by publius
As I mentioned earlier, I really enjoyed the New America panel this morning (“Can the Next President Make the Middle East Irrelevant?”). There were several interesting takeaways, but I’ll try to limit them to one post at a time.
Frankly, I think Zogby made one of the most thoughtful observations (Zogby is on the left in the picture, Daniel Levy is to the right). Another panelist (Levy) had sharply criticized the Bush administration’s “7 years of disengagement” with Israel and Palestine. Zogby noted, however, that disengagement must also be conceptualized as acquiescence. In other words, it’s not merely that the US has ignored the region. It’s that the US has turned a blind apathetic eye to things like settlement construction, Lebanon, etc.
The problem, Zogby explained, is that this acquiescence (or at least perceived acquiescence) has poisoned the street, thus making political progress impossible. And social conditions matter — the civil rights movement taught us that. Both Brown v. Board and the 1964 Act were made possible because of the tireless work of activists who created the necessary conditions for dramatic legislative progress. I would guess that anti-abortion activists feel the same way — their activism is necessary to create the social conditions to overturn Roe. In short, whatever your politics may be, shaping social conditions is important.
Turning back to the Middle East, it’s important not to overlook the role that these “pre-existing conditions” play in the peace process. If they’re not where they need to be, then the leaders are structurally powerless to make change happen, no matter how badly they may want to.
With this in mind, we can understand more precisely why an Obama presidency could move the peace process along. It’s not that Obama could walk in and negotiate a peace deal. It’s that an Obama presidency would provide a brief fleeting window to get social conditions moving the right way. When he is elected, the Arab street might be willing to give him a listen. Obama could — if so inclined — get the longer-term motion going.
But it will take more than speeches. There needs to be some real action — action that actually constrains Israel in some way (e.g., getting serious about settlement construction). If Obama fails to act (which is what the underground sliming is presumably meant to prevent), then absolutely nothing will change — which is bad news for ALL countries. After all, an Obama presidency means nothing in and of itself to these people. It only takes on meaning if Obama can take the brief window he’ll enjoy to do something to shift the social conditions.
In principle, I agree with your argument, but only up to the last step. Thinking about it, I think that Obama might well not be in any position to do anything bold there, not if he wants to get re-elected in 4 years.
Only Nixon can go to China, a dude with a Muslim name probably can’t push the Israelis harder than Carter or Clinton did. Unless the Israelis get knocked back on their asses a bit; the period after the recent Lebanon disaster might have been a good opportunity wasted , although I suppose that might not be the case given the poor shape of Israeli politics at the time.
Without making any value judgments of the merits of either side’s case, as a mechanical principle I think that a party as dominant as Israel is has little if any incentive to negotiate, for whatever long-term benefits may accrue, the short-term will be necessarily worse than the situation currently imposed by force.
Not holding my breath.
OT but not far: Will retired Rear Adm. Hutson’s single-word reference be the only occasion during the entire convention when a speaker criticizes the Bush-Cheney administration’s policy of torture?
I’m betting yes, but wanting to lose the bet.
byrningman: “Only Nixon can go to China, a dude with a Muslim name probably can’t push the Israelis harder than Carter or Clinton did.”
“Only Nixon can go to China” is a phrase that should probably be launched into the depths of space, it can be used in so many contradictory situations. Nixon “could go to China” — meaning he could take the domestic political heat for recognizing a Communist regime — because his constituents saw him as a hard-line anti-Communist. It wasn’t about whether the Chinese thought he was a friend of China. Your analogy seems to translate to “A guy with a Muslim [sic] name will be seen by the Israelis as unfriendly toward Israel, so he won’t be able to negotiate with Israel” — which is sort of backwards or inside-out from the Nixon example.
Are you saying that the Israeli government is so dumb and xenophobic, in an American style, that they won’t listen to the guy because of his middle name? Or are you saying that the idea of a sorta-kinda-maybe-Muslimish-in-another-life President demanding concessions from Israel will set off a chorus of b.s. outrage back in the U.S… and that this will cause Obama to just give up?(*) Or what?
(* Unfortunately, I’m sure the first part is true: the b.s. chorus is probably in rehearsal right now. But the idea that Obama would hear this and think “Oh no, they don’t like me,” and simply lose the will to push ahead even if the Israelis were willing to engage… that’s a testable theory about Obama’s character, not some kind of iron law of politics.)
what byrningman said.
Plus, really trying to constrain the Israelis is a recipe for a kamikaze presidency. The kind of presidency that becomes easy to attack and doesn’t get anything else done. …and since the benefits of the approach leading to a positive cycle are speculative at this point, what are the odds that anyone who makes it to the presidency would want to take this gamble?
And for all the crap you’ll catch in US domestic politics for trying to constrain the Israelis, the Israeli….and Palestinian constraints are even worse. Your own people first diss you and then try to kill you if you show flexibility or make concessions.
Middle East peace is a three-key system. I’ll grant the US is one of the keys but do we want to bet national healthcare, infrastructure investment and other priorities when turning the American key still doesn’t guarantee a turning of the Israeli and Palestinian keys.
BTW, I wish it were easy for US leadership to convincingly press all the parties and I wish that would settle the issue. But I think this remains a possibility in the world of “ought” not “is”
what are the odds that anyone who makes it to the presidency would want to take this gamble?
The counterbalance might be the desire to carve out some historic achievement to mark their presidency. I’ve whined about Bill Clinton’s behavior, but I have to note that it probably requires someone with that kind of ego to wade in there, which is perhaps selected for by the way we end up choosing presidential candidates. Obama probably has enough ego to try it, but only if there are personalities in the mix that he could work with.
responding to Hob at 8:11,
Hob, I think byrningman means AIPAC and the Jewish vote. Tho one of these days, someone is going to notice that we’re only 2% of the country and stop listening to us at all…
Anyway, I disagree w/ byrningman. I have heard a lot more Jews more nervous about Obama than about any Democratic nominee ever, and it is in part about the middle name (but more about his tolerance of Farrakhan, friendship with Palestinian activist Rasheed Khalidi, guidance by Susan Powers, et al.) but willing to give him a chance. So he has an opportunity (one) to get it right, as Publius suggested.
That does not mean Obama should do just what Publius suggested:
“action that actually constrains Israel in some way (e.g., getting serious about settlement construction).”
To be precise, he cannot do ONLY that. All too often, I hear calls for action in or by this country directed only at Israel. Both sides in the conflict have been intransigent and in bad faith — and even if you disagree about that, accept the reality that Israel and its supporters perceive it that way. It doesn’t help a lot for the U.S. to get taken more seriously by the Palestinian street if Israel and its supporters here see it as turning sharply against Israel. Yes, the U.S. needs to get serious about restraining Israel — although it might be easier and help the Palestinians more to target the funneling of water resources to Israeli settlements, or the building of roadblocks and barriers between Palestinian blocs to support the settlements, than the settlements per se. But it needs to do this as part of a larger plan. It can’t just whack Israel upside the head with a 2X4 and expect a chastened Israel to make peace. Not only will that get Israel’s back up, it will embolden the Palestinians, who have never been remarkable for realism or peaceableness. A mix of sticks and carrots for both sides is needed.
I’m sure many will say that the U.S. is now helping Israel a lot, so even if it reins Israel in it will still be 90% on Israel’s side. Trust me when I say, that won’t help with the perception. If you change a status quo that one side perceives as pretty fair (i.e., U.S. support for Israel), the change itself has to be at least somewhat evenhanded.
I think Obama gets that. Certainly his rhetoric has none of the reflexive Palestinian boosterism I often hear on the left. I hope to he11 I’m right.
guidance by Susan Powers
Samantha Power, no ‘s’. But who’s counting?
As for this:
Certainly his rhetoric has none of the reflexive Palestinian boosterism I often hear on the left.
Talks about a straw man! “reflexive Palestinian boosterism” is just so common in Democratic candidates…
Howard Dean took a beating for the radical suggestion that U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine be evenhanded.
“OT but not far: Will retired Rear Adm. Hutson’s single-word reference be the only occasion during the entire convention when a speaker criticizes the Bush-Cheney administration’s policy of torture?”
Kerry talked about making sure the world knew that the “United States doesn’t torture,” but he seemed to say something about how it doesn’t do it now, as well as in future; I’ll have to see the transcript to be sure what he said, though.
Lt. General (ret) Kennedy is now giving an entire speech against torture.
“but more about his tolerance of Farrakhan”
Um, what?
“guidance by Susan Powers, et al”
What?
What the heck are you talking about?
“the Israeli….and Palestinian constraints are even worse. Your own people first diss you and then try to kill you if you show flexibility or make concessions.”
This is also too simplistically dumb to even discuss.
I wasn’t aware you believed that there were many Democratic candidates “on the left,” Nell. Apples and oranges.
Hob, I think byrningman means AIPAC and the Jewish vote. Tho one of these days, someone is going to notice that we’re only 2% of the country and stop listening to us at all…
Actually, your Craftiness, I think the Jewish vote lost control of the Israel issue some time ago! There’s a much more substantial virulently pro-Israel lobby out there than just Jewish folk, and a lot more knee jerk than just about anyone with any real personal investment in the issue every would be. Like our good friend John McCain, blessed with the stalwart conviction of total ignorance.
Not to forget the ‘Groß-Israel is the necessary fuse for the desired Armageddon bomb! Don’t dare meddling with it!’ crowd. Not that these people would vote Democratic but they have powerful megaphones.
Trilobite: All too often, I hear calls for action in or by this country directed only at Israel.
Yeah – those damn Palestinian kids, they should quit getting in the way of IDF bullets. And those annoying Palestinian houses! They should stop being pulled down by the Israeli government as a collective punishment right now. And the pesky Palestinian villagers who deliberately put their arable land the wrong side of an Israeli-only line in the Occupied Territories! They’ve got to quit doing that right now.
The thing is, Trilobite, if you want action, the Israeli government is the one with power to act usefully. It’s hard to see what action the Palestinians could perform in their current situation that would have any useful effect on the Israelis: past ceasefires have invariably been broken by the Israelis, often with their illegal “extra-judicial assassinations” which take out civilian casualties as well as the nominated target.
I’m sure many will say that the U.S. is now helping Israel a lot, so even if it reins Israel in it will still be 90% on Israel’s side. Trust me when I say, that won’t help with the perception. If you change a status quo that one side perceives as pretty fair (i.e., U.S. support for Israel), the change itself has to be at least somewhat evenhanded.
I think Obama gets that. Certainly his rhetoric has none of the reflexive Palestinian boosterism I often hear on the left. I hope to he11 I’m right.”
There are lefties who are too reflexively pro-Palestinian. I mean people who react with near-hysteria when one morally equates Palestinian terror with Israeli crimes. I don’t mean people who condemn Israeli crimes as harshly as they condemn suicide bombing.
But in mainstream US politics we have the exact opposite reflex–at best, a politician or a “liberal” NYT editorial will regret the continued expansion of Israeli settlements, but the real passionate condemnations are reserved for Arab terrorism. Obama, so far, is part of the problem. I don’t expect politicians to change either, not until they start feeling a lot of pressure to be evenhanded. The problem in the US is precisely that “perception” you speak of–we could try balancing all the hysterical pro-Israeli anti-Palestinian voters with an equal number of hysterical pro-Palestinian anti-Israeli voters, but that would not be my preferred option and anyway, I don’t think it’s going to happen. I think pressure for an evenhanded policy is more likely to occur and if there’s enough of it, maybe the politicians would be nudged into evenhandedness.
Forgot to point quote marks at the beginning of Trilobite’s portion, but anyway, those first two paragraphs are his.