After a promising beginning, the Obama administration’s policies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have reverted to the US norm—essentially unconditional support for Israel’s follies. In particular, Obama’s UN speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was dreadful. But while outrage is fully justified, we should also recognize the fact that Obama—and therefore we on the left as well—are in an impossible dilemma.
Let us suppose that instead of saying all the wrong things, Obama were to say all the right ones. Let us further suppose that he didn’t merely say all the right things, he actually did the right things, at least insofar as he had the power to do so. Suppose he said that from this moment on, the Obama administration would end all its diplomatic, political and moral support of Israel until it agreed to the international consensus two-state settlement? What would be the consequences?
First, Congress would refuse to support him, and so the administration would be unable to end U.S. economic and military support of Israel, by far the most important components of potential U.S. leverage.
Second, as in the past the outcome of both the presidential and congressional elections could turn on just 2-3% (or indeed, much less) of the electoral vote. That means that there is a huge risk that the next presidency and both houses of Congress will come under the control of a Republican party that is dominated by know-nothings and the lunatic fringe. That is unbearable to contemplate—it could result in the worst crisis in American history since the Civil War.
Third—and this is really the clincher—I fear that Israel is so far gone that even if Obama said and did all the right things, even if he was reelected, and even if the Democrats controlled both houses of congress, it would not move Israel in the right direction.
In my view, the withdrawal of American support might well result in an Israel that would become even more irrational and violent than it already is. Do we really think that the settlers and the large numbers of Israelis that support them would give up? There is little chance that the increasingly hardline Israeli police and military would or could enforce an end to the occupation—on the contrary some Israeli analysts fear that a military coup against a government agreeing to end the occupation would be a real possibility.
Alternatively, rather than responding favorably to serious American and international pressures, it is at least as likely that Israelis would conclude that everyone is against them anyway, so the hell with them all.
If this assessment is right, then we are asking Obama to adopt policies which are likely to fail in Israel, but which could easily have disastrous consequences for our own country. In short, if I were in Obama’s shoes today, I fear I would grit my teeth and do pretty much the same as he is doing.
But what about after the elections—supposing Obama is reelected? Would that free him up to take on Israel and its supporters in the U.S? For one thing, many of the domestic constraints would remain. Moreover, suppose the problem is more deeply rooted than in what many believe to be Obama’s cynicism (though I have been making the case that it is probably more appropriate to view it as realism). That is, how do we know that Obama is not merely making hardnosed concessions to the American political realities, but is himself ignorant of the true history and realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Suppose he actually believes in—or, at least, half-believes in—his nonsensical and infuriating rhetoric? After all, not even domestic political realities mandated that he choose Dennis Ross as his primary adviser on Israel.
In any case, it is hard to envisage any realistic near or middle-term set of circumstances that would result in Israel agreeing to the international consensus two-state settlement. Many who share this assessment conclude that therefore the goal should be a one-state settlement. It is a puzzling argument: all the factors that have destroyed a two-state settlement make a one-state settlement even less likely to occur. That is, no one-state advocate has explained why and how the Israelis would agree to give up a Jewish state in which they are a large majority and hold all the important sources of political, economic, and military power in favor of a democratic binational state in which the Palestinians would be the majority.
What, then, to do? Despite my own bleak analysis, I find it unbearable to conclude that nothing at all can be done. Over the longer run, it is possible that an international BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) might succeed. As I have argued, it also might backfire, but that is just a risk that morally must be run, in the hope that the pariah status of Israel would result in the South African outcome rather than the Samson one.
In the shorter run, however, Israel is beyond saving, whether by itself or by the United States. Therefore, I don’t see any alternative to what Obama is doing: right now it is this country that needs to be saved from itself.
I think you have successfully argued that a tragic bloodbath is inevitable followed by the complete destruction of the state of Israel. The majority of the deaths will be arabs. A regional war of historic proportions will ensue, where many American lives will be lost, followed by a forced retreat back to our shores. There will most likely be nuclear exchanges as weel.
Most of the jews in Israel will emigrate (return) back to the US. The subsequent impact on our society will be devastating as the same players wield greater numbers in our politics – leading to our own destruction.
I don’t see a happy conclusion to this for anyone. Truman is undoubtedly spinning in his grave.
very, very good analysis, Jerry. Thanks.
Well, take a gander at the annual survey of Jewish American opinion regarding your subject matter. It appears they will vote mostly for either Obama or Romney; they are mostly Democrats or Independents. They hate Arabs, and would, I surmise mostly support Israel/US bombing of Iran. They think US is losing in Iraq & Afghanistan. They are a key swing vote in key states. They most significantly fund the Democratic Party, and are pretty big funders of the Republican Party too–most significantly, most of the really big moneybags are Israel Firsters. Read the poll results, and what do you get out of them? http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=846741&ct=11229303
Perry doing the Hora without a torah? Both Obama & all Republican candidates except Ron Paul have been doing this with their lips at every
GOP debate to date.
JFK was good at using the POTUS pulpit. Obama could dust off his Cairo Speech & speak over the heads of the PTB directly to the American people, laying out the facts regarding where our Israel First agenda has been taking us. But we know JFK, and Obama is no JFK (or Roosevelt, or Reagan).
“Therefore, I don’t see any alternative to what Obama is doing: right now it is this country that needs to be saved from itself.”
This is the price of taking a cartoonishly demonic view of Israel and ignoring all complexity in favor of simplistic sloganeering that passes for thought in your movement.
In the last few months, there have been massive social protests. Labor is experiencing a resurgence. Israelis support the two-state solution, as do American Jews.
In fact, BDS has no significant victory to its name. That’s because the entire movement is based on faulty premises. The first is that Israel is like South Africa – a state with no right to exist ruled by a people with no right to be there. In fact, Israel is the internationally recognized Jewish homeland. It has a population that is in large part from the Middle East. It has ruled democratically. It is respected throughout the West, if not loved.
It has also dealt with genocidal terrorists for nearly all of its existence, on its own. At the core of the “Palestinian-led” but Western-controlled BDS movement is an overwhelming hatred that mimics the antisemitic hatred that prevails in the Arab world. BDS is paternalistic neo-colonialism, yet another manifestation of Western activists doing for the Palestinians what they cannot or will not do for themselves. The idea that BDS is “Palestinian-led”, as if it wouldn’t exist if the Palestinians hadn’t asked for it, is uber-silly. BDS is a one-state solution show, an attempt by Western activists to impose an unpopular utopian solution on a faraway land.
BDS will continue to fail, just as political Naderism, based on the same premise that putting the population through suffering vis-a-vis a Republican President would lead to revolution and socialism.
The domestic political constraints faced by Obama are the result of Palestinian irredentism. The US Congress would not work against a solution if the parties were talking. One side has repeatedly agreed to talks in the last two years. That side is the Israeli side. The Palestinian side has insisted on new concessions that were never part of Oslo, and have little to do with real final status issues.
One day, both sides will come to an agreement, but it will not be due to the misguided efforts of the people here.
Jerome, I agree that it’s a bleak situation. Because of the power of the lobby in this country some kind of international action is required, but that’s not really very likely. It’s going to be a race–can Israel be stopped before Jewish money shifts from Wall St. to the Chinese banking sector.
(I notice that you’re not counting on Phil’s dream–that American Jews will re-define Jewishness in a more communal spirit.)