US-Israeli Relations After the Election

[ag]

Frankly, I do not see at this point any compelling American interest in the region. If I were Obama I would simply ignore Israel. Of course, ignoring it would also imply abstaining on UNSC resolutions, etc. Let the Europeans take the lead, if they wish. US should just make it clear it is not interested.

BTW, this is not only about Israel, but also about, say, Egypt. US ability of making an impact there is negligible at this point. And, like Israel, it has no oil. So,...

[ag]

I expect things to get very ugly from here between Obama and Netanyahu.

However, everyone knows that Obama is on the way out and the next President will almost definitely be friendlier. So I imagine we're going to see a bipartisan effort to shut down Obama if he takes things too far. There's certain bells that can't be unrung and would force Israel to seek out new protection elsewhere, possibly from Russia. The Democrats will not allow that to happen.

Let Israel get all the support from Russia it wants. I can see how that would hurt Israel. But why would that hurt American interests at all?

[ag]

I would put the problem broader. What is the US interest in the Middle East? Well, I can see the importance of the uniterrupted oil supply. I can also see certain responsibility for Iraq: the current disaster there is a consequence of the US actions, so some reparation is required, but how it is done could be argued about. There is some interest in nuclear non-proliferation - but, frankly, that is a lost cause. Finally - perhaps most importantly - I can see US treaty obligations to Turkey. Beyond that there is a general spirit of aiding democracy throughout the world - but in that respect Middle East is no more pertinent than Africa or the Far East.

It could be argued that in none of this Israel figures much. Association with Israel has cost US dearly in its other goals and its international reputation. It is obvious that there is not much ideological or political affinity left, and Israeli ability of helping the US reaching its goals in the region or elsewhere is limited. All that is left is the domestic US politics. That, of course, would prevent any obvious break. But there is simply no reason to go beyond polite smiles and necessary diplomatic pleasantries. US should not take a lead on punishing Israel, or anything of that nature either. It should just stay out of the entire sorry business.

[ag]

Frankly, I do not see at this point any compelling American interest in the region. If I were Obama I would simply ignore Israel. Of course, ignoring it would also imply abstaining on UNSC resolutions, etc. Let the Europeans take the lead, if they wish. US should just make it clear it is not interested.

BTW, this is not only about Israel, but also about, say, Egypt. US ability of making an impact there is negligible at this point. And, like Israel, it has no oil. So,...

Most EU countries are increasingly pro-Palestinian. If the US backs down Israel is on its own.

...

Generally China, Japan and Western Europe have far greater interests in Middle Eastern oil than the US and the EU has an obvious interest in stability in its neighbouring areas.

All of them would be forced to create a more active Middle Eastern policy if the US withdrew. The Chinese response would be particularly interesting.

But Israel has nothing to do with Mideast oil - even for China.

The main international interest in Israel is, frankly, religious. If it were not for Jerusalem, nobody would care. Honestly, I think nobody should care.

[ag]

But Israel has nothing to do with Mideast oil - even for China.

The main international interest in Israel is, frankly, religious. If it were not for Jerusalem, nobody would care. Honestly, I think nobody should care.

I agree with you on an Israel related subject, what a shocking turn of events.

You agree in letter, but not in spirit We, probably, have completely the opposite implications in mind

[ag]

I expect things to get very ugly from here between Obama and Netanyahu.

However, everyone knows that Obama is on the way out and the next President will almost definitely be friendlier. So I imagine we're going to see a bipartisan effort to shut down Obama if he takes things too far. There's certain bells that can't be unrung and would force Israel to seek out new protection elsewhere, possibly from Russia. The Democrats will not allow that to happen.

Let Israel get all the support from Russia it wants. I can see how that would hurt Israel. But why would that hurt American interests at all?

America doesn't want other countries to get ahold of all the innovations Israel's tech sector designs for them.

And they certainly don't want them going to Russia.

Do not exaggerate those tech innovations - and do not exaggerate what Russia can do with them. And, obviously, if Israel does anything detrimental to US national security, it should be treated appropriately: even if there is no carrot, the stick would still be there.

[ag]

Also, finding it really funny to see liberals and progressives sitting around discussing what the appropriate punishment is for a sovereign state refusing to oust its leader on the order of the US President.

A foreign government openly trying to push out a country's leader causes a backlash of nationalism. Water is wet.

It gets harder and harder for Israel to claim the moral high ground when their leader openly states he does not want peace, and then is re-elected anyway.

Well, he never said he did not want peace. He would take an unconditional capitulation.

But, yeah, unfortunately, what he said in the campaign was heard. I doubt it would make much of a difference, but, perhaps, it would.

[ag]

Also, finding it really funny to see liberals and progressives sitting around discussing what the appropriate punishment is for a sovereign state refusing to oust its leader on the order of the US President.

A foreign government openly trying to push out a country's leader causes a backlash of nationalism. Water is wet.

So you don't think the United States should evaluate its relationship with a given country based on  how that country's government behaves toward the United States?

Elections have consequences. Your apologism for Netanyahu is yet more proof that you need to get rid of your New Jersey avatar because you clearly care more about Israel than you do about the United States.

Let me sum it up in a more traditional way. Israel has become bad for the Jews.

[ag]

Also, finding it really funny to see liberals and progressives sitting around discussing what the appropriate punishment is for a sovereign state refusing to oust its leader on the order of the US President.

A foreign government openly trying to push out a country's leader causes a backlash of nationalism. Water is wet.

The top countries for foreign aid. Jordan and Egypt are given the money simply for being relatively friendly to Israel. To stop funding the Israeli war machine is not punishing Israel.

Israel $3.1B
Afghanistan $1.59B
Egypt $1.51B
Pakistan $880M
Nigeria $720M
Jordan $670M

I would keep the aid to Jordan: they will need it. Egypt should have been cut off completely after the coup, anyway.

[ag]

Netanyahu has just sent the message that Israel does not want peace and does not want to negotiate.

He's just given the Palestinians an opening to throw up their hands once and for all and act unilaterally. The US response to Palestine's push for greater international recognition is that their statehood should come through negotiations with Israel. But Israel will not negotiate.

I'd expect more EU countries will go the way of Sweden and establish full diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine. You may see a push for economic sanctions on Israel, similar to the ones imposed on South Africa in the 1980s. Israel will continue down the path of right wing identity politics and insist that they are only defending themselves against "terrorists" - not unlike South Africa's fever paranoia about how the blacks were going to turn the place into a Soviet satellite.

Things will get worse for Israel's Arab population. As the Orthodox community and the settler community grow in political power, Netanyahu and whoever succeeds him will likely keep doubling down on current policies.

Israel's future as a fortified, isolated pariah state was already foreshadowed with Netanyahu's rhetoric. His nonsensical ramblings about "foreign influence" seeking to undermine him during the election sounded more like something a Third World despot would say before a ceremonial sham election than anything you'd hear from the leader of a country that likes to think it's a Western democracy.

Obama should instruct Samantha Power to abstain from any UN Security Council votes relating to Israel for the rest of his term. If the Israeli people want to reelect a man who comes to America, embarrasses our president and rhetorically spits in our face, they no longer deserve any protection from the heaping of scorn and retribution that the international community has been wanting to unleash on them.

Elections have consequences. Israel voted for it and now they deserve to get it good and hard.

I generally agree with you. Although, I am afraid, the last sentence is too optimistic.

[ag]

So, these are the editorial and op-ed pages of the NYTimes from the last couple days. This does reflect SOME thinking (and on the Middle east I would take Friedman a lot more seriously than on the shape of the planet in general):

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/opinion/thomas-friedman-bibi-will-make-history.html?ref=opinion
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/opinion/go-ahead-ruin-my-day.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthomas-l-friedman&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Collection&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/opinion/abetting-egypts-dictatorship.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/opinion/an-israeli-election-turns-ugly.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/opinion/netanyahus-win-is-good-for-palestine.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[ag]

Israel $3.1B
Afghanistan $1.59B
Egypt $1.51B
Pakistan $880M
Nigeria $720M
Jordan $670M

Countries that do as we tell them and deserve their allowance:
Egypt
Nigeria
Jordan

Egypt should have been cut off long ago. It is a horrid dictatorship.

[ag]

Israel $3.1B
Afghanistan $1.59B
Egypt $1.51B
Pakistan $880M
Nigeria $720M
Jordan $670M

Countries that do as we tell them and deserve their allowance:
Egypt
Nigeria
Jordan

Egypt should have been cut off long ago. It is a horrid dictatorship.

But it's a dictatorship that does things we want/need them to do. It's only when they outlive their usefulness that they become a problem. Example: 1980s Saddam Hussein versus 2003 Saddam Hussein

They do not. They are, actually, a problem.

[ag]

Would removing the military aid do that much? Israel could crush the Palestinians even without it.

The military aid isn't the most important thing. It's the diplomatic shield from the strongly anti-Israel UN and EU. Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

Nobody can "legislate" Israel out of existence, except, of course, for Israel itself. UN is not a "world legislature", nor does it pretend to be. And if a self-acknowledged Apartheid state does not receive much international support, it has only itself to blame.

[ag]

Would removing the military aid do that much? Israel could crush the Palestinians even without it.

It will not. Removing aid to Egypt would have a bigger impact - also on Israel.

[ag]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

Jews are a majority in Israel, they have a stronger position since the democracy argument is less powerful. Israel also does not have racism enshrined in their constitution despite all the apartheid hyperbole. If the   existence of Israel was really threatened I would still expect most Western governments to back it.

The problem is not Israel. The problem is Israel + territories. If there is no two-state solution, there has to be a one-state solution. And one-state solution means Jewish majority that is, at best, tenuous.

[ag]

Would removing the military aid do that much? Israel could crush the Palestinians even without it.

It will not. Removing aid to Egypt would have a bigger impact - also on Israel.

I'm sure someone out there would enjoy seeing the Egyptians get spanked again. Maybe this time the IDF won't stop at the Suez.

Anyway, the point if removing military aid to Israel isn't about Israel but rather something much simpler: It saves the U.S. some money.

Negligible savings. Should be used up in Ukraine, anyway

[ag]

Israel would likely find itself backed up against a corner by hostile powers looking to legislate it out of existence without the US' support.

South Africa spent over a decade in the same place, so don't expect overnight results.

The world hates Israel a hell of a lot more than they did South Africa and their demands are a lot less reasonable.

This is completely not true.

[ag]

Israel inside the 1967 border is an ethnic democracy (with some liberal traits), this naturally creates tension with liberal values. I wouldn't call it an apartheid (as opposed to what's happening in the West Bank) but the institutionalized discrimination of Arabs in land ownership will be considered racist by liberal standards.

Israel inside the 1967 borders is fine: very good, in fact, by Mideastern standards. That is not setting the bar too high - but, then, it is up to Israelis to set it higher. As a foreigner, I see no problem there whatsoever. In fact, most countries in the world are, probably, more problematic.

The problem is, Israel is not inside its 1967 borders. As long as that was plausibly argued to be a temporary state of affairs, it was reasonable to judge Israel by the standards of what it was inside the 1967 borders. But PM Netanyahu has announced to everyone that it is NOT a temporary state of affairs. Well, that means we can no longer judge Israel by what it is inside the 1967 borders, but have to take the whole thing, including the West Bank and Gaza bantustans. And cummulatively, we are getting something that is not at all fine, but is, indeed, an apartheid state.

[ag]

I tend to support citizenship and full rights for the West Bank Palestinians, at least for those who want it.

YOU may support this. But few Israelis would - and, really, nobody with power on Israeli side has ever proposed it.

The reason, of course, being that this would mean close to 2.5 mln. of additional Arab citizens of the state. That would, of course, imply that a combined state of around 10 mln. people would have around 4 mln. Arabs - that is, 40% of the population (and growing, for demographic reasons). True, many of these would be kids and a small faction would be the Druze, but that is not going to change the long-term calculus much.

Given that even the relatively well-integrated Israeli Arabs are not voting for the Zionist parties anymore, it is extremely likely that the first post-integration Knesset would have, at least, 40 Arab representatives. Within a few decades, their number is likely to grow to, perhaps, 50. At that point, this is either a democracy or a Jewish state - but cannot be both, really. As simple as that.

I myself, would, of course, be absolutely fine with that state being a multi-ethnic democracy. But I am not an Israeli. And few Israeli Jews I know would think that to be fine. But, fortunately or unfortunately, unless a two-state solution happens reasonably soon, the one-state solution may become inevitable.

[ag]

As for the idea that there is zero racism in the Jewish constitution, I submit that their Law of Return is an inherently racist piece of legislation.

I would relax on that. Even democratic modern Germany, whatever its history, has accepted "ethnic Germans" from the former USSR and other places based on "blood". That is not a particularly Israeli problem. We should not hold that state to a standard that is higher than the one we hold the others to.

[ag]

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable.

I am afraid, it is a lot less. May be, 10 years before it is nearly inevitable, another 20 years after that before it is implemented.

Even if the blocks near Jerusalem, etc. get annexed in exchange for chunks of, say, Negev, too many people would have to either be moved or accept staying in Palestine. And, I am afraid, many of them would be willing to fight.

[ag]

I tend to support citizenship and full rights for the West Bank Palestinians, at least for those who want it.

YOU may support this. But few Israelis would - and, really, nobody with power on Israeli side has ever proposed it.

The current president of Israel has proposed it.

He has no power.

[ag]

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable.

I am afraid, it is a lot less. May be, 10 years before it is nearly inevitable, another 20 years after that before it is implemented.

Even if the blocks near Jerusalem, etc. get annexed in exchange for chunks of, say, Negev, too many people would have to either be moved or accept staying in Palestine. And, I am afraid, many of them would be willing to fight.

I am fully confident in the IDF's ability to batter the settlements as hard as it batters Gaza.

Assuming chunks of it do not defect. There many thosands of servicemen resident in the settlements that would have to be evacuated. This might, actually, start a civil war.

[ag]

Agree for the most part with what you wrote, with just one qualifier: I would say that we have at least fifty years, at minimum of building in the West Bank before a binational state truly becomes inevitable.

I am afraid, it is a lot less. May be, 10 years before it is nearly inevitable, another 20 years after that before it is implemented.

Even if the blocks near Jerusalem, etc. get annexed in exchange for chunks of, say, Negev, too many people would have to either be moved or accept staying in Palestine. And, I am afraid, many of them would be willing to fight.

I am fully confident in the IDF's ability to batter the settlements as hard as it batters Gaza.

Assuming chunks of it do not defect. There many thosands of servicemen resident in the settlements that would have to be evacuated. This might, actually, start a civil war.

No more than a few hundred thousand would have to actually be evacuated. A rebellion possibly (though once again I think the senior officer corps is intelligent enough to know to crack down hard. Junior officers are more likely to be problems though.

Do you realise what is involved in evacuating a few hundred thousand of unwilling people? Gaza was, what, 7 thousand? Kiryat Arba alone is bigger than all 21 settlements in Gaza together.

That IS the problem. Evacuation, even a very limited one, would have to be a tough military operation, which, as likely as not, would cause something approximating a major rebellion. There will be ample scenes of Israeli troups using violence - possibly deadly violence - against "good Jewish kids and grandmothers". Will Israeli public tolerate those images? How many soldiers will refuse their orders? And even if they do, will Israel stay a democracy after such an experience?

An alternative, of course, would be to negotiate that those who stay become Palestinian citizens. Could that be done? Perhaps. But, then, would the settlers just acknowledge the new state of the world, or would they rebell against the new Palestinian authorities? As likely as not they will fight. Would Palestinians be willing to take that risk?

This is all becoming increasingly difficult to resolve. The two-state solution is even today going to be very traumatic. But the one-state solution will end Israel as we know it.  Another 10 years of settlement expansion, though, and it may be the only feasible solution, I am afraid. Unless, of course, you count creation of permanent Bantustans as a solution.