Several people have recently asked me if the Obama administration's tough line towards Israel's settlements and its insistence on a two-state solution invalidates the arguments that John Mearsheimer and I made about the political influence of the "Israel lobby." Not surprisingly, a few critics have made similar points in print. For what it's worth, I think Obama's approach is largely consistent with the views we set forth in the book, and certainly with our overall aim in writing it.
To review: in our book we argued that U.S. Middle East policy in recent decades has been strongly influenced by a loose coalition of individuals and groups which we termed the "Israel lobby." We pointed out that the lobby did not "control" U.S. Middle East policy (though it was a powerful influence), and we emphasized that the various groups that made up this loose coalition didn't agree on everything (such as the merits of a two-state solution). All of them have sought to encourage a "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel, however, and all to maintain nearly-unconditional U.S. support. Absent their influence, we argued, U.S. policy in the region would be substantially (though not entirely) different.Like plenty of other interest groups in the United States, the Israel lobby worked in legitimate ways within the American political system and successfully acted to shape public discourse about Israel in ways they believed would reinforce the special relationship. As a result, the entire subject had become something of a taboo issue, especially for anyone seeking a prominent career in American politics or in the U.S. foreign policy establishment. Finally, we saw this situation as increasingly harmful to U.S. and Israeli interests alike, and argued that a more normal relationship would be better for both countries. In particular, we hoped that a more open discussion of these issues would lead to a revision in U.S. policy, and that more moderate and sensible groups within the "pro-Israel" community would become more influential. We even expressed the hope that the more hardline groups might reconsider their policy positions. In short, our main concern was not the existence of a powerful pro-Israel lobby; it was the fact that the most influential groups within that "loose coalition" were advocating policies that were harmful to the U.S. and Israel alike. This basic portrait of the lobby's activities and influence fit the historical record up through the 2008 Presidential election. What has happened since? After pandering to the lobby during the campaign (just as all major candidates do) and remaining studiously silent during the Chas. Freeman debacle, President Obama has taken several recent steps that signal a different approach. He has appointed a Middle East envoy (George Mitchell) with a reputation for evenhandedness. Obama wasn't available to meet with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu during the AIPAC policy conference, so Netanyahu had to delay his trip. Obama has already spoken in one Muslim country (Turkey) and is about to give a major address to the Muslim world from Cairo, after first stopping off in Saudi Arabia, and isn't touching down in Israel on this tour.Most importantly, he and other administration officials -- including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel -- have forcefully reiterated the Administration's commitment to a genuine two-state solution and its opposition to Israel's settlements policy, including the fig leaf of "natural growth." That position was recently echoed by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, which suggests that Obama's team has been quietly lining up EU support for their position. Special envoy Mitchell reportedly drove that point home in his recent meeting with Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak, and there's no question that Israeli leaders are feeling the heat. And Obama himself has emphasized that "part of being a good friend is being honest," suggesting that he understands the pitfalls of unconditional U.S. support.Do all these steps mean the lobby has lost all its power, and that our book was all wrong? Not hardly.Let's start by recognizing that all Obama has done so far is lay down some rhetorical markers. That's not a trivial step, especially since he and his aides have used unusually direct language and haven't waffled in the face of initial Israeli protests. If nothing else, these declarations make it harder for Obama to backtrack later on and mark a clear departure from Bush's (failed) approach. But Obama has yet to put any real pressure on Israel, and he certainly hasn't tried to make U.S. support (still over $3 billion/year) conditional on Israeli compliance. And the main bone of contention right now is simply whether Israel is willing to stop expanding settlements; we haven't even gotten to all the steps that will be necessary to make a viable Palestinian state possible. Furthermore, we pointed out in our book that the lobby exerted more influence in Congress than on the Executive Branch, and we noted that several past Presidents (e.g., Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush) had been able to put limited pressure on Israel in recent decades. So mild Presidential pressure on Israel is hardly unprecedented. In the meantime, the situation on the Hill hasn't changed very much: a recent AIPAC-sponsored "Dear Colleague" letter telling Obama to privately coordinate his Mideast diplomacy with Israel (and proposing various conditions on the Palestinians) garnered 76 signatures in the Senate and 329 in the House. And there are signs that Israel's supporters on the Hill are beginning to mobilize in more direct ways.Nonetheless, there are also signs that AIPAC's control on the Hill may be diminishing too, Richard Silverstein has pointed out that two prominent progressive Democrats -- Barney Frank (D-MA) and Robert Filner (D-CA)--did not sign the AIPAC letter, and recent meetings between Netanyahu and several congressmen (including John Kerry of Massachusetts, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations committee) included sharp exchanges over Israel's settlements policy. Most of the signatures on those two AIPAC letters were probably pro forma anyway, and they don't seem to have had the chilling effect that AIPAC-sponsored missives had in previous eras. Thus far, Congressional pressure on Obama seems intended to moderate the Administration's positions, but not derail its efforts entirely.So where does this leave our arguments about the lobby's profound influence?First, our main goal in writing our book was to encourage a more open discussion of this issue. We were describing the situation as it existed up through 2007 (when we finished the book), but we believed that if the taboo were challenged and a more open discourse emerged, more and more Americans would realize that the "status quo" lobby (e.g, AIPAC, the Christian Zionists, the neoconservatives, and groups like the Zionist Organization of America) were advocating policies that were bad for the United States and also bad for Israel itself. The good news is that a more open discussion has emerged in recent years, as illustrated by Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, by numerous commentators in the blogosphere like Ezra Klein, Phil Weiss, Andrew Sullivan, Richard Silverstein, Matt Yglesias, and others, and by clear-eyed columnists such as Roger Cohen. Jon Stewart's Daily Show has done its part too, with some pointed commentary on Gaza and at least one wickedly satirical look at AIPAC itself.Second, partly because of this more open discourse, more and more people -- including Americans who care strongly about Israel's well-being -- have begun to realize that failure to achieve a two-state solution is jeopardizing Israel's long-term future. As we wrote in our book and as I've blogged about before, the only alternatives to a two-state solution are the ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinians, the creation of a binational democracy, or some form of apartheid. That is why Ehud Olmert eventually came around to the two-state solution, and people who used to reject the idea of pressure have begun to see the light. Even Martin Indyk is starting to sound a little bit like us. In other words, what it means to be "pro-Israel" is being redefined, thereby creating space for Obama to move toward a more sensible U.S. policy.Third, events in the region have reinforced this growing sense that a different course of action is needed. The 2006 war in Lebanon and the recent carnage in Gaza have underscored the futility of trying to solve these problems by force alone and cast doubt in Israel's efforts to portray itself as the eternal victim. More and more people are aware of the long-term demographic trends, and they also know that the Arab League has offered to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel once the Palestinians have a viable state of their own. Some people also realize that settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would remove an arrow from Iran's quiver and make it easier to mobilize a united front against Iran should that become necessary. Of course, the election of the most right-wing government in Israel's history (and the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister) hasn't made it any easier for defenders of the status quo either. Fourth, the behavior of some of Israel's most fervent defenders may have helped open eyes and ears as well. In particular, the reflexive tendency to smear and marginalize critics of the "special relationship" by accusing them of being either anti-semites or "self-hating" Jews has become a self-discrediting enterprise, because the charge keeps getting directed at people for whom it is so obviously false. Condemning neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers is a worthy enterprise, but smearing respected individuals such as Carter, Desmond Tutu, Tony Kushner, Tony Judt, or others is transparently bogus and intended solely to stifle intelligent discourse on a vital subject. And when defenders of any cause have to stoop to such tactics, it reveals that they are defending an increasingly weak case.Finally, we argued in the conclusion of our book, part of the solution here was the emergence of a different sort of pro-Israel lobby, one that might be equally influential but in the service of smarter policies. There are encouraging signs on this front, and the increased prominence of groups such as J Street, the Israel Policy Forum, or Brit Tzedek v'Shalom are encouraging developments. There is no reason why groups like AIPAC cannot evolve too, and begin to use their considerable political acumen in the service of a more far-sighted approach.People who think that the Israel lobby is some sort of secret Jewish conspiracy probably also believe that its influence could never be countered and that the groups within it are irredeemable. That is the essence of conspiracy theories -- and especially anti-Semitic ones--they impute dark and magical powers to some secret organization or cabal and portray it as evil, all-powerful, unchanging, and unstoppable. By contrast, those of us who see the lobby as a typical interest group engaged in the normal rough-and-tumble of democratic politics have recognized that its considerable influence (which no one seriously denies) could be mitigated or modified over time, especially once it became clear that the policies promoted by its most powerful components were in fact harmful to U.S. and Israeli interests alike. We wrote our book to contribute to that process, and while realists should probably never be too optimistic -- and especially about the Middle East -- it's hard for me not to see the recent turn in U.S. policy as encouraging. Now let's see what Obama says in Cairo.
MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/Getty Images
I've said it before but it is worth restating:
"The Lobby" is a construct that is defined by Walt's own positions and opinions. Namely, if Walt disagrees with those positions, then they come from "the Lobby".
Absolutely nothing distinguishes the tactics that Walt uses from those he decries.
In short, our main concern was not the existence of a powerful pro-Israel lobby; it was the fact that the most influential groups within that "loose coalition" were advocating policies that were harmful to the U.S. and Israel alike.
A number of things here:
1) In Walt's opinion harmful to the US and Israel. As Walt himself admits, members of "the Lobby" think their opinions are in the best interests of the US.
2) Presumably there are named members of "the Lobby" who don't advocate these purportedly harmful policies. What is the purpose in defining those members of the "loose coalition" as "the Lobby", if the main concern was the positions and not "the Lobby" itself?
3) Walt focuses his energies on attacking his ideological opponents rather than making the case for his own positions. This statement makes that clear. If his "main concern" is the above referenced positions, why spend so much effort trying to delegitimize "the Lobby" rather than addressing the positions? (The Chas Freeman episode is a great case in point - if one only read Walt, one would think Freeman's main qualification was the people who opposed him.) He takes the route he does because he realizes that a lot of his positions, while they sound reasonable, do not resonate with the majority of Americans and don't really stand up to examination. Incidently, this is the main reason why "the Lobby" is so successful.
THE MYTH OF "OCCUPIED"� TERRITORIES
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/jun01/shusteff2.htm By Boris Shusteff One of the most misused, misapplied, and misunderstood definitions in the dictionary of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the term "occupied territories."� The vast majority of people simply do not know the facts or misinterpret them, thus completely distorting the real picture of the land distribution between the Arabs and the Jews. The truth of the matter is that, according to International Law, the Jews have the complete and unquestionable right to settle the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (collectively known as Yesha). Not a single enforceable international document exists that forbids them from settling the lands of Yesha. On the contrary, in modern times, the only existing enforceable document.- actually encourages Jewish settlement. This document was created on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference when the Principal Allied Powers agreed o assign the Mandate for the Territory of Palestine to Great Britain. By doing so the League of Nations "recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine"� and established "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."� [Article 6 of the Mandate "encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land,"� including the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha).] There is nothing whatsoever in the Mandate that separates Yesha from the rest of the mandated territory. That means that the right of the Jews to settle the land spreads to the whole of Palestine. As a side note it is worth mentioning that the 76% of the territory of Mandated Palestine known today as Jordan, were not permanently exempt from settlement by the Jews either. [Article 25 only allowed to "postpone or withhold application of [this] provision."]. With the disbanding of the League of Nations, the rights of the Jews to settle the territories of Palestine, including Yesha, were not hurt. When in 1946 the United Nations was created in place of the League of Nations, its Charter included Article 80 specifically to allow the continuation of existing Mandates (including the British Mandate). Article 80 stated that "nothing ... shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."� Then in November 1947 came time for Resolution 181, which recommended the Partition of Palestine. Like all UN Resolutions pertaining to the Jewish-Arab conflict it was not enforceable. It was simply a recommendation, and the Arab countries rejected it. As the Syrian representative in the General Assembly stated: "In the first place the recommendations of the General Assembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed. The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights"� (1)***. If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine. However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish State thus invalidating the resolution. By the time of the cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle in Eretz Yisrael - they remained intact. Now we approach the most misunderstood aspect of the scope and application of international documents. In order to resolve the puzzle of the "occupied"� territories, one must clearly distinguish between the different types of resolutions passed by the United Nations. Misconceptions about the issue led to the question of a double standard that was constantly raised by the Arabs after the Persian Gulf War. The Arabs were unable to understand why, from Iraq, the UN demanded compliance with the decisions of the international body, while Israel was not forced to comply with UN resolutions. On April 3, 1998 Swedish Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen, well known for championing the Arabs' position, in an interview with the London al-Quds al-'Arabi, gave an explanation of this "paradox."� She was asked, "What about the double standards that the United States and Europe adopt when it comes to Arab issues?"� She answered: "I understand this view, which is common in many Arab countries. Nevertheless, the UN resolutions passed on Iraq are different, because they are binding for all nations according to Article 7 of the UN Charter. Meanwhile, the resolutions passed against Israel are not subject to Article 7 of the Charter."� To better understand the way UN resolutions work, it is worth reading an open letter by Uri Lubrani, coordinator of Israeli activities in Lebanon, addressed to Lebanon's Foreign Minister Faris Buwayz and published on February 27, 1998 in the Paris newspaper al Watan al-'Arabi. Although the letter was written regarding Resolution 425, it talks about all resolutions pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Uri Lubrani wrote the following: "There are two types of resolutions in the Security Council. The first type are resolutions passed on the basis of Chapter Six of the UN charter that relates to the settlement of disputes through peaceful means. Such resolutions are considered recommendations. They are not binding, and they do not require immediate implementation. The second type of resolutions are based on Chapter Seven of the UN charter"� This chapter grants the UN Security Council resolutions an implementative authority and commits the international community to use force if necessary to implement these resolutions...NONE of the UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to the Arab Israeli conflict, including Resolution 425, were passed on the basis of Chapter Seven. They were passed on the basis of Chapter Six of the UN charter, which is the basis also of UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338."� Since no mandatory UN Resolution exists pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are left with the San Remo Conference decision that governs land ownership in Palestine. That means that not a single enforceable internationally valid document exists that prevents or prohibits the Jews from settling anywhere in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and all the rest of Eretz Yisrael. Or, to put it differently, from the standpoint of International Law FOR THE JEWS IT IS NOT AN OCCUPIED LAND!.. This conclusion was confirmed not long ago by an unexpected (for Israel) source. It is hard to argue with the fact that James Baker, former US Secretary of State, was not the best friend of the Jewish state. However, he categorically rejected the mislabeling of the lands of Yesha. This happened at the Middle East Insight Symposium in Washington on May 4, 1998. Hoda Tawfik, from the newspaper Al Ahram asked him, "What do you think is right? That these are occupied Arab territories and not disputed territories?"� Baker replied, "They're CLEARLY disputed territories. That's what Resolutions 242 and 338 are all about. They are clearly disputed territories."� All of this means that when the Jews build settlements in Yesha, they are not building them on "occupied"� territories. If one wants, one may call them "disputed"� territories, as Baker did. However, this will still not change the fact that from the standpoint of International Law it is the very land where the Jews were encouraged to settle. And as a final note, it should not be surprising that the San Remo Conference plays such an important role in this particular case. The majority of the other players in the conflict: Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. gained sovereignty over their territories based on the decisions of EXACTLY the same conference. The Jews finally deserve to settle freely on their territories as well!. It is time to stop labeling them "occupied"�. NOTE: (1)***. Abba Eban. Voice of Israel. Horizon Press, New York, 1957. ============ Boris Shusteff is a research associate for the "Freeman Center for Strategic Studies"�.
Walt's at least partial tone of sweet reasonableness seems to me to be a far cry from his original paper, which was widely criticized by other reputable academics for its polemical and somewhat conspiratorial tone and many factual errors. It also contained paranoid elements of suppression of opinions like his (yet he received continuing world-wide publicity), and presented his dramatically flawed view of US interests.
Contributions to US interests: Depite Walt's attempt to sell the idea of US interests with minimal evidence and considerable special pleading (suppression of material facts), hard evidence of US interests comes from the following:
A. Economists have repeatedly and incontrovertibly demonstrated that world oil prices fluctuated in response to demand, particularly in Western Europe, and not geopolitical considerations. This writer repeatedly demonstrated that in his analytic work as Chief Economist of Atlantic Richfield, an international oil company. The work of Prof. Dermot Gately of NYU is also relevant here. Thus the notion that it is in US interest to sacrifice the Israelis (even in part) for Arab oil is completely specious.
B. Israel's contribution to US interests is massive, including the modern digital computer and Intel's latest chips, science and technology, medicine and pharmaceuticals, agricultural technology, art and music. The world's greatest classical soloists include such Israelis as Pinchas Zukerman, Daniel Barenboim, and of course Itzhak Perlman, all of whom contribute extensively to the American musical and music teaching scene.
In contrast.the Arabs, and in particular the non-Israeli Arab "Palestinians" have given the US none of the above, but instead terror, murder, and kidnapping. How soon we forget the Achille Lauro, the marines in Lebanon, the extensive persecution of Christians, etc. This is a negative contribution to US interest.
In passing I note that the Jews were as much "Palestinians" as the Arabs: they have drained the swamps, built Tel Aviv from nothing, and for recent centuries always have been a majority in Jerusalem. The appropriation of the name "Palestine" is yet another Arab confidence trick to imply a false history and a false entitlement.
Perhaps Walt thinks pandering to murderers is more in the US interest than cures for disease. Most Americans disagree. In fact, his position, reduced to its core elements, seems to me to be nothing short of delusional.
Finally, how can there be a "loose coalition" when many of the members never talk to each other, and arrive at their positions independently. That phraseology is another attempt by Walt to save a bankrupt position, which seems to be that if many organizations independently arrive at similar positions, do not coordinate, but disagree with Walt, they are collectively a "lobby" or "loose coalition" and something to be resisted as somehow not in the US interest. In short, Walt's position is that of an anti-democratic elitist.
So Israel "gave" computer technology to the US and we should be thankful? LOL!
So the Palestinians have only given us terror, murder, and kidnapping? How soon YOU forget the Hagana, Irgun, Stern Gang, etc... Israel was founded with the assistance of Zionist terrorists.
Stephen M. Walt wrote of President Obama:
"After pandering to the lobby during the campaign (just as all major candidates do)"
In May 2008, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg published an interview with then-candidate Obama, including:
"JG: If you become President, will you denounce settlements publicly?
BO: What I will say is what I've said previously. Settlements at this juncture are not helpful. Look, my interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States.
* * *
I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we're going to be stuck in the same status quo that we've been stuck in for decades now, and that won't lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article."
Earlier, during the Ohio primary, Obama said the following to a Jewish audience in Cleveland:
"This is where I get to be honest and I hope I'm not out of school here. I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have a honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress. And frankly some of the commentary that I've seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non military or non belligerent or doesn't talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we're going to have problems moving forward. And that I think is something we have to have an honest dialogue about."
Stephen Walt is too optimistic. From a historical point of view I think the issue of the Israel Lobby is going to get uglier. I guess what i am trying to say is, from a historic point of view the real problem for the Jews would come from lands where they are perceived as enjoying too much influence such as America. It always ends up ugly and I don't see how America will rid itself of this problem.
I am a Koranist so i debate and argue with Sunnis all the time. There is a similarity between Sunni Islam and Judaism that is striking. Anyways i believe its going to get uglier.
Walt was right about one thing, the discourse is DEFINENTLY changing and there is now a greater awareness of the nature and reasons for the special relationship between the US and Israel. The Israel lobby is out! I think 9-11, the Neocons, Walt and Mearsheimer, Carter, Charles Freeman and finally Jane Harman has changed the nature of the debate and this has gone some what mainstream. However that will not let the Lobby go away. Things will get ugly in a decade or two. History repeats itself.
In case you are wondering what on Earth is a Koranist well we reject the oral traditions that dominate Sunni and Shia Islam. The oral traditions were compiled centuries after Muhammad's death and basically abrogated many of the Koran's teachings. Very similar to the role the Talmud plays in Judaism. Thats why I know this will get ugly.
I therefore do not share Walt's small optimism. It will get ugly. The Israel Lobby is but a small part of the overall strategy of Jewish activism. Like the Sunni Islamist they basically believe Western societies are flawed and need to be "Islamicized" except they are not good in hiding the agenda like the Jewish activists are. There is no cabal since it comes natural just like there is no Islamist cabal but there are shared goals among the Islamists based on shared religious traditions and there are shared goals among the Jewish activists based on shared ethnic interests.
Anyways this is beyond the scope of this blog but I do hope what Walt is saying is truly happening but just because there is more debate and awareness about the Lobby's ills that does not mean it will ceast to exist or cease to wield it's influence and I think the issue is much larger than Walt thinks. It will get ugly. History repeats itself.
You don't understand America. There are not "the Jews" and everyone else; we are all citizens entitled to petition our government under the Constitution. It is the job of the government to decide how to respond to such petitions, taking account of the views of its citizens. Ultimately, US national interest is defined by the citizenry as limited by the Constitution and the law, not by Prof. Walt or some other expert. Walt can argue, debate, be refuted, be criticized; all are his rights. He has, however, no right to prevail.
In the case of Israel, those engaged in supportive policy advocacy in large numbers extend to millions of Christian Americans, who far outnumber Jewish Americans.
As to "they are not good in hiding the agenda like the Jewish activists are" that is simple paranoid antisemitism and expoaes the entire post for what it is.
The mere fact that one can now openly speak of the Israeli Lobby, and "establishment" outlets like FP can talk about it without being labelled an Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theorist, is an improvment. Not so long ago, we weren't supposed to even acknowledge the Lobby's existence. I believe it was Sy Kenan -- AIPAC founder -- who said that lobbies are like nightflowers that thrive in the dark. Well, that veil has been lifted.
Yes, the Lobby is functioning like any other except that this particular Lobby has for too long enjoyed a monopoly, with no real challengers to balance them out. And, to say that it does not exist is ridiculous since AIPAC official Steven Rosen has boasted that he can have 70 Senators sign his dinner napkin in an hour. Now, tell me again about how the don't exist.
PS: "Conspiracies" are pretty normal in politics.
It is simply false that AIPAC and those who agree with it have no opposition. There are those in the Jewish community who support "J Street" and other dovish lobbies. For years the Reform Jewish movement has taken a dovish position. Although polemically and falsely self-styled as "pro-peace", they don't prevail; despite being well funded by such as George Soros, they are widely seen to be unrepresentative, and Congress knows this.
In John Kenneth Galbraith's Harvard paper, published in book form in 1955 and thereafter and still available via Amazon, "Economics and the Art of Controversy" he argues that when one party to a dispute goes public, he has already lost, since he thinks his views won't prevail in continued private negotiations or legal process. Galbraith cites many examples from the public, policy, labor, and other arenas.
Over the years I have found that Galbraith's advice in this paper is spot on. Applying it to Israeli settlement policy, I note that the US Administration, as Walt observes, has unusually gone public at both Presidential and Secretary of State levels. If Galbraith applies, this suggests that the US administration has already lost the argument.
The realist in me suggests that the two-state solution isn't going to happen. It used to be (and perhaps rightly so) that lack of progress in this direction could be laid at the feet of the Palestinians; more recently, it appears the Israeli right, in conjunction with the settler movement and others who believe that it is the manifest destiny of Israelis of Jewish descent to rule all of Palestine, appear to be the larger obstacle to the two-state solution. These groups appear to have waxed in recent years, at the cost of more liberal Israeli groups who have espoused a more generous and encompassing Israeli state. With Likud and associated right-wing groups gaining in power, I have doubts that a viable two-state solution will be actively considered by any future Israeli government, at least for the foreseeable future.
If this scenario is in our near future, then I suspect that Americans of Jewish descent are going to have a harder time of it. This group has been and will be torn between the obvious injustice of the situation and a latent longing to support a just Israel. Some will refuse to see the other side of Israeli society, much as many post WWII Germans could not comprehend that Germany would engage in holocaust atrocities on the scale that did occurred (and simply refused to believe it). Others will cling to some small hope that a humanitarian catastrophe can be averted. And yet others will reflexively support Israel regardless of the reality (rationalizations are easy). If there exists a "conspiracy" as such, it will be by this latter group to white-wash Israeli actions to the greatest extent possible.
But if the two-state solution are not going anywhere and negotiations are simple a pretext for preserving the status quo, as I suspect they are, then how will the Obama administration react? If the Obama administration continues its hard-nose tactic toward the current Israeli government, then my prediction is that the reflexive Israel supporters in the congress and senate will soon step forward to apply pressure on the Obama administration to loosen up. This pressure will ultimately prevail and some face-saving measure will be found to walk back Obama's hard stance on the two-state solution. So ultimately, I predict, Obama will not be deflected by Israeli leaders, but by the congress of the United States. Meanwhile, a more desperate Palestinian society will press more suicidal attacks on Israeli cities which will draw deadly responses from the IDF and more chest-thumping justifications by politicians. In other word, only a true catastrophe of huge dimensions will change the status quo.
It is simply false demonization to assert that the Israeli right believes in ruling all of Palestine. First of all, much of Palestine was given to Jordan. Second of all, Judea and Samaria as an Arab state was refused by the Palestinians and accepted by the Israelis at the founding of the State of Israel. Third of all the Israelis left Gaza, and only intervene when terrorists fire rockets and murder civilians, since the "government" of Gaza has no interest in preventing these illegal acts. The moment terror from Gaza stops, Israeli intervention will stop and borders will become more porous to economic activity.
As to Israelis of Jewish descent, Arabs have a substantial bloc in the parliament and far more than many smaller Jewish parties, hold the swing vote on many issues. It is those of Arab descent who are right-wing Islamists that believe in ruling the world, not the Israelis of either Jewish or Arab descent. The Israelis want to live in peace; the Arabs want to conquer. It is no accident that Moses is usually depicted holding the tablets of the ethical basis for mankind, while Mohammed is usually depicted holding crossed swords.
Finally, settlements in the West Bank are perfectly legal, and are designed to provide security for Israel, protect Jerusalem as a single city (which has always had a Jewish majority in the last several centuries) and prevent a new Arab state from cutting Israel into a northern and southern portion. Beyond that, Israeli prime ministers of the right, including Netanyahu have repeatedly said that they have no interest in governing the Palestinians, and Abbas just said that he was content with the present situation.
It used to be (and perhaps rightly so) that lack of progress in this direction could be laid at the feet of the Palestinians; more recently, it appears the Israeli right, in conjunction with the settler movement and others who believe that it is the manifest destiny of Israelis of Jewish descent to rule all of Palestine, appear to be the larger obstacle to the two-state solution.
Not so. That it appears so is a triumph for the Walts and Arab lobby, but that doesn't make is so and I feel pretty certain the pendulum will swing back on that.
The Palestinians can't even talk to each other, won't agree to a single concession, and the only person who appears somewhat amenable to a two-state solution, Abbas, is basically powerless to enforce a deal while at the same time refusing to back away from demands that are non-starters for Israel (ie, the so-called right of return and recognizing Israel as a Jewish state).
On the other side of the coin, you have Israel which already made a huge concession when they gave back Gaza and got nothing in return but an incessant rocket barrage. Even in light of that, if the Palestinians indicated they were ready to come to the table, either the Isreali government would too, or the people would vote in another one. A large majority of the Israeli public does support a two state solution, they just don't support more unilateral concessions in light of what has already transpired.
1899 L Street NW, Suite 550 | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Read Full Article »