Given the latest catastrophe in Israel/Palestine, it’s time for me to repost my comprehensive plan for US policy in the Middle East, just as applicable now as it was when I suggested it back in 2011.
As usual, it’s over the fold.
by John Q on October 8, 2023
Given the latest catastrophe in Israel/Palestine, it’s time for me to repost my comprehensive plan for US policy in the Middle East, just as applicable now as it was when I suggested it back in 2011.
As usual, it’s over the fold.
{ 63 comments }
James 10.08.23 at 10:50 pm
Would you equally say that the US should have no policy with regards to Black Lives Matter, to the water defenders and Keystone XL pipeline protesters? Isn’t this a global fight of the colonized against the oppressor?
Further, does no policy mean we continue to sell billions of dollars of military technology to Israel? Does the US continue to push defense treaties and defend them in front of the UN security council?
Isn’t the policy of the US supposed to be to support and defend democracy and self-determination around the globe? If that is the case, doesn’t it mean there needs to be an affirmative anti-colonial stance that pushes Israel to treat all of its citizens – including the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, who should be recognized as such – equally under the law such that their property is secure from seizure by settlers?
John Q 10.09.23 at 12:08 am
James, it’s always interesting to see responses to this (I previously called it a Rorschasch test with no blot).
“Would you equally say that the US should have no policy with regards to Black Lives Matter [and other US-specific issues], ”
Umm, no. I would say (for example) that Australia should have no policy wrt to BLM: we should deal with our own problems of racial injustice (not going very well at the moment) and hope that the US does the same
“Further, does no policy mean we continue to sell billions of dollars of military technology to Israel? Does the US continue to push defense treaties and defend them in front of the UN security council?”
How could you possibly interpret actively siding with Israel as “no policy”? The whole point of the blank page is to say that the US should stop doing what is doing now.
“Isn’t the policy of the US supposed to be to support and defend democracy and self-determination around the globe? ”
Supposed by whom? It certainly hasn’t done a very good job in the Middle East for the last 50 years or so.
Tom Perry 10.09.23 at 2:35 am
I was an OG warblogger and I used to come around here and argue with people about it. That was, like, 20 years ago, and if you asked me then about this Hamas business, I would have said that it was, somehow, America’s business. Moral imperative, economic incentive, geopolitical considerations, something like that.
I sure wouldn’t say that now. Say what you will about JQ (and I have), when he’s right, he’s right.
Seekonk 10.09.23 at 3:02 am
I agree with John Q: “To spell it out, my suggestion is that the US government should leave them to sort it out.”
I humbly submit that the state of Israel is the product of a founding error.
In the 1930s and 1940s, Jews were in extremis. They cannot be blamed for commandeering a lifeboat in that storm. But according to principles of reparation and state succession, the Jewish nation should have been fashioned from the territory of the German Nazi state defeated in 1945.
Instead, the WW2 victors wrote a check that was supposed to be paid by the Arab residents of the British mandated territory, which was awarded to the Jewish people as compensation for the Nazi crimes.
Remedial action for that founding error should begin with Israel and the world acknowledging that Palestinian Arabs should not be condemned for fighting for their land for all these years.
Fake Dave 10.09.23 at 6:03 am
Just to respond to James and the general overheated anticolonial “global struggle” rhetoric a little, l just want to say this is Not. The. Time.
Real people are being murdered because of lousy dehumanizing ideologies and a despicable cycle of collective punishment. By Hamas and IJ. By the IDF and the settlers. Hundreds of festival kids were gunned down at an outdoor rave. Grandmothers. Babies. Indiscriminate killing. Hostages taken to be used as shields or bargaining chips. A pogrom. Then revenge. Carpet bombing a captive people. Homes. Marketa. Grandmothers. Babies. Indiscriminate killing. A nakba.
It’s not geopolitical theory time. It’s not time for old squabbles and finger pointing. It’s not time to rehash eight decades of betrayals, broken promises, and missed opportunities. It’s not time for good guys and bad guys. It’s time to bear witness. To really see what’s happening to both peoples on both sides and not pretend the suffering of one erases the suffering of the other. Anything less is inhuman.
It’s fair to ask our leaders to do the same and I sincerely hope that’s what ordinary Gazans and Israelis are telling the supposed defenders of life and freedom that brought them to this bleak precipice. Even if they’re not though — even if they voted for the wrong people, shouted the wrong slogans, still haven’t learned a damn thing — they don’t deserve this. Nobody does.
MFB 10.09.23 at 9:10 am
Fake Dave, your response is no doubt sincere, but you surely know that those dehumanizing ideologies didn’t come out of nowhere. They were planted there by people who expected to gain by them. And did.
Dr Quiggin is also no doubt sincere. But surely if the U.S. had not endorsed the annexation of the West Bank by moving its embassy to occupied territory, and had not generated a climate in which the response to any Israeli action is blanket and unqualified support, some of what has happened might have been avoided or some possibility of a negotiated settlement might be possible?
Doing nothing is not the same as undoing the bad things which you did. Even if you sincerely tell you partner that you aren’t going to hit her any more, you did still hit her, and doing nothing to compensate for that is not going to build the relationship.
nastywoman 10.09.23 at 11:21 am
it’s not a a bad plan –
BUT! –
(of all people) @elonmusk today had an even better (and even simpler) plan:
‘Taking the path to hatred is to fail’
and besides the confusing fact that he could have posted that about himself –
(as some of his past tweets definitely ‘took the path to hatred’) he just could have substituted the words ‘path to hatred’ with the words ‘path to Gewalt’ as ‘The Allies’ once had taught the World
that
‘Gewaltsame Lösungen sind keine Lösungen’
and that all what has to be done is to destroy OR take ALL WEAPONS AWAY
from any ‘people’ who still ‘sink’ that
‘Gewaltsame Lösungen sind Lösungen’
BUT on the other hand that would mean that ‘The Allies’ can NOT leave ANY people alone who still ‘sink’ that ‘
Gewaltsame Lösungen sind Lösungen’?
J-D 10.09.23 at 11:41 am
Have you given any thought to how survivors of Dachau and Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen might have reacted if somebody had told them they had been assigned new homes at Dachau or Buchenwald or Sachsenhausen?
nastywoman 10.09.23 at 12:00 pm
and about @4
‘In the 1930s and 1940s, Jews were in extremis. They cannot be blamed for commandeering a lifeboat in that storm. But according to principles of reparation and state succession, the Jewish nation should have been fashioned from the territory of the German Nazi state defeated in 1945.
Instead, the WW2 victors wrote a check that was supposed to be paid by the Arab residents of the British mandated territory, which was awarded to the Jewish people as compensation for the Nazi crimes.
‘Remedial action for that founding error should begin with Israel and the world acknowledging that Palestinian Arabs should not be condemned for fighting for their land for all these years’.
If allowed we like to use that comment for a documentary about ‘The Archaeology of Hate’ (we are currently producing) – as the Archaeology of the comment starts with ‘the 1930s and 1940s’ -(and NOT with some ‘ancient’ times when ‘their land’ was still ‘the Land of Israel’ and NOT of so called ‘A-rabs’
Or in other words –
(as perhaps already forgotten?) when in the middle of Europe ‘Das Fränkische Reich’ split around 500 A.C. – over 1500 years of constant ‘Gewaltsame’ Disputes of
‘who owns what Land’ followed –
and only when from the worst warriors all weapons were taken away there finally was peace for now over seventy years –
and WE understand it’s
NOT all that simple –
BUT!!!
Is it O.K. to agree to start an ‘Archaeology of Hate’ in the 1930s and 1940s?
(considering anywhoo that it is ‘Déjà vu all over)
Salem 10.09.23 at 12:29 pm
I too am interested in filling in the blanks in “no policy.” What does that mean in practice?
We have some hints from #2 – it means not taking Israel’s side. It means not selling weapons to Israel. But does it mean a policy of “just calling balls and strikes,” or does it mean refusing to play umpire altogether? If the former, isn’t that a policy – and more or less what we have now, albeit the strikezone may be somewhat biased? If the latter, what does that even mean in an interconnected world?
Some practical examples:
– 139 of 198 UN member states recognise the PNA as the Palestinian state. The US does not. It recognises Israel as a state, and has extensive diplomatic and civilian contacts with it. Should the US treat the PNA like it does Israel and recognise it? Should it treat Israel like it does the PNA and de-recognise it? Or should it recognise that they are very different, and treat them very differently? If so, isn’t that (1) taking sides and (2) a policy?
– The US government classifies Hamas as a terrorist organisation, and gives extensive intelligence, technical and material support to the IDF. We already know JQ would stop selling weapons to the IDF. Does that also mean preventing US companies from doing so? What about dual-use equipment? Can US companies and individuals have the same relations as Hamas as they do with the IDF? What about the PNA? I used to work for a company that provided civilian equipment to the IDF, subject to export controls, that would never have been approved to the PNA, let alone Hamas. Again, these are all policies.
– Suppose a US company wants to export equipment to Gaza, and the Israeli government does not approve. What does “no policy” mean? USG allows the Israeli govt to block the export if it can? USG insists that the Israeli govt has no right to interfere with American companies’ commercial relationships, and allows the company to sue in American courts? USG sends marines to ensure the export goes through? The USG blocks American companies from exporting to Gaza in the first place for fear of being drawn into such a situation? USG blocks exports to Israel too for the same reasons? Now suppose instead of the Israeli govt, it was Hamas blocking the export. All the same answers? Different answers?
I see no way to avoid having a policy. For instance, I am not smart enough to know whether the US should recognise Palestine as a state. But I do know that whatever decision the US makes on recognition is very much a policy. To my mind, “no policy” is a well-intentioned mirage that vanishes as you approach application.
Fake Dave 10.09.23 at 12:50 pm
Ideologies don’t have to be “planted.” People are perfectly capable of coming up with repugnant worldviews all on their own. Ideologues are always with us and I know there are examples of figures all over the world and political spectrum who have fed and thrived on this conflict. I must repeat myself though. It’s not about them now.
Maybe it was a week ago. Maybe it will.be again soon enough. But right now, it’s about the other people — the ones who are dying, grieving, fleeing in terror. The human beings who don’t exist for the sake of nations, movements, or political point scoring. They deserve to be in focus.
Unpacking decades of bad foreign policy and moral incontinence to chart the roads not taken is occasionally warranted, but this isn’t the occasion. Moving the embassy belongs on the list, but it is a very long list and a sentence that starts with “But surely” and ends with “…might be possible?” tells me you already know better.
I’m not going to touch the domestic violence analogy.
marcel proust 10.09.23 at 3:19 pm
@MFB: Doing nothing …
But it is a step in the right direction. Any apology, any promise to stop battering before the battering has actually ceased is … well I’ll leave it to the reader to come up with an adequate description. And compensation while the battering is ongoing begins to seem like a commercial transaction.
SusanC 10.09.23 at 4:07 pm
A) As a matter of pragmatic domestic politics, utterly impossible in the U.K. and probably the US as well. To get elected to do whatever it is you want to domestically, a certain amount of support for Israel is needed to get a viable coalition.
B) in the modern global political order, it looks like every country needs to be a formal or informal coalition of countries to defend itself against invaders. E.g. be an actual member of NATO, or at least be informally allied with it. Ukraine kind of lost out not being a formal NATO member. If basically every county left standing is in some sort of alliance, hypocritical to just exclude Israel.
LFC 10.09.23 at 4:36 pm
There are some odd comments in this thread.
MFB @6 refers to Jerusalem as “occupied territory.” It isn’t (though the status of East Jerusalem is contested). He refers to “the annexation” of the West Bank. The West Bank has not been annexed. It has been occupied by Israel, in violation of international law, since the end of the Six Day War in 1967. (The Oslo Accords modified but didn’t end the occupation.)
The policy of the U.S. in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict should be to exert all possible leverage to force both sides to a real negotiation that will result in the creation of a Palestinian state with (enough of) the trappings and attributes of genuine sovereignty to qualify for full UN admission and to satisfy the justified aspiration of Palestinians to have a sovereign independent state. Nothing will be fixed in the region until this happens, and if it never happens the conflict will continue in perpetuity.
John Q 10.09.23 at 7:29 pm
Salem @10 I mean ceasing to act as (highly biased) umpire.
As you observe, there are 198 UN Member states. Most of them manage to go about their business without anything that could really be called a Middle East policy. Similarly, after losing a war in Vietnam at massive cost, the US now manages to do without much of an Indochina policy (except as it impinges on the South China Sea), .
So, the non-policy would start with withdrawing all aid to Israel, and also to Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. and leaving any efforts at peacemaking to the United Nations (these probably wouldn’t go anywhere, so status quo in that respect). Recognising Palestine would be the right thing to do in an abstract sense, but would probably be perceived as taking a side rather than getting out. On terrorism, I’d suggest applying the same rules as everywhere else. That would cover Hamas and maybe some settler organizations as well
As regards commercial weapons sales, my general preference would be to get out of this business, but otherwise the US should apply whatever policy it applies to warzones in general – Sudan for example.
LFC 10.09.23 at 7:39 pm
John Q @15
The complete withdrawal of the US from the region that you suggest would be unlikely to result in much improvement. It’s also not going to happen, so it’s not in the realm of possibility.
Of course my preferred policy — forcing Israel and the PA to a two-state solution, which would, incidentally, marginalize and perhaps fatally weaken Hamas and similar groups that reject the 2-state path and want to eliminate Israel from the map — also may not be in the realm of possibility.
So this may be a case where sensible US policies are not politically possible until there’s a significant shift in domestic opinion on the region and on the I/P conflict in the US.
John Q 10.09.23 at 8:08 pm
Worth mentioning that the Middle East is more than Israel/Palestine. In particular, the US should treat Saudi Arabia the same as other dictatorships, which roughly means leaving the rulers alone unless they do something like murdering US citizens, in which case they get treated very badly.
MBS gets away with murder precisely because the US has a Middle East policy. Otherwise the general “don’t murder our citizens” policy would apply.
engels 10.09.23 at 8:40 pm
It’s not geopolitical theory time. It’s not time for old squabbles and finger pointing. It’s not time to rehash eight decades of betrayals, broken promises, and missed opportunities. It’s not time for good guys and bad guys. It’s time to bear witness. To really see what’s happening to both peoples on both sides and not pretend the suffering of one erases the suffering of the other. Anything less is inhuman.
I don’t understand this at all. People are killing each other so we should just watch in horror until they stop? Trying to figure out why they are doing it or how to end the violence is “inhuman”? That seems like a terrible perspective to me.
Seekonk 10.09.23 at 10:58 pm
@8:
I understand your point. Although some Jews might experience schadenfreude at the dispossession of their tormentors, many would understandably not want to live on former German territory, and certainly not on the sites of Buchenwald or Sachsenhausen. Nonetheless it was wrong to treat Palestine as “a land with no people for a people with no land”.
engels 10.10.23 at 12:11 am
As a matter of pragmatic domestic politics, utterly impossible in the U.K. and probably the US as well. To get elected to do whatever it is you want to domestically, a certain amount of support for Israel is needed to get a viable coalition.
And why is that?
J-D 10.10.23 at 12:12 am
‘This conflict should be settled by negotiation between the parties’
and
‘This conflict should be settled on the following stipulated terms’
are incompatible positions.
I don’t know whether it’s within the power of the USA (or the UN, or any other third party not part of the conflict) to impose a two-state solution, or a one-state solution, or any other specific solution, but if a third party did that, they would be preventing the negotiation of a solution between the parties to the conflict. I also don’t know whether it’s within the power of any third party to force the parties to the conflict to negotiate a solution between them, but if they did, it would necessarily follow that the solution would be one chosen by the parties to the conflict and therefore might be different from the solution preferred or recommended by the third party.
If I am your boss, and also the boss of somebody else with whom you are in conflict, it may be within my power to call the two of you into my office and say ‘I am directing the two of you to agree to the following terms’, and it also may be within my power to call the two of you into my office and say ‘I am directing the two of you to negotiate a solution to this conflict’, but those two directives are incompatible with each other.
My position in this specific instance is that it should be the policy of the USA that there should be a negotiated solution, in the sense that the USA should seek to encourage negotiations if it is able to do so, but that the USA should have no policy on what the outcome should be, and if this is what John Quiggin means (or part of what John Quiggin means), then I agree.
J-D 10.10.23 at 12:18 am
I’m not taking a position on what would have been a good approach to adopt then, because I don’t know what would have been a good approach to adopt then, but I do know it would have been a bad approach for somebody to try to dictate to Jewish people that they should be resettled in a place where they didn’t want to be resettled, and the evidence suggests that, for understandable reasons, there was not an appetite among Jewish people for the creation of a Jewish state or homeland out of what had been German territory (even if not literally on the sites of former camps).
Scott P. 10.10.23 at 12:38 am
In the 1930s and 1940s, Jews were in extremis. They cannot be blamed for commandeering a lifeboat in that storm. But according to principles of reparation and state succession, the Jewish nation should have been fashioned from the territory of the German Nazi state defeated in 1945.
That would have died in the cradle. Such a territory would have no Jews to start with, since Germany’s Jews had been exterminated, and no other Jew would have any motivation to move there.
LFC 10.10.23 at 1:36 am
Fake Dave @5
“It’s not geopolitical theory time.”
I understand this position from an emotional (for lack of a better word) standpoint. However, the discursive universe many of us live in has made a rush to analysis the norm, even though a pause might ideally be best.
Tom Perry 10.10.23 at 3:11 am
I’m an American, born and bred. As an American, I have a visceral understanding of American politics which foreigners seem to lack. Also, as an American, I seem to lack a visceral understanding of politics in…(throws dart at map)…Ireland.
An American tourist can get in trouble in Ireland. He might say to his cabbie, it’s wonderful to be here, I’ve always wanted to travel to Great Britain. Even at knife-point, we Americans rarely trouble ourselves with trying to actually understand Ireland. The whole island isn’t even shaped like anything.
But one thing, at least, is clear: those islanders are sitting on some resentments which are still smoldering hot. What a damn nuisance for people who just want to see the castles or whatever. Could American military and economic force be the final answer to these age-old conflicts?
KT2 10.10.23 at 4:24 am
The most problematic usage of labels.
Israel. Jews. Hamas. Palestine. State. Religion. Tribe.
Seemingly interchangeable by some and not called out or managed or refuted . And media, depending who, what and where it is from and who to consume, are worse.
Until those labels are able to be used correctly at all times by all, confusion and simmering will remain. Then power will conquer. Rinse. Repeat
Alan White 10.10.23 at 5:38 am
engels@20
Jesus Christ. Not just an exclamation, but a real attempt to retort an insipid supposed question. C’mon man!
LFC 10.10.23 at 6:46 am
J-D @21
The outcome of the negotiation (though some think this is no longer possible bc of developments on the ground) shd be a sovereign Palestinian state, and what the parties shd negotiate over is all the details: borders, water rights, security, all the things they’ve never quite managed to agree on in past negotiations. The U.S. does have leverage, it’s just never chosen to exercise it effectively.
It’s way too late for your proposed approach of “sit down and talk and work something out, and what the final something is is none of my business.” (Stephen Walt’s otherwise good recent column in Foreign Policy seemed similarly vague on this point, though I need to re-read it.)
The region is on fire, partly because the US has failed to use a combination of leverage and diplomacy to help solve the conflict. The Trump admin gave Netanyahu everything he wanted and abandoned any pretense of trying to mediate a real solution. The Trump admin’s so-called peace plan was a joke and was DOA. And the Biden admin has been preoccupied with other things.
In a few years conditions may be such that a two state (or if you don’t like that particular label, use another) solution will no longer be possible (and a one-state solution I think will not work). So what is required is a sense of extreme urgency and use of leverage, not disquisitions about not interfering with the parties’ free will.
TM 10.10.23 at 9:42 am
“It’s not geopolitical theory time.”
Maybe this time of atrocious murders being carried out is not the right time to point this out but I’m convinced the best policy for the people of the Middle East in the medium term is to stop burning (and thus stop extracting and buying) oil as quickly as possible and to prevent at least the worst extreme of climate heating, which is already affecting the region catastrophically.
John Q 10.10.23 at 9:51 am
LFC @28
You could have written something similar any time in the last forty years or so (any time since the hopes of the Camp David accord withered).
What makes you think the US has the capacity to improve on the consistent failures of the past? US is hated and/or distrusted by Palestinians. Having repeatedly defied any attempts at US-imposed constraint, Netanyahu no longer bothers to conceal his contempt. US participation in any negotiation only reduces the chances of success.
Then there’s the collateral damage of propping up Arab dictatorships through efforts like the Abraham accords, Biden fist bump etc. Getting out may not produce good outcomes, but it is better than any alternative.
J-D 10.10.23 at 11:01 am
On the contrary, it’s way too early.
In the meantime, what your proposed approach amounts to is this: the USA should tell them what to do, and they should do what they’re told to do by the USA.
If it were in fact possible for the USA to halt the violence by issuing orders, that might be a justification for doing so, but in fact it’s not possible.
Rob 10.10.23 at 1:20 pm
There’s plenty of people quoting from this plan, but, as a dim person, I’d just like to ask
What bloody fold, it’s the internet, there is no fold, neither here nor in the last post.
Would someone please enlighten me as to where this plan actually is published. Or if that’s the joke.
engels 10.10.23 at 1:31 pm
Having repeatedly defied any attempts at US-imposed constraint, Netanyahu no longer bothers to conceal his contempt.
To be fair on Bibi, if someone kept giving me $4 billion dollars of missiles every year but occasionally complained I was being mean when I fired them, I don’t think I’d respect them much either.
@equalitus 10.10.23 at 3:45 pm
Could some post a link to the comprehensive plan for US policy on the Middle East?
equalitus 10.10.23 at 4:02 pm
Any behavior or decision making that happens by firms/institutions/people in and out of countries is a policy of absence of rules or a policy of formal rules&laws regulating the trade and money and formal or informal interaction between entities regardless if it is controversial or not.
If the US implemented demands for sending money to Israel like retreating from occupied territories then no presidential administration would be re-elected. That’s the main problem.
Tom Perry 10.10.23 at 4:28 pm
I’ve never been formally banned from this site, but I have been under DFTT orders from time to time, and now I remember why. So I promise not to hit you any more, and I swear I’ll stick around to build the relationship.
(Realizes what he just said; bangs forehead on desk several times.)
No, but seriously: non-intervention is a context where I, as a Repentant Warmonger, could add value to this community. Gather ’round the campfire, boys, and I’ll tell you all about Iraq.
Suzanne 10.10.23 at 4:46 pm
On social media U.S. Secretary of State Blinken signed on to Turkey’s call for an immediate ceasefire and release of hostages, which tweet mysteriously vanished. Nice to see that they’re not going nuts inside the White House, however. Bibi will get his little bombing spree. I think Israel has attacked Gaza half a dozen times now.
The odd thing is that US inability to curtail Israel’s behavior evan as it uses US weapons and US money to throw its weight around has actually gotten worse with the years. Reagan allowed UN resolutions critical of Israel to pass, he ordered Begin to cut it out when Begin bombed the PLO in Lebanon. When the Israelis wanted to bomb a hotel that was a media center for Western reporters in the same country, Reagan said, I don’t think so. The Israelis didn’t even give the US a heads-up when they bombed the press building for Al Jazeera and AP in Gaza in 2021. (Biden’s response was an phone call with Netanyahu, I recall being described as “umcomfortable,” although it’s unclear who was less comfortable.)
I’ve always thought that the Pax Americana, however flawed, was a better option than anything else out there, but the tail-wagging-the-dog syndrome with Israel is so extreme that maybe the US would do well to step away. As a matter of domestic politics, however, that’s impossible and I would guess some allies wouldn’t be happy, either.
RobinM 10.10.23 at 5:17 pm
LFC @ 28
“The U.S. does have leverage, it’s just never chosen to exercise it effectively.”
Isn’t it, rather, the case that the US has for 70 years or so chosen to very effectively exercise its leverage in behalf of Israel (with an eye to the very effective Israeli lobby in the US as well as to its own imperial ambitions within the Middle East)? No wonder, as JQ notes, that the US is hated and/or distrusted by Palestinians.
equalitus 10.10.23 at 5:20 pm
Perhaps it is better if you tell your opinions about why the voters in the US has the attitude that shapes US policy in the middle east area? Or what should happen in the US’ voters mindset to cause a US withdrawal from the whole middle east? Would there be fewer dictatorships? Would the occupation be ended?
JW Mason 10.10.23 at 6:57 pm
Agree with this post completely. US policy in the region is exactly what has crated the situation as it exists now. Relative to any remotely conceivable baseline, doing less would be an improvement.
LFC 10.10.23 at 7:19 pm
J-D @31
No, my proposed approach is that the US should have conditioned some of the roughly 3 billion per year military/security assistance it gives Israel on Israel’s negotiating (in the context of no more settlement-building on the West Bank) and should have exerted similar pressure on the PA — on whom it has less direct leverage, but considerably more than zero — to negotiate.
That’s the difference in meaning between the words “pressure” and “leverage” on the one hand, and the phrase “tell them what to do” on the other.
engels 10.10.23 at 8:10 pm
Meanwhile in the rainy fascist island…
Waving Palestinian flag may be a criminal offence, Braverman tells police
Jim Harrison 10.10.23 at 8:27 pm
The historian Zeev Sternhell had it pretty much right:
No leader was capable of saying that the conquest of the West Bank lacked the moral basis of the first half of the twentieth century, namely the circumstances of distress on which Israel was founded. A much-persecuted people needed and deserved not only a shelter, but also a state of its own. […] Whereas the conquests of 1949 were an essential condition for the founding of Israel, the attempt to retain the conquests of 1967 had a strong flavor of imperial expansion.
Writing like this earned Sternhell a pipe bomb, but I think his take is simply right. The solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t some arcane mystery. Israel gets the Hell out of the West Bank and removes the illegal settlements. The problem isn’t the lack of a plan. It’s the lack of Charles de Gaulle.
Not Trampis 10.10.23 at 9:37 pm
Unfortunately the major problem re Israel/ Palestine is that a lot of people on either side do not recognise the humanity of the other.
This leads to ‘justified’ murder and then ‘justified’ war crimes.
I do not have the answer to this and I have yet to read anyone else having an answer.
J-D 10.10.23 at 11:12 pm
[There’s always somebody, every time this comes up.]
Ernie: It’s done! It’s done! Hey Bert, it’s done!
Bert: What’s done, Ernie?
Ernie: My comprehensive plan for US policy in the Middle East!
Bert: What, is that what you’ve got on that piece of paper there?
Ernie: Yeah, do you wanna take a look at it?
Bert: Well, okay, I guess. [Bert holds out his hand, Ernie passes the sheet of paper to him, and Bert looks at it. After a minute Bert turns the sheet over and looks at the other side.] Ernie, this piece of paper is blank.
Ernie: That’s right, Bert. That’s my comprehensive plan for US policy in the Middle East.
Bert: But there’s nothing on it, Ernie! It’s blank! There’s nothing on it!
Ernie: That’s right, Bert. Nothing at all. That’s my comprehensive plan for US policy in the Middle East.
J-D 10.10.23 at 11:14 pm
Better for whom?
Tom 10.11.23 at 1:04 am
John, do you think it is ok if Iran gets the nuclear bomb? Or is that just a cost worth paying because there are many more pros (no Iraq wars, no support to Saudis etc.)? As a side, I always thought that the US wanted Saudi collaboration also for having (or at least trying to have) a bit of a say on oil prices (hence the need for fist bumps etc.).
More in general, if one believes that a) Israel should exist and b) Israel would not survive (or, more weakly, Israel would not have survived) without USA’s support, then it follows that the US should have (or, more weakly, should have had) a ME policy. Now, I believe in a) and somewhat in b). Hence I believe that the US should have (or at least had) a ME policy. But if one does not hold either a) or b), then this argument does not apply to them.
Suzanne 10.11.23 at 1:31 am
@ 39:
There is no rational discussion about Israel in the United States. Although we have progressed beyond the “Israel: Land of Milk and Honey” propaganda that dominated popular coverage back in the day, the perception that we must defend our beleaguered little democratic ally against the onslaught of the Arab hordes persists. The last US president who tried even a mildly firm line with Israel was George H.W. Bush. It didn’t work out so well for him.
J-D 10.11.23 at 2:12 am
In this specific context there’s no relevant difference.
If the USA applies leverage (on the Israelis and/or on the Palestinians) in a particular direction, either they move in that direction or they don’t. If they move, then they have done what the USA told them to do; if they don’t move, then they have not done what the USA told them to do; in either case, the USA has told them what to do. Specifically, if the USA applies leverage in favour of negotiation, then it is telling the parties to negotiate; if the USA applies leverage in favour of a two-state solution, or a one-state solution, or any other stipulated solution, then it is telling the parties to adopt that solution.
Tom Perry 10.11.23 at 3:11 am
I screamed in impotent rage: what leverage do you expect to…!
Yeah, okay. Works for me. Carry on.
John Q 10.11.23 at 4:01 am
Tom, I think all nuclear proliferation is bad, and the US should be doing more to discourage it. But US ME policy, ever since the overthrow of Mossadegh has worked in the opposite direction, encouraging Iranians to think they need nuclear weapons.
On your second point, I don’t see any reason to believe that Israel wouldn’t survive without US protection. To the extent that the withdrawal of an absolute US guarantee makes the Israeli position less secure, this would encourage them to seek peace. The more specific claim that arises here is that Israel needs control of the West Bank, and the people who live there, to secure itself against invasion. I don’t think this has any more validity than similar claims made by lots of countries seeking to extend their borders (Russia in Ukraine, for example).
Fake Dave 10.11.23 at 10:11 am
I don’t understand this at all. People are killing each other so we should just watch in horror until they stop? Trying to figure out why they are doing it or how to end the violence is “inhuman”? That seems like a terrible perspective to me.
Watching in horror isn’t such a bad approach, really. It beats looking away and pretending it’s not happening. It doesn’t convey approval or tacit acceptance. It doesn’t intellectualize human suffering into something airless, bloodless, and anodyne. It’s about sharing the pain, not numbing ourselves to it or explaining it away.
I wasn’t responding to someone trying to understand why they’re doing it or how to end the bloodshed, but rather someone who acted as if he knew already. I would say if you want to understand the why, you have to look at the what. LFC hit the nail on the head when he mentioned “the discursive universe many of us live in.” We think we live there, but sometimes things happen that remind us that we actually don’t.
PIsraelis and Palestinians right now aren’t living in discursive worlds. If the rest of us can’t take this time to try to meet them where they are, it doesn’t matter what we tell each other about where we think they’re coming from or where they’re supposed to be going. We won’t get it, they’ll see we don’t get it, and they won’t listen to us anyway.
Tom 10.11.23 at 2:34 pm
Thanks, John. As to the first point, I was just trying to understand your claim and I certainly was not suggesting that US ME policy has been anything close to optimal (even wrt to the denuclearization goal). For example, I agree with LFC above that the US should have attached many more strings to the funds it routinely disburses to Israel.
As to the second point (Israel surviving without US protections), I am not sure. Lebanon and Syria, neighboring countries, do not recognize Israel. Same for many other countries in ME and NA. Europe is clearly torn when it comes to Israel and can’t be counted on. That is why the Abraham Accords were, to me, a good step. Yes, you can obviously find objections to them (support to authoritarians, unfair to Palestinians etc.) but I can’t see how a semi-permanent war is a stable – and valuable – equilibrium for anybody involved.
Glau 10.11.23 at 3:28 pm
I’m not sure if we can effectively discourage Iran from getting nukes any more. The list of countries that gave up their nukes or development programs- Ukraine, Libya, Iraq- is not a list anyone else would be eager to join. I think, instead, the last few decades have underlined how much it matters that you have nukes, regardless of if you ever intend to use them.
Tom Perry 10.11.23 at 5:52 pm
On your second point, I don’t see any reason to believe that Israel wouldn’t survive without US protection.
Neither do I. I wasn’t being ironic. I am in favor of withdrawal/rejection of that aid, same as you.
I look at the situation going back to Mossadegh in much the same light as you. When I said you are right about this, I meant it. Our feelings may be strongly opposed regarding some of the details, but there really is common ground here.
Contrary to some commenters, the policy you’ve stated is not “no policy”. It’s a policy of non-intervention. Given our experiences with intervention, non-intervention can’t be a worse policy. Even if things “don’t get better”, at least we don’t have to own the miserable outcomes and waste our own blood, treasure, and moral standing.
Oops, just realized you’re not talking to me. I’ll let this stand.
engels 10.11.23 at 7:08 pm
they won’t listen to us anyway
See Tom Perry #50.
Bartholomew 10.11.23 at 7:45 pm
@Jim Harrison comment 43
Apologies, this is off-topic and a bit trivial, but if you are an admirer of Zeev Sternhell and his work and if you haven’t already seen it, there is a wonderful collection of interviews with him that was published in 2014.* It covers his youth, how he survived WW2 in Poland, his PhD study in France, the Labour Party and Israeli history since the 1940s, his fighting in 1967 and 1973, his memories of Hannah Arendt and others, and much more. I don’t think it’s been translated but if your French is at all servicable, it’s enthralling to read.
*Histoire et Lumières; Changer le Monde par la Raison
reason 10.11.23 at 8:27 pm
Historically, I think one of the worst things that happened was when Gaza and the West Bank were isolated from one another. For a Palestinian state to have been viable (and in particular for them to have a unified Government) a direct communication channel was essential. When the first deal was made and the authority was set up, this should have been a precondition. A corridor that passed through Israel, but wasn’t part of it. (You would need tunnels or overpasses somewhere.) Gaza as it has developed is absolutely not sustainable.
engels 10.11.23 at 10:33 pm
This is appalling:
Israel-Palestine war: Keir Starmer supports Israel’s ‘right’ to cut Gaza’s water and power
Fake Dave 10.12.23 at 12:22 am
Engels 56 with the one-line comeback again. Color me surprised.
Cutting/conditioning military aid to Israel is an important step that should have been taken years ago. It’s also exactly the sort of “not the time” stuff I’ve been talking about. AIPAC and co. made it their red line and agressively smear anyone who suggests it while backing their opponents who “stand with Israel” leading to the “progressive except for Palestine” phenomenon (I’m sure they love Starmer).
There are cracks in the facade and Democrats are increasingly skeptical about getting in bed with rightwing creeps, but this last week didn’t help. If we couldn’t find the political space to even talk about cutting aid when Israelis seemed mostly safe, how are we going to do it now when they’re still counting the dead and in the middle of a hostage crisis? Get real. The big behind-the-scenes fight right now seems to be convincing the hawks that Israel gets enough aid already and doesn’t need more. I’m pulling for them.
Stephen 10.12.23 at 11:27 am
Engels@59: you have to remember that Sir Keir Starmer was a lawyer before he became a politician.
As a lawyer, he could only call Israel’s blockade illegal if there was a law against it. I may be wrong, but I don’t think there is any such law, any more than there was against the British blockade of Germany in WW1 and WW2, the attempted counter-blockade by German submarines, or the US submarine blockade of Japan. All of which were intended to cause much civilian suffering.
As a politician, he will do whatever advances his career, like many though not all other politicians.
engels 10.12.23 at 5:27 pm
The fact that he was a human rights lawyer is what makes it so craven and despicable.
https://www.reuters.com/world/israeli-air-strikes-hit-residences-schools-across-gaza-un-rights-chief-2023-10-10/
Tm 10.12.23 at 6:08 pm
Stephen: International law is quite clear that intentionally targeting the civilian population is a war crime.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/05/syria-conflict-leaves-millions-of-damascus-residents-with-limited-access-to-water
https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-humanitarian-aid-hamas-attack-war-united-nations-a068d629255e803849ad5c78387380c8
Comments on this entry are closed.