Reason & Politics

Israel is at war again, this time against the Palestinians. Hamas fires low-tech rockets that nonetheless threaten the lives of Israelis. Israel realizes that it is being goaded and sees no alternative but to retaliate, if only to quell down domestic political anger and to send a message to its enemies that such action will carry a heavy price when Israel’s sovereignty is so blatantly violated.  If not, who is to say that Hamas and others will not escalate the level of terror?

As in the case of its incursion into Lebanon, the Israeli military set aside an eye for an eye-type of retaliation. In 2007, Israel sought to weaken Hezbollah as much as possible, and gain, if possible, a psychological defeat by instilling fear and destruction upon the civilian population while blaming Hezbollah for casualties under the concept of collateral damage. Throughout the conflict, the United States extended and facilitated its support of Israel by indicating that Hezbollah started the conflict hence it deserved what it got. In the end, Israel did not appear to attain any of its goals and in the process it attracted a great deal of international criticism while the United States' role as broker was severely questioned, again, by our European allies and Arab friends.

If the latest round of conflict in Gaza produces the same results as in Lebanon, is there any point in duplicating the actions? What is there to be gained other than to prolong a long, unresolved conflict? Precisely because there is no likelihood that this latest incident will bring about a lasting peace, one has to wonder if there can be any moral justification for the level of destruction in Lebanon (and now in Gaza). At the same time, what is Israel to do? Can Israel go on allowing its enemies to threaten its people at will? After all, Israel has a moral duty and a political need to defend its people!  And while it is easy to blame Israel for the deaths of innocent Palestinians and the level of destruction inflicted in Gaza, many likely will fail to realize Hamas’  initial responsibility for the terror its actions brought about: the targeting of innocent civilians in Israel, and the indiscrimate use of the Palestinian population as human shields and its victims as a cynical public relations ploy. This view takes into account the Palestinians' valid aspiration to live in a nation-state of their own, albeit the lack of any moral justification for Hamas’ actions.

Is there a way out of this deadly and stupid vicious cycle? Frankly, I do not know. Nevertheless, below are some ideas I  excerpted from Chapter Fourteen, Foreign Affairs, from the book that appears on this website. The format is the same one that runs throughout the book: a dialogue between graduate students and their professor at a seminar on political values and conflict in America.

   “Let me ask you about those religious, cultural, and political differences you mentioned, are they the only root cause of the U.S. war on terror?”
   “The role those differences play, in our view, is quite significant, far more than what our leaders think, but they’re not the only cause. We think that there’s an underlying aspect that will condition, even more, the war against terror: the continued U.S. Government’s inability to move beyond a persisting military stalemate in the region and toward creating conditions that will ensure, Israel’s security. U.S. failure to deal with this issue accentuates … conditions, and enhances those distinctive differences which in turn radicalize Muslim and Arab behavior.”
   “Can you be more specific?” I asked.
   “Yes. We see the solution to the Israeli security question as being the preeminent issue in the Middle East without which we will not do well in our war against terror or in securing a more successful political outcome in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan… Allow me.
   “There are those in the Middle East and around the world who are opposed to Israel’s continued existence under any circumstances; there are those who oppose Israel on account of land Israel has seized from Arabs as a buffer zone to protect itself from its enemies; there are those who oppose Israel’s stand on the creation of a Palestinian state, Jerusalem, and the Right of Return issue; and, there are those who are bent on avenging Israel’s past treatment of the Palestinians.
   “It is all too obvious, that from a geo-strategic military standpoint, it is politically and militarily impossible for Israel to deal with these issues by itself. It is also all too obvious that Arab and Muslim aggression, whether the Intifada- type, launching rockets and missiles, military incursions or outright war, has not been able to force Israel to alter its stand, and that Israel’s disproportionate tit-for-tat policies have failed to convince its opponents to cease and desist. This is the deadlock that needs to be broken, and we don’t foresee that traditional diplomatic negotiations will break this deadlock; bolder and more imaginative solutions will be required.”
   “Not even President Obama’s initiative through the assistance of former Senator Mitchell? I asked.
   “Needless to say, we wish and pray for Senator Mitchell’s success. We think, however, that even Senator Mitchell himself has realized that there are vast differences between attaining peace in a localized conflict between two parties and successfully negotiating peace in an international conflict in which the participants include several regional and international actors. This is why we think that traditional diplomacy is likely to slow down the process.”
   “Do you all believe that the 2007 Israeli-Hezbollah war taught us anything?” I asked.
   “Not only the 2007 conflict but the 2008-2009 attack against the Palestinians, too. It showed us that peace in the Middle East goes beyond solving the Israeli-Palestinian question. Further, it showed us what we just said, that Israel will not be able to attain permanent victory in its conflict with its enemies or be defeated by them. All that Israel can do—short of completely exterminating its enemies or be destroyed by them—is to prolong the conflict indefinitely, while attempting to survive attacks from those whose sole purpose in life is to deny Israel’s right to exist. This scenario suggests that the Israeli security question cannot be resolved by regional participants alone, much less by the Israeli people and its government, without the active and creative involvement on the part of the United States.
   “From our standpoint, the United States Government bears a great deal of responsibility for the situation; not only the Bush administration, but previous ones, too. Again, we rely on the view that a nation endowed with great power assumes the formidable, taxing, and thankless burden of acting above and beyond what is normally considered to be responsible … as irrevocably high- minded … compassionate … sacrificing … generous … and self-interested that assumption is.”
   “Why are you holding the U.S. responsible for conditions in the Middle East when all we have done is to assist our ally?"
   “Because throughout decades, the U.S. has allocated more funds and resources toward the military protection of Israel than toward brokering a final and peaceful solution to the conflict. That’s a fact… The U.S. has stood for arming Israel so it could defend itself from its enemies… However, opting more for a highly precarious military than for an enduring political approach to stability, the U.S. has adopted timid policies and behaved indecisively to the point of seriously faltering in its moral obligation to do as much as possible to permanently settle the issue.
   “While the Middle East conflict was perceived as a limited threat to the instability of the region, the U.S. believed … and was apparently satisfied … by limiting the conflict to skirmishes or low-scale regional wars while supporting a defensively conceived balance of power by Israel as the only measure that would ensure its survival.
   “Once it became evident that Israel’s neighbors were becoming more radicalized and that the conflict could escalate beyond the region, the U.S. has lacked the political imagination to go beyond the conventional diplomatic approach of bringing the opponents to the table of negotiations. Preferring to depend on mirages of peace that periods of military stalemate and the absence of war provided during the past twenty-something years, the U.S. has alternated between military support of Israel and political disengagement from the conflict.
   “Further, we remember that the Bush II administration once opted to play the role of a stern father toward Israel only to abandon it soon thereafter and allow Israel to roam the region with little supervision. But everyone is aware that Israel can only defend itself through limited military means. Not being a major power, Israel does not have the wherewithal to successfully conduct and reach a final diplomatic settlement with its opponents.
   “It is most interesting to observe that U.S. policy toward Israel has been very similar to the stereotypical views held by many American parents in middle schools across the U.S. ‘Don’t let yourself be bullied around by others,’ parents tell their kids, because self-assertion and courage are, no doubt, virtues that children need to learn, and the school provides an adequate setting for these virtues to be implemented. Accordingly, the U.S. has supported Israel’s quest to defend itself.
   “The situation is complicated when all parties realize that, there being only one school—only one Middle East region—the issue of transferring the child or expelling the bullies is not realistic. The U.S. response has been to send their now grown-up foster child to school armed with guns believing that such behavior is moral and responsible, and likely the only possible alternative.”
   “Hold on Mr. Hunt,” I said. “Let me try to follow you … are you suggesting that the U.S. should not have provided Israel with weapons to defend itself?”
   “No, of course not! There’s no way that the U.S. was not going to stand by Israel. What we’re saying is that there’s no possibility of a permanent solution to the conflict without the U.S. physically guaranteeing Israel’s security. Israel cannot afford to return Arab lands without putting itself at risk; it needs the physical protection of the U.S. within its borders. At the same time, the U.S. has the responsibility to broker the peace and to prevent the type of escalation that brought about so much destruction in Lebanon.
   “But frankly, the U.S. doesn’t have a great deal of credibility as a broker … the more so following its support of Israel’s incursion into Lebanon, which turned out to be a mistake and recently on account of its disproportionate use of military firepower in the Palestinian territory.”
   “Why a mistake?” I asked.
   “Because it was unnecessary; this is why it was not a Just War. In Israel’s incursion into Lebanon, the Bush administration actively and enthusiastically supported a proxy war of its own, claiming as its rationale the desire to protect Israel’s security through its hope that Israel would forever destroy Hezbollah. Months later, we were allocating hundreds of millions of dollars toward the reconstruction of Beirut whose destruction we had supported. This was some kind of perverse logic, and in our view, these actions were downright morally and politically irresponsible. Hezbollah was not defeated and has armed itself again.
   “In the December 2008 conflict with Hamas, there is no doubt that Israel was seeking to defend itself against the continued terrorist practice of launching rockets against civilian populations The problem lies with the Israeli military strategy. In both conflicts, the disproportion of casualties and physical destruction has been so overwhelming that it is playing against Israel and the United States.
   “The issue is not whether Israel has the right to defend its territory and its people; that’s beyond dispute. It is its failure to abide by that ancient rule, ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,’ that is so embedded in Jewish ethics. Israel’s disproportioned treatment of Palestinian civilians as a means of retribution against Palestinian terrorists places it, in the eyes of the world, in the same category as those it wishes to punish. And, with what results? All Israel can hope for is to survive and prepare itself for the next round.
   “Israel’s insistence that ‘the Palestinians brought this unto themselves,’ does little to change the attitude of its enemies while it further increases its isolation in international circles. This trench and retribution mentality colors its military and political strategies. But, again, what has been the outcome if not an awful public relations image before the world. I repeat, Israel will not be able to solve this problem by itself., and the United States is enabling Israel’s attitude.”
   “How do you all suggest we break this deadlock, Mr. Hunt?”
   “First of all, we have to recognize that our inability—and Israel’s—to successfully deal with Israel’s security has unnecessarily increased the number of U.S. and Israeli policy-created enemies and opponents. We need to reduce those numbers! We need to take steps that will begin to clear the political and the military field.”
   “The United States … needs … to clear the field,” I said pensively. “Interesting concept, but I’m afraid that you may have to elaborate further.”
   “The way we see it, sir, both Israel and the United States are in dire need of good will from the rest of the world. When almost the entire world, including our European allies, votes against Israel in the United Nations, when we see staunch defenders of Israel in the American media having to defend Israeli actions, because apparently the world needs to be reminded that Israel is worth defending, well, we begin to realize that something is not entirely kosher.
   “It seems that neither the United States nor Israel have any credibility! Their policies and actions find little acceptance in the rest of the world. A worldwide opinion poll released in January, 2007, for example, indicates that world opinion of U.S. foreign policy had declined considerably.5 I think people were becoming aware of how our policies and our lack of credibility in the region along with failure to successfully address the Israeli security question have become related to our stalemate in Iraq and Afghanistan.
   “To regain its badly needed credibility and good will, the U.S. needs to take the initiative by internationalizing the Israeli issue in a most energetic manner. This would entail leading major political, military, and economic powers toward a specific mission: ensuring Israel’s security, if necessary by means of the physical presence of a multinational military force. Such military presence would be followed by Israeli return of all seized territories in question to the Palestinians, to Syria, and to Lebanon. Israel and the U.S. would then recognize a Palestinian state and would contribute to its creation and its support.
   “We have to stop pushing legitimate grievances by the opposition into the background. There are Arab and Muslim issues that merit attention; and if the U.S. Government, along with its European allies and friends in the region, cannot broker a settlement over these issues … one that involves all governments in the Middle East … chances for a lasting peace will dwindle and, if that happens, we will not  be able to create many of the propitious conditions that will be required to successfully wage the war on terror.
   “To the extent that we’re successful in implementing these steps, Israel would feel more secure and willing to resolve its differences with its neighbors; and the U.S. will gain the necessary credibility to reach out and transform much of those Arab and Muslim sectors that are currently fertile grounds for radical elements. Moreover, the U.S. will likely gain increased support from moderate Arab and Muslim peoples—not only governments, but their peoples—and, just as important, if not more, we may regain the support of our “old” European allies to contribute to a lasting settlement.”
   “But, what would that take?” I insisted.
   “Whatever it takes, sir; whatever it takes … unless we can foresee, and bet, that whatever the outcome in the Middle East, it will not be as lethal and threatening to the interests of the United States and its allies in the region and the rest of the world.
   “We asked ourselves whether the Middle East conflict has gone beyond a point in which the only solution now lies in a global military conflagration, and we couldn’t answer that; no one in Washington can possibly guarantee that such a horrific scenario will not take place. We do believe that the longer the conflict persists the more difficult it will be to find an acceptably peaceful settlement or at least one requiring a low-intensity military response.”
   “What you’re saying is that, regardless of whether the U.S. can successfully broker a peaceful settlement in the region while ensuring Israel’s security, we might still have to confront the possibility of a major conflict?”
   “Well, we need to take the initiative by triggering a high degree of dissonance at the international level; we have to engage in radical and innovative policy-making that will politically and diplomatically disarm the opposition!”
   “How do you go about doing that?” I pressed on.
   “By appreciably, extensively, sincerely, and consistently reaching out to the Arab/Muslim world through practical and meaningful reconciliatory actions that will create high levels of understanding among antagonist groups, while Israel simultaneously returns seized lands to its opponents and allows for the creation of a Palestinian state. We need to do this without demanding anything in return in order to remove many of the reasons that cause international ill will against Israel and the United States.
   “If we’re successful in implementing the above steps we think that the possibility of a major conflict may diminish; terrorism may diminish, too, insofar as the radicalization of Muslim and Arab lessens, thereby substantially reducing the pool of potential terrorists. In the end, the probability of war likely will continue to exist, depending on how intransigent the remaining opposition will continue to be. But then, once the playing field clears out significantly, the U.S. will face far more propitious conditions. This means that the real enemy will be easier to identify, and there would likely be increasing cooperation from our allies and other nations, including Arab and Muslim governments, in the war against terror.
   “Actually, President Obama has taken the first step, quite a bold move in diplomacy, if I may add, by publicly addressing the Arab and Muslim world.”