as well as Arabs will suffer.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
Allow me to ride my horse somewhat further along the path of criticizing the Obama administration's campaign to stop all construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including some neighborhoods that have been part of Jerusalem for 40 years.
Recall that I do not claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim, some other kind of demon, or beholden to the Palestinians and other Arabs.
However, I wonder at an American president who says that he wants to engage with Iran, Palestine, and other Arab authorities, and is dictating the small details of policy that he insists that Israel adopt.
The absurdity is stark in the presence of Israel's democracy, with a high level of education and political interest among its citizens along with an active and critical media, in contrast with authoritarian governments, controlled media, and low levels of education in Muslim countries.
Obama is dictating to the democrats and engaging with dictators and religious fanatics.
Israelis know their country's problems at least as well as Americans. They are more familiar with their country's problems of security than Americans are familiar with their own problems of security, and infinitely better informed about Israel's problems of security than are Americans. Jewish education in security begins with concerns inherited along with family memories of persecution, along with the present realities of living in a small country that has been at war at least five times in its 60 year history, and maybe eight times, depending on what one counts as a war. Most Israeli adults have served in the military, with numerous men active in the reserves for 30 years. Their parents served, and much of the population over the age of 50 has children in the military.
Israelis know the pressures and the imperfections of national defense. Endless discussions on radio, television and in the press keep them abreast of political maneuverings by officials of Israel and neighboring countries. Neither the perspectives of the military nor the government are anything close to monolithic. Israel's Jews debate military and political options, and are better equipped than anyone else to decide what is best for them.
The men and women who make policy for Israel have not sprung overnight or even in a few years from business, the universities, or local government. The story of Benyamin Netanyahu is not unusual among those at the pinnacle of government. He began his government career in 1982, was Ambassador to the United Nations 1984-88, elected to the Knesset in 1988, served as head of several ministries and an earlier term as prime minister. One does not have to admire his style of speaking or his body language to recognize that he has considerable experience, and currently has assembled a government supported by a substantial majority of the population. One can be suspicious about claims of a political mandate to follow one policy or another, insofar as voters choose their candidates or party for a variety of reasons. Yet it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Israeli electorate supports a government that is reluctant to move toward recognizing a Palestinian state or stop all construction in the settlements or Jerusalem's neighborhoods. Among the elements producing those postures are the intifada that began in 2000, seven years of rocket attacks from Gaza, and the widely perceived weakness, stubbornness, and unreliability of the Palestinians responsible for the West Bank.
Against this, Barack Obama's commitment to engage personally in the Middle East, and his pressuring Israel to halt all construction over the 1967 borders, appears naive in the extreme. He may be brilliant, but there is much that he does not appear to know, or to recognize. Likewise for his military and political advisers. Some of them may have learned Arabic and spent time in the Middle East, but they cannot compete with the street smarts of Israelis who have lived all their lives close to their neighbors, and who hear the comments of Arab leaders on a daily basis.
We can disagree about what is best for Israel. Israelis themselves disagree. My point is that Israelis are well enough informed to ponder the alternatives and decide for themselves how to deal with their challenges.
Among those challenges are the demands coming from American and European governments. (Those from other regions do not count for much.) No matter how ill informed and mistaken those demands appear to be, Israeli officials are careful not to ignore them.
Long ago the Jews learned how to deal with powerful others. Lesson #1 is not to annoy them.
What we hear in public are the efforts of Israel's prime minister and foreign minister to dissuade Americans and Europeans from demanding a total freeze on construction. So far the undiplomatic language from the Secretary of State and her spokespersons indicate that the message is not getting through.
Whether Israel or the United States wins this tussle, the greater test is how the Obama policy of engagement will work with the Palestinians, as well as with Iranians, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis. Others have tried before him. Humility is not widely recognized as a trait of Americans who think themselves capable of deciding what it best for others.
Past performance does not encourage optimism.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
"Colonial" is among the dirtiest of words for those who aspire to be politically correct. It refers to the exploitation of the weak by the strong, which no right thinking person should tolerate. No matter that colonial power claimed they were protecting and uplifting the weak. No matter that there is a debate as to whether colonial powers profited from their role, or spent more than they reaped. No matter that in several instances the colonial power left behind physical infrastructure and training that helped the newly independent states. Slavery and blatant exploitation in the Belgian Congo, and its lack of preparation for independence set the standard for judging other places.
The former colonies that became the United States were among the best treated. That is not what I learned from Anglophobic teachers in Fall River, but that is the message of recent histories. Such a judgment overlooks slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. The contrast between what I was taught, and what I now read is useful in recognizing the politics involved in judging colonialism.
Britain and France were the colonial big leaguers. Spain lost out by the end of the 19th century; Germany as the result of World War I; Holland ended its play with the Japanese occupation of what became Indonesia; and Portugal petered out along with Britain and France in the 1960s. The Soviet Union claimed to be the primary anti-colonialist, but kept at something that looked like colonialism until its empire collapsed. One can argue if Russia remains a colonial power with respect to areas in the Caucasus, or if the United States has a colonial relationship with Puerto Rico.
Allegations about "neo-colonialism" are also ugly. They concern the influence of powerful states and corporations over the weak. Again, reality is more complex than the image. Poor states have become heavily indebted due to the corruption of native leaders who signed contracts in exchange for large payments into their bank accounts, while buying goods and services that were not worth the price. Much of the responsibility should rest with the corporations making the deals. How much blame should we assign to the home countries of the enterprises, and how much to the countries ruled by corruption?
The nasty images of colonialism and neo-colonialism may have served in recent years to limit their most obvious and harmful manifestations, at least in places where people restrain corruption.
What has taken their place is another form of great power meddling in the affairs of lesser powers. The best term I can think of is "paternalism."
Like colonialism, paternalism is wrapped in lofty sentiments. The patron may work with other powerful countries in behalf of collective good intentions, sometimes through the United Nations. What can be more disinterested?
The United States is the primary paternalist. We can distinguish what might be called "dry paternalism," which operates here, and whose greatest success turned a war-torn Europe into the European Community. "Wet paternalism" comes along with armed force, as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, off and on in Latin America.
It is not easy to assess the balance of benefits and costs of American paternalism in this one small country. The history from 1967 includes military supplies and financial assistance that helped Israel greatly during periods of extreme stress. Political agreements with Egypt in 1974 and 1978-79 came with American inducements and pressure. Some Israelis argue that those agreements were not worth the concessions required. However, peace has held for 30 years on what had been a bloody front for the previous 30 years.
Every American president since George H. W. Bush has tried to broker an agreement between Israel and Palestine. None have induced the Palestinians to be flexible enough for an agreement.
Barack Obama is breathing life into paternalism with his claims of a new beginning. So far he has not done well with North Korea. Commotion in Iran makes it unwise to assess the future of that country. The president's comments about Israel and Palestine have caused their own commotion, and it is too early to predict the results.
The most recent action is a dictate from the State Department that there be no construction in the post-1967 neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
The administration may be aiming high in order to stop construction in Har Homa. This is the newest of the neighborhoods built within the boundaries that Israel declared for Jerusalem soon after the 1967 war. Har Homa has been controversial due to its proximity to the Palestinian city of Bethlehem, and claims that it hinders transportation between the northern and southern areas of the West Bank.
Even a freeze applied only to Har Homa would be a severe challenge for the Israeli government. The Israeli foreign minister has said "leave us alone" almost as clearly as Obama has said that he wants to help us. Words from the State Department apply to neighborhoods that account for more than a third of Jerusalem's Jewish population. Will my Arab neighbors in French Hill be able to renovate their apartments while the Sharkanskys and other Jews are denied the opportunity?
Varda did not respond well when I said that the State Department would not want her to buy new curtains for the dining room.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
One result of the back to back speeches of Barack Obama and Benyamin Netanyahu is a revival of assertions that Barack Hussein Obama is an overt or secret Muslim, and is turning the United States against Israel. Widely distributed messages to that effect have reached me in recent days, after several months of quiet.
Are the campaigns harmless?
Not if some of the people propagating the myths feel they must do more of God's work by funding the purchase of homes for Jews in the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, or some other mission that will fan embers of hatred.
It is not illegal for Jews to purchase homes in Arab neighborhoods. There are more Arabs moving into Jewish neighborhoods than Jews moving into Arab neighborhoods. However, Jews making themselves neighbors of Arabs arouse hatred and violence. My Arab neighbors in French Hill do not require squads of soldiers guarding them 24/7.
Obama is contributing to this upsurge in nonsense by pressing Israel to halt settlements. This will produce nothing beyond Jewish insecurity. The American president is playing the peace game backwards. He should be pressing the Arabs to deal reasonably with Israel. That is the best way to halt the growth of settlements and bring peace to this land.
Let me explain.
Israel is a strong state. Its government can stop the growth of settlements if that is part of a decent deal, and will remove some settlements if the deal proves to be working. On two prominent occasions, in response to the peace agreement with Egypt and in the case of Gaza, Israeli governments removed thousands of settlers despite considerable opposition. On numerous other occasions it has frozen the flow of funds and construction permits needed for expanding settlements.
I doubt that any Israeli government, whether tilted to the right or left, will stop all construction within the sizable settlements near Israeli cities, no matter how fiercely Hillary Clinton shrieks.
The Palestinians currently governing their people are not strong enough to keep any kind of a bargain. More than half of the leadership (Hamas and other extremists) is not willing to accept Israel's existence. The aging men currently hanging on in the West Bank are either corrupt personally or close relatives of the corrupt, and otherwise unreliable. Their idea of political activity is traveling the world, meeting before the cameras with one or another leader, expressing the same old platitudes in favor of peace, and criticizing Israel as the stumbling block.
If the Palestinian leadership changes, there may be a chance for progress, and a reason for Israeli leaders to deal with those who feel that nothing is more important than pressing on with the expansion of settlements.
Sadly, my great idea has a fatal weakness.
There is no chance that Barack Obama or anyone else can to press hard enough on the Palestinians to produce a useful change in their leadership.
The task is hopeless in the context of the support given the status quo as a matter of habit and faith by religious and political leaders of Muslim states. Almost all of them resemble the Palestinian leadership in age, attitudes toward Israel, and a lack of concern for changing their societies.
What is the solution?
There is none on the horizon.
If President Obama wants to go down in history as a leader of change, he should put all his energies into reforming the developed world's most regressive health system.
What about all those aides working on schemes for Israel and Palestine?
We'd all be better off if they return to the think tanks where they spent the Bush administration.
As always, I welcome comments sent to my e-mail address, below.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
Several friends have cautioned me that public opinion in America is turning against Israel, and public opinion in Europe is more intense in its opposition.
The reasons cited are the ugly pictures coming out of Gaza, as well as the perception that President Obama is upping the pressure against Israeli stubbornness with respect to concessions for the Palestinians.
If you actually read my letters, you should have noticed that I judged Obama's speech to be at least as harsh toward the Arabs as toward Israel. Nonetheless, public opinion polls show a strong tendency among Israelis to perceive animosity. Perhaps it is Jewish nerves, overly suspicious about an escalation of threat. It is incorrect to conclude that George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice never criticized Israel. I recall them saying what Obama said about the need to stop settlement growth.
President Obama said that he intends more direct involvement in seeking peace between Israel and the Palestinians. President George W. Bush also said that. Maybe Obama's comments will prove to be as ineffectual as Bush's. Currently, however, a lot of Israelis feel themselves under siege.
Teddy Roosevelt described the presidency as a bully pulpit. It may be especially powerful as a leader of opinion when directed against a foreign target. On domestic issues there is more information, as well as sharper opinions and numerous interest groups. President Obama may be moving the public against Israel, while not getting Americans to line up the way he would like on things closer to home.
My friends do not have to caution me about adverse public opinion in America and Europe. The news is prominent here. It may have something to do with the bunker mentality. It helps to explain the results of the most recent election, and why there is a prime minister and foreign minister posturing as they are against outside pressure.
Some of my correspondents have even written about the end of Israel if it does not behave better. Do they think Israelis will go back to Cairo, Dusseldorf or Fall River? What should happen to the granddaughter of a family from Kishinev married to the grandson of a family from Baghdad?
Israelis are tired of hearing only words in behalf of their defense from the United States and other western powers. No great power helped when the Nazis murdered and the Arabs persecuted. The children and grandchildren of those Jews have heard soothing words and demands for restraint in response to continued violence against them, and severe criticism for disproportionate responses. I do not recall any polls asking Israelis if they believe the commitments to their defense expressed by one American president after another. I have seen data indicating that substantial numbers of Israelis feel that the American administration is tilted against them, and that they must rely on themselves.
It is wise to consider public opinions in countries that are important to one's own. Just as Israelis should consider public opinion in Europe and North America, so should Europeans and Americans consider public opinion in Israel. The power of governments is not equal, but it is not a zero sum game.
Israel's sense of being the world's target, reinforced by persistent criticism from outside, had something to do with the onslaught against Gaza. Critics discount the seven years of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, not dealt with by words from the west or moderate responses from Israel. Criticism of Israel's continued blockade pays too little attention to continued pledges of its destruction by Hamas, the holding of an Israeli prisoner, who may be alive but not visited by any outsider in three years of captivity, and the likelihood that any construction supplies allowed in will be used not so much to rebuild housing as to construct fortifications.
It is not worth pondering what President Obama really meant by his Cairo speech. The text demanded a lot from the Palestinians and other Arabs as well as from the Israelis. It is also not be worth pondering what Prime Minister Netanyahu really meant by his Bar Ilan speech, which was at least partly responsive to Obama's concerns. Subsequent actions will be more useful in gauging their intentions.
Currently both leaders may be paying more attention to the streets of Iran than what either has said about the other. Americans and Israelis both suffer from an arrogant certainty that they are close to the center of world history. Events elsewhere may dwarf the importance of their latest dispute.
Good relations between the governments are important to both sides. Each should be alert to the limitations of its power, and be careful not to excite the others population.
I welcome comments sent to my e-mail address, below.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
They may not be your style, but it is worth considering the words, if not the tone of two items.
One is a video clip being passed around about Jerusalem. It makes the point that worthies of the world did not exercise any of their might, or even much of their voice when Arabs denied access for Jews to the Western Wall, shot at civilians, and desecrated Jewish holy sites in the Old City between 1948 and 1967. Only when Israel governed Jerusalem in a more humane way after 1967 did those same worthies cry foul and demand Israel's withdrawal. The clip is not of high quality technically, and its style is higher on the scale of shrill than might be preferred. Nevertheless, it makes the point of demands that are two headed or even worse. Not only do the world powers insist on change disproportionately for Israel, but whatever violations of decent behavior Israel has committed are substantially less than those committed by the Arabs.
The second item is Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech in response to President Obama. Again, the style is not one that may appeal to all those who think of themselves as supporters of Israel. The tone was confrontational and the demands he associated with a Palestinian state likely to dissuade Arabs from entering negotiations. The response even from Arabs thought to be moderate was rejection, and recitation of postures sure to dissuade Israelis from trying to reach an agreement. Like the video clip, however, the details of Netanyahu's speech make sense. They emphasize the violence Israel has experienced, and concern for what would happen if it agreed to a Palestinian state without severe conditions. Even the Palestinians in nominal control of the West Bank (being propped up by Israel) continue anti-Jewish incitement, while the stronger political force of Hamas remains committed to Israel's destruction.
The response of the Economist to Netanyahu's speech repeats the double standard described in the video clip about Jerusalem. http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13862529&source=hptextfeature
Its article treats the prime minister with scorn.
"Binyamin Netanyahu spat out the required pair of words. They were welcome; but unless he shows a greater readiness to negotiate in good faith, his belated move will turn out to be pointless.
Mr Netanyahu hedged his acceptance of two states with conditions, promises and evasions. He turned a deaf ear to Mr Obama's demand that the building and expansion of Jewish settlements on the land that must become part of that Palestinian state must stop. Despite the fact that Arab citizens of Israel make up a fifth of the population, he demanded, as a new precondition for negotiations, that the Palestinians must acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state, which is code for their renouncing in advance the right of any Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. He insisted on a series of curbs and limitations on a putative Palestinian state that would deprive it of sovereignty. He said that Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want to be a shared city and capital of their new state, must stay united under Israeli control. Mr Netanyahu, who opposed the withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip four years ago, made no hint that he would hand back any Palestinian territory that might make Israel's border less 'defensible'"
.
Like President Obama in Cairo, the Economist also noted the need for the Palestinians and other Arabs to carry part of the load toward peace. This is a significant difference from the comparison in the video clip between the world's treatment of Arab behavior before 1967 and Israeli behavior after 1967. The progress is welcome, but Israelis may be forgiven the concern that the pressure on them will be greater than on the Palestinians, despite the persistence of threats and violence from Palestinians more heinous than Israeli efforts at defense.
Hosni Mubarak's has weighed in with editorial in the Wall Street Journal. He praises President Obama for presenting a unique opportunity, and says that he expects flexibility from the Arab side to match that of Israel. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536741783129309.html
Israelis will be hoping to hear something equivalent in Arabic, directed to those who do not read the Wall Street Journal.
The results of the recent Israeli election will not make it easy for those who are certain that pushing the Israelis to be accommodating will bring the Palestinians along. If Netanyahu's comments about settlements were not clear enough in response to Americans' demands for a total freeze, Foreign Minister Lieberman spoke like the Russian that he is. "We are not prepared to strangle our own people" was his way of responding to Secretary of State Clinton while standing next to her.
Perhaps the American response to all this is what George Mitchell said, i.e., that he wants the "prompt resumption and early conclusion" of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. The comment came after his meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, and may be nothing more than verbal fluff meant to mask failure trying to speak with Israelis and Palestinians mutually deaf to American overtures.
Even those who are not comfortable with the prime minister's style must admit that he is speaking for a sizable constituency. A month ago, the tilt of Israeli public opinion was to view Barack Obama as pro-Israel. A poll taken after the speeches of the two leaders finds 6 percent thinking the American administration is pro-Israel, and 50 percent thinking it is pro-Palestinian. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/19/poll-israelis-obama-pro-palestinian/
For those hoping that Israel can be pushed without pushing back, it is wise to consider the country's strength, and how the one democracy in the Middle East voted in the recent election.
I welcome comments sent to my e-mail address, below.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
