Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
On Ross and Netanyahu
Laura Rozen's blog post on the Obama Administration's thought process concerning Israel raised a ruckus this past weekend, and Andrew Sullivan went off on Dennis Ross for allegedly being more sensitive to the delicate coalition politics Benjamin Netanyahu faces than to U.S. interests in the region. As this blog knows, I really try to avoid issues relating to Israel and the Palestinians for the sake of my personal health and well-being. But two points are worth drawing out here:
1. One of the criticisms you often hear of U.S. policy-makers in the Oslo era is not so much that they were too sensitive to Israeli concerns but that they were hyper-sensitive to Israeli politics while not paying anything resembling the same level of attention to Palestinian politics. So they were conscious of how the decisions of an Israeli prime minister might play on the streets of Tel Aviv but not as aware how a decision by Arafat might play out on the streets of Ramallah. I heard Rob Malley make this point at a talk at AUB in 2008, in fact. (A lecture which, miracle of the internets, you can watch here.) Being sensitive to the political realities facing an Israeli prime minister, as Ross allegedly is, is no bad thing in and of itself. But one should remember that another people, with an entirely seperate political reality, live on the other side of the Green Line. And a lesson learned from the 1990s is that you should pay close to equal attention to the dynamics of their political discourse if you hope to create an enduring peace.
2. It's worth going back and reading the way Netanyahu is portrayed in Ross's book The Missing Peace
After Netanyahu was gone, President Clinton observed: "He thinks he is the superpower and we are here to do whatever he requires." No one on our side disagreed with that assessment. (p. 261)
Ultimately, Ross considered Netanyahu "a leader who had two legs walking in different directions" (p. 493). By that he meant that he may have wanted to make peace on some level, but his loyalty to his political base meant that he also made moves entirely counter to a lasting peace with the Palestinians. That strikes me as one way to interpret Netanyahu's behavior over the past few months. He opens the door to a Palestinian state, but then allows his coalition to make moves regarding settlements that undermine any process that might bring that state to reality.
I should say that I have little interest ever getting involved with U.S. policy regarding Israel and the Palestinians but very much respect Dennis Ross for stuff that has nothing to do with the Oslo process. He's managed to have a really successful career in this town while enjoying a happy marriage and raising three great kids. In the 202 area code, that's nothing to scoff at. And when I left a year-long fellowship at the pro-Israel Washington Institute (which is a great place to work, by the way) to go do my dissertation under one of the Palestinian negotiators during the Oslo era, Ross was among the most supportive of the move. So I like the guy, personally and professionally, even as I have been more than a little critical of decisons made by Ross and other U.S. policy-makers in the 1990s concerning Israel and southern Lebanon.
While there is certainly
While there is certainly merit to avoiding statements of your own opinion on the Israel-Palestine dispute, would commentary on the military's perspective on the dispute be safe? Such commentary would not necessarily involve your own opinion on the military's position, but would aim to accurately convey what is the position of various figures in the military (Gen. Petraeus, Adm. Mullen, etc).
I raise this because during the spat between Netanyahu and Obama, much has been made about Petraeus' briefing of the JCS. However, questions about the significance of the Israel-Palestine dispute in Petraeus' thought seems to occur only among a relatively small set of dissidents (such as Marty Peretz at The New Republic's "The Spine"). Anything to shed light on this?
Regarding point #1, one
Regarding point #1, one thought that occurs is it's easier to relate to a more similar polity. I know there will be people who disagree, but Israel is a parliamentary democracy with a free press. There's also tremendous US ties (too tremendous?) between it and Israel. Hence, if the US paid too much attention to Israeli discourse and not enough to Palestinian discourse, it may not be because of any conscious decisions, but, rather, structural factors. Think of Graham Allison's Model II. Organizational routines make it easier for the US to monitor the Israel street (Dizengoff! Ben Yehuda!) than the Palestinian one (I don't know any).
Regarding point #2, the issue of situational versus dispositional attribution arises. It probably isn't easy to be the prime minister of a fragmented coalition government. Even accounting for the paradox of weakness or two-level games (Schelling/Putnam), does one attribute Netanyahu's behavior to his personal characteristics - which might be quite pronounced, admittedly - or that he presides/presided over a divided polity? And I do think that, however powerful Israel might be militarily, one has to take into account Israelis' psychological threat *perception,* irrespective of "objective" reality.
ADTS
ADTS, your first comment is
ADTS, your first comment is spot-on, and I think is one of the reasons that Malley and others have cited for why U.S. policy-makers have always been more comfortable around Israelis.Interests can and do
Interests can and do diverge.
The Palestinian issue is of no importance but rhetorical. To include apparently their own thug leadership, or they'd make a deal. If they could without being murdered by the very same rabid dog-pack they have raised.
There.is.no.deal. The only deal they will ever accept is the complete destruction of Israel. It's not just rhetoric it's their very rationale for existence. That's why when they were given, GIVEN a state, money, guns, training and billions in aid they promptly set to work teaching their children to hate like never before. And threw away peace deals in exchange for the mass human sacrifice of the second intifada.
Ross - I'm sure he's a nice guy.
Ross/Oslo = epic FAIL
ADTS: I think one of the
ADTS: I think one of the main problems Nethanyahu is facing is that he is basicaly the leader of a fragmented movement, several of wich are (in polite terms) best described as loonatics. You have folks like Lieberman and Ayalon openly insulting key US allies like Turkey and Dubai, you have MKs calling the british "dogs" and worse for responding to the use of the passports, in short he has a wholly irrational right flank to play up to. Its like the tea-partiers were given control of the State department and the interior ministry, basically.
Reading Jerusalem Post these days is fairly educational, with people like Krauthammer and others writing happily alongside open anti-muslim, dhimmitude islamofascist fearing wingbats, all this on top of a sewer of racist talkbacks. It says a bit about the level of the field that Michael Oren gave an exclusive interview with Pajamas Media, home of the Obama-is-muslim folks.
Bob: I think that's what I
Bob:
I think that's what I was trying to get to in my second paragraph, although I was less focused on *what* constituencies Netanyahu has to deal with than the mere fact that he has a *lot* of constituencies with which to deal. Basically, I was trying to move away from the idea that his behavior is a result of his innate personality and more a result of the circumstances (an extraordinarily fragmented government) within which he must work. Essentially, I am/was working from the fundamental attribution error.
My last sentence probably did not convey this well - or did not convey it at all. It was trying to convey another sentiment - again, one that goes against explanations relying on Netanyahu's innate personality - which is that Israelis either may or do feel threatened, for whatever reason, and that this limits his ability to bargain accordingly.
The composition of the fragmented government is an interesting question, and I imagine that if Kadima or Labor occupied more seats in the Knesset, or ultra-Orthodox parties had less sway relative to their proportion of the population, Israeli policy (both foreign and domestic) would be different; but I have no idea how to think about that in any systematic way (compare Israel to India, perhaps? - I know next to nothing about India, but my very-possibly-wrong understanding is that India also experiences parliamentary gridlock).
ADTS
A Jewish official is being
A Jewish official is being accused of having dual loyalties? Shocking.
ADTS: Never underestimate
ADTS: Never underestimate the forces of the irrational, especially not in a war-traumatized Israeli population. Also, do not under-estimate religious insanity.Earlier today, a US millionaire paid for adverts on all the buses in muslim E Jerusalem calling for the destruction of the Al Aqsa mosque, and a jewish militant was arrested on his way to sacrifice a goat on the temple heights. It seems clear, though, that these elements have enormous power in Israel, a lot of direct law-breaking (cutting down olive orchards, fouling palestinian wells, "wildcat settlements") are being allowed to continue. Thats what a lot of us not-so-interested are puzzling about, the open stance of two-faced poses wich they dont even seem to bother to hide.At the exact same time Nethanyahu is in Washington for discussions, his vice-PM is back home assuring his voters that its all a lie, as reported by attackerman. http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2010/03/26/boogie-yaalon/
Its like they dont even pretend any more.
Isn't the Knesset doomed by
Isn't the Knesset doomed by demography and proportional representation to such chaos?
===============
Uh "Bob"?
Maybe the Israelis don't see the point of pretending anymore. The Pals for instance never really pretended they wanted peace. The only people who seem to really believe that's possible are US Liberals. The Europeans certainly can't believe it and frankly don't care, and surely no one in the neighborhood believes that anything but a defeat by one side or a stalemate that settles into exhaustion and hence the absence of violence.
=========
Meanwhile....at the secret underground lair of DOJ: our newest Superheroes - the terrorist mob lawyers - are now under investigation for material support to terrorism. Seems there's a lot of Lynn Stewart's out there....
Some of these people may well be headed for jail. Doesn't look good for an Attorney General to have de facto terrorist agents sitting at high positions at DOJ.
LOL. The entire Lawfare regime can't stand any sunlight.
Legal Jihad
Bob wrote, "Never
Bob wrote, "Never underestimate the forces of the irrational, especially not in a war-traumatized Israeli population. Also, do not under-estimate religious insanity."
I guess the only thing we can count on is that the parties involved will, at times, behave in an irrational manner. Thankfully all 3 religious groups involved are a wordy bunch, so we have some idea of what they want the end result to be ;). What we can't predict, however, is how these groups will react to changes in the international setting and a shift in leadership. I remember a time when Gog and Magog was firmly equated with Russia in the minds of the American faithful. Back in the 1980s you heard a lot about the danger that the "Russian bear" posed to the Holy Land. I was a kid, but I remember going to largish Evangelical meetings with my father, and being told these things. Now keep in mind these meetings were designed for active church leaders and clergymen, whose job was then to go back and relay what they learned....
I'm curious to what an Israeli reaction might be to an ongoing US economic downturn. If the US really goes on the rocks will it cause the Israelis to feel even more imperiled? Bob was right to point out the trauma and fear, it is multi-generational at this point. The psychological implications are kind of scary.
Elf: I think I take with
Elf: I think I take with utter calm accusations made by the NRO for now.
As for your claim that the pals "dont want peace", I think you have lost out on a lot of new developments in the West Bank. But its good to see the right wing talking points aired here. I would realy like to hear Daytons assessment of the situation...
F***d I know that's you.
F***d I know that's you. But that's OK sometimes I use alternative nomme du cyber too.
OK here's another NRO snapshot- but guess what? Can you fault it? =====
http://article.nationalreview.com/429386/the-tragedy-of-the-peace-proces...
"Given the political infirmities of Palestinian society, the “land for peace” formula at the heart of the Oslo peace process was a recipe for disaster. Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in the interest of peace and got a second Lebanon war instead. It withdrew from most of the West Bank, and was repaid with a thousand Israeli civilians dead. It withdrew from Gaza, forcibly uprooting thousands of Jewish settlers, and the response was thousands of rockets fired at its civilian population, attacks that continue to this day. Still, despite these horrifying object lessons in the flaws of the “peace process,” the Obama administration acts as if the peace process has no flaws at all and if Israel would just make a few more concessions, everything would be okay." ======
The same article makes the point that the net effect of the peace process is to push the Israeli electorate hard right. In the author's opinion Labor will never govern again, power will shift or be shared by Kadima and Likud.
Look you radicalized after the cops shot at you - I assume it wasn't too many times or you might not be here...which would have been frankly my loss. But if you radicalize after a couple of incidents what do you think the Israeli mindset is? They gave up land for peace and got a massive amount of dead in return. It's a chimera. We are on the ultimate snipe hunt and we are pissing away the relationships with our only actual friends.
I'm no fan of Obama, but I
I'm no fan of Obama, but I heartily support how he has approached the Israeli-Palestinian issue thus far. If the rest of the world perceives that Israel is defying us, then that is good. We need to rid ourselves of the perception that we are allies with Israel. It's fine if we are allies, but the perception should be that we are not.
That is inartful, therefore
That is inartful, therefore wrong. The United States and Israel are allies, have long been allies, and will continue to be allies. There is no point in attempting to create an appearance no one will take for reality.
What we do need to create is an understanding that American policy is not subject to an Israeli veto, and that Israeli policies advancing no American interest will not enjoy American support. In the short term, Israeli domestic politics make it likely that asserting the primacy of American interests in this way will lead to a protracted period of tension between Washington and Tel Aviv. This is fine. There are some advantages to the United States to this under the current circumstances, but the Obama administration must see far enough ahead to know that if its pressure on Israel to suspend settlements should be successful, it must be prepared to come down hard on the Palestinians if they seek to pocket the concession without addressing the divisions among their own leadership.
American distance from Israel is necessary. American separation from Israel will not happen by America's choice.
Zathras: "Israeli domestic
Zathras: "Israeli domestic politics make it likely that asserting the primacy of American interests in this way will lead to a protracted period of tension between Washington and Tel Aviv."
Your not going to convince any Israelis to support positions that you like by insisting that their capital is Tel Aviv. The capital of Israel is Jerusalem. Every national decision of any import is made there. Is there a single country where you would say that such a city is not its capital?
If you want to understand Israel's actions in and around Jerusalem, just look at her national anthem. It ends with the lines "To be a free people in our land" not "In the land of Haifa and Tel Aviv," but "In the land of Zion and Jerusalem."
Add your comment