US-Israeli Relations After the Election

[Dan the Roman]

This entire thread is absurd. Israel does not have to do anything. The simple fact is that Israel holds all the cards in any potential settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, just as the Croatians held all the cards in any agreement on the future of Serbs within Croatia post-1995, by virtue of winning the war. In the case of Israel, it not only beat the Arabs once, but repeatedly, and most recently it has thrice crushed Palestinian uprisings to the extent that Palestinian resistance poses less threat to Israel internally than Islamic extremism does to France.

Furthermore, Israelis, or at least a majority of them, have nowhere to retreat to. Recent developments in Europe will serve to convince a majority of Israelis who matter that Europe is intrinsically anti-Semitic, and the only people who care about Israeli lives will be Israelis, meaning that absolutely anything is justified to maintain their security. Yes some on the Israeli left may say that Israel's actions are provoking that reaction in Europe, but they are a fringe domestically. And ironically, the more Europe tries to pressure Israel, the more vindicated will be those who say that Israelis cannot retreat one inch no matter what the moral or physical cost to anyone else. As a consequence, European pressure is likely to make Israelis less likely to make concessions to the Palestinians, or god forbid, endanger national survival through allowing a binational state.

Finally, Israel is in a stronger position internationally than it has ever been. In the 1970s Israel was isolated and the combination of Eastern Bloc and Islamic hostility meant that there literally were three or four countries with whom it had relations. Today, Israel no longer looks like an occupier to the vast majority of the world, as major non-Western powers such as Russia, India(under the BJP), and China all have serious problems with their Islamic muslim minorities and have no desire to create a universal precedent. At the same time, the Palestinians, with their knack for picking the wrong side in every single conflict throughout their history(the Nazis, the Soviets, Saddam Hussein) are seen as aligned with two of the most polarizing groups in the region, or at least Hamas is, namely the Muslim Brotherhood and Erdogan's Turkey. Whatever Egypt, Saudi Arabia's, or though they will not admit this, Iran's thoughts about Israel, they have no desire to see a Muslim Brotherhood/Turkish/Isis base on their borders, which is exactly what any potential Palestinian state in current circumstances would be. So basically, Israel's isolation, to the extent it exists, is largely confined to Western liberals who have become much more anti-Israel in recent years due to Netanyahu's incompetence, but this shift has come at a time when Europe has never been more irrelevant to Israel's future, except insofar as Israeli leftists want to feel part of Europe culturally, but again they don't govern Israel. It is highly amusing for people on this thread and elsewhere to act as though not letting 35% of those who live within your military control vote is somehow some sort of anachronistic situation for a government in the 21st century when a huge number of countries do exactly that. I mean even the Baltics  which are EU members do so to 20% or so on the grounds of national security.

 A single-state is an impossibility. It would be national suicide for Israel, and the only circumstance in which it would be possible, an Arab military victory, it would not be on the agenda of anyone. This conflict will end one of two ways - a settlement with the Palestinians on Israel's terms in which they will get internal autonomy in nominally independent protectorates, or in their removal. The latter would mark a permanent break with Europe and with the Left in the United States, but public opinion in the US is such that under a Republican Administration American reaction would not go beyond verbal, and maybe limitations on aid. And Israel would have plenty of friends in a Modi-ruled India, and China.

But Western Lefties have no say or influence on how this conflict will end, and for them to try and threaten Israel, or engage in wishful thinking about consequences is absurd.

[Dan the Roman]

Israel did win, but they can not get away with an ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and without it they risk minority status in the long run + they risk getting the South African treatment from the world community.

The idea that India and China should have an interest in supporting Israel over Arab countries is absurd. Both countries need oil.

The Arab world is fading in terms of its importance to global oil markets. And if you have been paying attention, the Arab world isn't that interested in a Palestinian state right now. At least not any of the Oil producers. Hamas is aligned with Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood, and they have zero faith in the PA to hold them off. It is safer for the Saudis and Gulf States to have Israel in military control of Gaza and the West Bank than to risk Hamas getting it.

[Dan the Roman]

Also worth noting that Netanyahu invited Modi to Israel when neither the US nor the UK would let him in. He remembers that.

[Dan the Roman]

Israel did win, but they can not get away with an ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and without it they risk minority status in the long run + they risk getting the South African treatment from the world community.

The idea that India and China should have an interest in supporting Israel over Arab countries is absurd. Both countries need oil.

The Arab world is fading in terms of its importance to global oil markets. And if you have been paying attention, the Arab world isn't that interested in a Palestinian state right now. At least not any of the Oil producers. Hamas is aligned with Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood, and they have zero faith in the PA to hold them off. It is safer for the Saudis and Gulf States to have Israel in military control of Gaza and the West Bank than to risk Hamas getting it.

Not fading fast enough for that to matter. China currently imports more oil from the Gulf than any other country.

Not being pro-Palestinian does not translate into supporting a pariah state like Israel. Israel is unfortunately too unpopular by this point for non-Western powers to support them - especially Muslim countries.

What evidence is there for this? Israel has had unparalleled security cooperation with China and India over the last year. India has abandoned Congress' traditional Pro-Palestinian third world solidarity position for one in which it treats the Palestinian issue as an internal Israeli security matter. China is busy signing trade treaties. And Israeli security cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Egypt is the closest it has ever been, see the story from about two years back about Israeli security officials being spotted in Jeddah.

I really don't get this "Israel is a pariah" thing that has sprung up on parts of the European and American left except insofar as it seems to be a product of the same thing that has produced the revival in identity politics, namely the fact that Vox/Tumblr have convinced certain people that they represent far more than they actually do.

Israel is the strongest and least isolated it has ever been diplomatically in terms of its relations with the Non-Western world currently.

Now in terms of international pariahs, you might want to look at the thread about how Sweden does seem to have turned itself into one in a large part of the world. Islamic nations seem to be showing far more outrage at the Swedes this week than they have a reaction to Netanyahu's reelection.

[Dan the Roman]

Dan, I am a live long Zionist and I tell you that Israel is unfortunately in serious trouble and risk global isolation. Apart from the US it has no real allies of any strength and no chance of getting any. It is simply not a valuable ally and supporting Israel costs too much. You do not have to be a "liberal" or have an ounch of sympathy for the Palestinians to see that. Denying reality is no use.

I am not. I am contesting a very Euro-centric view of reality, as someone who does a lot of work in East and South Asia as well as in energy. There is a massive gap between the way Israel's isolation has been talked about the last few days in the Western media and the reality I have seen on the ground for the last year.

Modi rushed to congratulate Netanyahu in effusive terms.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Indian-PM-Modi-congratulates-Netanyahu-in-Hebrew-394363

India now is sourcing its spare parts from Israel
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/india-has-started-sourcing-sukhoi-spares-directly-from-israel-france-parrikar/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Israel-offers-top-notch-military-technologies-for-Make-in-India-endeavour/articleshow/46307051.cms

If you even want to look at online comments, pretty much all of them in Indian newspaper articles on the Israeli elections are Pro-Israel

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/israel-elections-netanyahu-s-back-and-what-s-in-it-for-india/article1-1327694.aspx

As for the rest of Asia
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/02/israels-asian-allies

[Dan the Roman]

The idea that a European colonial project (the way Israel is perceived in most of the world) would have much sympathy outside Europe... Well that is brave.

Yes, Modi will be friendly - in a vague general way. He is strongly anti-Muslim, and that dominates a lot for him. But India does not, really, have a foreign policy that extends to beyond Pakistan and China. Nor does it show many signs of developing one. So, perhaps, it will abstain at the UN when a particularly strong resolution is voted on. Do not count on much more than that: Israel is simply too far away and of too little strategic interest to do too much. China will not endanger its supplies, and that means it will not do anything that would enrage its suppliers. Everywhere else outside of the "white" world Israel remains toxic - far more so than it is in Europe. And going the bantustan way (which seems to be the only alternative Israel is putting on the table now) will make it even more toxic.

This is a misreading of how the Palestinian issue is now viewed. It is only viewed as a "white" "colonial" project in the West and by a fading Ashkenazi left. A majority of Israeli Jews came from the Arab world. To them there is no "Palestinian" people. There are Arabs who happen to live in a Jewish state, just as there were Jews in a Muslim state, and just as it was sad but natural for Jews to be forced to leave Arab states, it is only sensible, just, and fair for the Arabs to leave the Jewish state for an Arab one. Israel is not white. The Israeli Left is "white" and arguably from Europe, and that is as much a problem for it with Israeli voters as it is for anyone else, since they have failed to expand to the poorer Sephardim and Russians. But the days of Israel being seen as "white racists" are the 1970s, not today, except for those stuck in that period. And South Africa is a poor example. Whites were 15% of the population, not 70%. If your waiting for demographics you can wait a few centuries, and again, Egypt and Saudi Arabia will never push for elections that Turkish/Brotherhood props have a strong chance of winning, whether for a Palestinian Parliament or a Knesset. Most regional governments have had quite enough of democracy for the foreseeable future, at least of the open, one-man, one-vote kind.

Netanyahu's brilliance has been to recast the conflict in these terms. It is not about a national movement anymore. Rather it is about a secessionist movement by a violent, disloyal, and for those it matters to, Islamic minority. And those are terms that everyone else on the planet understands, and no one wants anything to do with. China and Russia may back a national movement, but they will never, ever back international action in support of a secessionist minority, nor will a large majority of the globe, much less to fight over definitions of what degree of minority representation qualifies as sufficent. Can you imagine Myanmar or Sri Lanka getting on board with that?

Obama, and those who condemn Israel are living 15 years out of date when the value that was important globally was "Justice". Justice however has appeared to anarchy, hence why the new value is "Order", see the reactions to the Brotherhood in Egypt, every election protest in Africa and Latin America, Isis, etc. And Israel, whatever its flaws, stands for "Order". Palestinian has been a synonym for anarchy and chaos even within the Arab world for decades, and the Palestinian issue is irredeemable linked to it. Most governments are dreadfully sick of it by now, and address it to the extent public opinion(which is more scared of the Brotherhood and Fundamentalism in Egypt than angry at Israel) and the outside world force them to. If Israel can keep the issue on deep freeze in collusion with the USA, then they will be happy to ignore European and scattered Latin American protests. The former insist on whining about their treatment of internal fundamentalist opponents, and the latter are seen as Iranian stooges.

Meanwhile, security cooperation against international Islamic groups is bringing states like Kenya, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Tunisia, Azerbaijan and the Philippines into a position where they have no desire for sanctions on Israel, and even less appreciation for European opinions.

The USA could matter here, as its place in the Security Council allows it to do Russia and China's dirty work while they abstain, but if there was a serious effort to establish any sort of binding sanctions or precedents for them, they would block them on the basis of "National Sovereignty", and evade them if somehow imposed.

Things have changed, but not in the way people here think. Netanyahu, for all his dickery, gets the world as it exists in 2015, and the Middle East far better.

[Dan the Roman]

This is false. The PLO was committed to the end of Israel as an entity, not to expulsion of the Jews. Jews in Palestine was a fait accompli for the PLO since its creation.

Tell that to the Jewish population that was ethnically cleansed in the 1930s, and post 1947. Or the 800K Jews cleansed from the Arab world.

[Dan the Roman]

This is false. The PLO was committed to the end of Israel as an entity, not to expulsion of the Jews. Jews in Palestine was a fait accompli for the PLO since its creation.

Tell that to the Jewish population that was ethnically cleansed in the 1930s, and post 1947. Or the 800K Jews cleansed from the Arab world.

1930s ethnic cleansing: the Germans' fault
Post-1947 expulsions: the Moroccans', Iraqis', Egyptians', Syrians', Iranians' and Yemenis' fault

Please explain why you think the Palestinian people "owe" these Jews from other parts of the world anything or why their expulsion, regrettable and inappropriate as it was, is in any way their fault.

No more than the Germans in Poland or Czechoslovakia "owed" the Poles anything. There was a population exchange which settled an outstanding(for centuries) ethnic conflict which was impossible to resolve otherwise which was morally in retaliation for previous ethnic cleansing by Germans from Germany.

Jews lived in Arab states and Arabs lived in Jewish states pre-20th century. That clearly became impossible post 1947, and the Arab states expelled their Jews, and since they are incapable of living together in a form that involves the continued existence of a Jewish state where Jews can live, it only makes sense that Israel resettle the Jews expelled from Arab states where the Arabs that left Israel used to live. Then the Arabs who don't want to live in Israel and be a minority in someone else's state can move into the Arab-run countries where the Jews used to live.

It is unfair on an individual level certainly, but so have been every population exchange throughout history. It is in no way unfair on a national level. The Arabs who lived in the territories that are now Israel have no more innate claim to them than the Jews who used to live in the territories that are now Egypt or Syria have to them, or the Germans who used to live in Poland have to Silesia. And if on an individual level they had good relations with their neighbors they would have been allowed to stay anyhow as many Israeli Arabs did after 1948. But their remaining should be on an individual level with a recognition that they want to be Israeli.

[Dan the Roman]

Most Israeli arguments rely on treating the Arabs as a single unified nation. I would say this was disingenuous but then again, they treat the Jews as a single nation as well, so maybe it's not. It's still pretty dumb though. Palestinian Arabs are not Moroccan Arabs, they cannot be held accountable for each  others actions, at the individual level OR the "national" level.

Of course they are not. But while this is a dispute over land ownership rights, I reject the idea that the land in question creates a nationality where none existed, anymore than Hungarians in Romania or Germans in Silesia were independent nations, rather than Germans or Hungarians who happened to live outside of Germany's borders. I also reject the idea on the Israeli side of any sort of biblical or historical claim - where Israel is happens to be incidental to the fact that it is where it currently is located and has the borders which it has. The question is how to make that situation as functional as possible.

I understand completely why people do not want to live in someone else's national state, as well as why people want to live in their own national state. But the solution to that is not to deny Jews their national state, and there would only be an argument for that if there were not plenty of Arab national states around. But I find the fixation on the West Bank as some sort of sacred "national" land incomprehensible. It is first and foremost territory. If the issue is wanting to live in an Arab state, then it is possible to move. If the issue is compensation, it can be provided on an individual basis as it was for decades in Israel, or in the form of compensation. But the insistence that Palestinians want an Arab national state, that they want it to encompass territory they do not control, and that they want to set the conditions on which those who actually control the territory can remain and live there under is delusional lunacy given the reality on the ground and makes any rational solution impossible. The Copts were in Egypt before the Arabs, but for them to demand a Coptic state encompassing  Egyptian territory in which Judaism would be treated at best as a tolerated minority, and in exchange they might allow a third or so of Egypt's Arab population to remain they would be laughed at.

[Dan the Roman]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

They have to win elections after Obama. Schumer had a lot more to lose when he stepped up in 2010.

If Obama just keeps yelling, they'll likely let it be. If he actually moves on to punitive actions, he'll be exposed for the irrelevant lame duck he is.

The democrats do not lose issues based on Israel. Obama could certainly support the UNSC resolution and nothing bad would happen to him within his own party.

Bigger concern is veto overrides on aid and/or additional Iran sanctions. I would have thought that impossible 36 hours ago, but Obama seems to have abandoned any effort to try and allow Netanyahu to hang himself in favor of playing to a negative caricature of himself.

Democrats in congress could not support the sort of sentiments expressed above publicly even if they did share them, and I doubt very many do. The only way they can justify not supporting efforts to overturn Obama's policy is if he gives them political cover to claim they are protecting the executive prerogative in foreign affairs during a sensitive time. That requires Obama to give the impression that his Administration is showing at least a minimal degree of subtlety and judgement, both of which are currently lacking, replaced with a poor imitation of a jilted 15 year old girl.

[Dan the Roman]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

They have to win elections after Obama. Schumer had a lot more to lose when he stepped up in 2010.

If Obama just keeps yelling, they'll likely let it be. If he actually moves on to punitive actions, he'll be exposed for the irrelevant lame duck he is.

The democrats do not lose issues based on Israel. Obama could certainly support the UNSC resolution and nothing bad would happen to him within his own party.

If the Republicans refuse to fund the UN due to Obama's position on an issue where 60-70% of the US public disagrees with him, that is absolutely something his party will have to deal with.

They're not going to go to bat for him on a losing issue while he's on his way out.

You seem to be of the opinion that people will care. Americans don't care about foreign policy unless there's a war, and even then not always.

Works both ways though. Equally easy to spin it as "why does Obama care so much about these terrorists that he is willing to shut down the government?"

What exactly is the WH line here anyway? We know what the GOP line is, which is that Iran can't be trusted, and Khamenei reinforced that pretty directly with his "Death to America" thing this weekend. Granted it lacks an alternative policy on Iran, but the issue here isn't so much the policy, not least because as far as I can tell there isn't one, but the complete and utter lack of anything that resembles messaging. Given how poorly this is being set up, it would be political malpractice not to pick a fight here if the congressional GOP can figure out how.

[Dan the Roman]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/denis-mcdonough-benjamin-netanyahu-israeli-occupation-116319.html?cmpid=sf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Netanyahu's finally done it. For the moment, he's bludgeoned away unfettered US support.

A hostile US administration that has been targeting this government since minute one means nothing about overall US support. Israel's poll numbers - and even Netanyahu's - are high as they've ever been.

What'll be interesting is if the Democrats are willing to step up against Obama like they were in 2010.

Do not delude yourself. This is not happening

They have to win elections after Obama. Schumer had a lot more to lose when he stepped up in 2010.

If Obama just keeps yelling, they'll likely let it be. If he actually moves on to punitive actions, he'll be exposed for the irrelevant lame duck he is.

The democrats do not lose issues based on Israel. Obama could certainly support the UNSC resolution and nothing bad would happen to him within his own party.

If the Republicans refuse to fund the UN due to Obama's position on an issue where 60-70% of the US public disagrees with him, that is absolutely something his party will have to deal with.

They're not going to go to bat for him on a losing issue while he's on his way out.

You seem to be of the opinion that people will care. Americans don't care about foreign policy unless there's a war, and even then not always.

Works both ways though. Equally easy to spin it as "why does Obama care so much about these terrorists that he is willing to shut down the government?"

What exactly is the WH line here anyway? We know what the GOP line is, which is that Iran can't be trusted, and Khamenei reinforced that pretty directly with his "Death to America" thing this weekend. Granted it lacks an alternative policy on Iran, but the issue here isn't so much the policy, not least because as far as I can tell there isn't one, but the complete and utter lack of anything that resembles messaging. Given how poorly this is being set up, it would be political malpractice not to pick a fight here if the congressional GOP can figure out how.

We're not talking about Iran though.

And quite frankly, Khameini can say what he wants. So long as he doesn't get nuclear weapons, what do we care? Besides he'll be dead in two years anyway.

If you're still pushing for regime change regardless of nukes, then I suspect you will not get American support. This is not 2003.

Oh but I meant that scuttling an Iran deal would be the easiest way for Congress to retaliate for executive actions at the UN or elsewhere.