Standing Back
This is days old, but important. Back on December 29, Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
I’ve never understood why anyone in their right mind would accept us as an honest broker, given our declared allegiances. But more than that, I wonder why it’s incumbent on us to broker at all. Lately, our judgment hasn’t exactly been the greatest either.
I think the idea that we should just step away from the whole thing and not see the United States as obligated to play an active role in pushing for a settlement has some logic to it. And of course it’s also a tempting idea for people who don’t want to spend their time in endless bitter arguments about the various Israeli-Arab conflicts. But it’s crucial to underscore that if you really want the United States to step away from the conflict, you would need to push us to genuinely step away. As long as Israel is the primary recipient of United States foreign assistance funds, it doesn’t make sense to say that we’re taking a hands off approach to the issue. When our hands are off, as they have been throughout this bombing campaign, it’s you and me who’s tax dollars are going to defray the costs of the operation.
48 Responses to “Standing Back”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Here’s a request instead of a comment: Since there appear to be quite a lot of assumptions out there about what the U.S. role in the I/P conflict actually is and has been, why don’t you outline the U.S. involvement so that it seems less mysterious?
For example, people might wonder why the UN or EU doesn’t just ‘take charge’ of facilitating negotiations and/or final status talks. They might imagine that the U.S. foreign policy establishment might support such a way of stepping back. But what if the U.S. tends not to favor such a loss of control? Or prefers that the status quo continues? That’s an empirically addressable question, not just something for theoretical speculation.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Right. When people allege anti-Semitism by asking “why do you concentrate so much criticism on Israel,” part of the reason is because the United States is so deeply invested in the Israeli cause. And it’s not just the amount of actual monetary aid; actually, I’d say that’s hardly the most important aspect at all. The United States and Israeli militaries have a cooperative synthesis that is unique among all of our allies. We share intelligence on an unprecedented level. And it’s the United States and our Security Council veto that has protected Israel diplomatically throughout its history. People who say “it’s not our business” aren’t just wrong, they’re fantastically wrong. We’re in this thing up to our elbows.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
We could stop all diplomatic and military support tomorrow and the Arab world will still see us as Israel’s benefactor for at least a generation. It’s our ties to Israel that compel us to rein Israel in, because in the Arab world Israel = America. Every time Israel blows up some police stations and kills some kids, there’s going to be more American flags burned and more young Arabs dreaming of a new 9/11. It is overwhelmingly in our interest to secure a permanent, viable two-state solution.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Here’s a request instead of a comment: Since there appear to be quite a lot of assumptions out there about what the U.S. role in the I/P conflict actually is and has been, why don’t you outline the U.S. involvement so that it seems less mysterious?
One of the largest direct foreign aid expenditures that the United States has with any foreign country, the largest relative to a country’s population, access to US military technology and ordinance that almost no other nations have access to, at steep discounts that are unavailable to even our closest European allies, espionage collaboration on a high level, and diplomatic shielding that is literally unprecedented internationally. To be sure, part of the reason that Israel receives such assistance in a way that, say, Canada does not, is because Israel is more threatened the Canada. But the fact remains that there is no nation on earth that has as symbiotic a relationship with the United States as Israel.
For example, people might wonder why the UN or EU doesn’t just ‘take charge’ of facilitating negotiations and/or final status talks.
Because the Israeli government won’t allow it, and the United States has Security Council veto power.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
The idea that the US can extract itself from any significant problem that spans accross borders is crazy. We are the most powerful country in the world. We have a huge financial stake in the stability of the world. We can’t extract ourselves. At best we can create international institutions and work through them to acheive our goals. We can’t extract ourselves.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
If Anyone should broker a deal, it should be Turkey. They have good relations with Israel and the Arab world. And they were, until recently, brokering a deal between Israel and Syria. They have credibility with both sides, we do not.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
There’s a lot more hear, but not least the fact that the US government programmes were a large part of moving many jews from the Soviet and now former Soviet Union to Israel in the first place, including to settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank in the 1990s and more recently. And long before then there was intense pressure on the UK from the US to allow the growth of settlements in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s.
So forget the cash subsidies etc, US has been in many ways the colonial power behind the jewish colonisation of Palestine. So the US can no more ‘wash their hands of it’ than the French could say of French Algeria, ‘nothing to do with us’.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Right, Freddie, I could do a list too. But I wouldn’t be Matt Yglesias and no one would pay attention.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Ah. I misunderstood your comment.
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
If Anyone should broker a deal, it should be Turkey.
If you don’t know enough to know why this is an absurd suggestion, then you really shouldn’t be having this discussion.
To suggest that we can’t pull back from being the default honest broker without ceasing aid to Israel because we would still be involved—then we should pull out of Iraq, stop giving aid to Saudi Arabia and Egypt too.
But since none of that’s going to happen, and nothing has worked in the past, it’s worth at least trying to make them think that no one is going to ride to their rescue.
Of course, expert commenters here seem to think that restoring Ottoman control over the conflict is the solution.
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Then cut off funding for Israel, along with funding for Egypt and Jordan. Israel doesn’t need the aid anyway, which represents less than 2% of its GDP at this point. It would be a more prosperous country without the aid, in fact, because it wouldn’t have such a bloated public sector. As for weapons, Israel can build most of its own, and what it can’t build, it can buy from other countries.
The biggest beneficiaries of aid to Israel are companies like Boeing in America.
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
What about Jamaica being in charge? That would be a change.
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Jon says we shouldn’t take a certain course of action, even though it is the logical one, because “that’s not going to happen”.
One of the problems is that people are so often conflating what should be done with what can realistically be done in today’s political environment. So, I think Matt and commenters should address this on two levels. First, what they think should be done regardless of the current political viability in the U.S., and second, what should be done taking into account the political reality.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
If all foreign aid to Israel stops, Israel’s enemies would be emboldened to attack Israel with everything they’ve got. Any guesses as to what the Israeli retaliation would do to the world economy?
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I think Matt and commenters should address this on two levels. First, what they think should be done regardless of the current political viability in the U.S., and second, what should be done taking into account the political reality.
I have yet to see any evidence that the U.S. electorate gives much of a shit about Israel-Palestine. Israeli chauvinism is for some reason seen by political elites as the only politically viable stance, but there is no reason to suppose that real people feel the same way. One possible exception is Jewish voters, who, we are constantly told, value Israel’s security above all else, even though, again, there’s no evidence that many of them are basing their vote on this issue.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
If all foreign aid to Israel stops, Israel’s enemies would be emboldened to attack Israel with everything they’ve got.
Ah, the old “emboldened” argument. That’s kicking it 2004-style all right.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership seem very foolish and short-sighted much of the time, but I’m fairly certain they’re not so stupid that they can’t tell the difference between post-Kemal modern Turkey and the Ottoman Empire that used to control Palestine.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
A lot of people seem to think it’s the height of foolishness for the United States to pull out complete, because then who would stop the carnage.
First, we’re not doing anything useful right now.
Second, the reason the Israeli/Palestinian conflict continues, and autocracies in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. continue is that we underwrite them. Islamic radicalism in no small part began because of our interference in the region.
If we pull out, a whole lot of chaos will happen…..and then it will stop. One way or the other, it will stop. But the participants will get the results they deserve, good or bad.
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
If we “pull out” it would mean that there had been a complete and utter revolution in the policy goals of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, a change which there’s zero evidence for, and I see every indication that the U.S. FPE will mostly follow along its previous habits, but if we’re lucky moving toward a final settlement arbitration.
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
The problem with U.S. aid and support to Israel is the moral hazard. This is due to both to the large amount and the unconditional quality of the aid. Stopping it would result in Israeli policy that is more pragmatic and geered toward resolving the problem. That’s not the main reason to do it, though. The main reason is that it would reduce the motivation for Islamic radicals to attack the U.S.
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Since the bombs that are flying have “Made in the US” printed on them, and the drones, aircraft, and a lot of the weapons used by the Zionists are made by the US and “sold” to Israel it is incumbent upon us to broker peace.
Just sayin’
الموت لاسرائيل
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:35 pm
El Cid,
Yes, it’s more than likely that the rank and file of U.S. foreign policy would not like to abdicate control, as they would then have to find honest jobs. However, given control, they might not be seeking reasonable solutions, but rather their preferred solutions. See Feith, Douglas.
Likewise, elected politicians will not willingly ruin their own careers when there’s a friend like AIPAC telling them what to do and say.
Nevertheless, one can always advocate for the obvious solution in the hope that one day, events go your way. Probably not with Obama and Rahm Emanuel, but someday it will be as plain as the fact that Reaganomics was all bullshit.
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:35 pm
“If you don’t know enough to know why this is an absurd suggestion, then you really shouldn’t be having this discussion.”
Ah, the perfect dodge. You obviously can’t intelligently dispute what I wrote, so you just resort to bogus attacks. My point is that the Arabs and Israel already agree that Turkey could be an honest broker. Why do you think Israel and Syria chose Turkey instead of the US to mediate their talks? The Arabs do not believe they can trust the US. After all, we’re giving Israel the bombs they use to kill Arabs. If you read a word of the Arab Press, you’d know how they feel about us. And you’d know that they consider us to be the equivalent of Israel, and therefore not a legitimate mediator.
But if you still think it’s absurd, then please, enlighten me.
“Of course, expert commenters here seem to think that restoring Ottoman control over the conflict is the solution.”
Nobody here recommends bringing back Ottoman Control. Seriously, a straw man argument and an ad hominem argument in a short post? Great work.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:23 pm
The Prospect has the story on a Likud member who infiltrated it from the even fringier right and is slowly taking over the party. If Netanyahu who at least knows the value of moderate posturing isn’t careful it’ll be Felgin I think was his name’s, party. That’s not a welcome development but if we are lucky we can finally finally FINALLY cut Israel lose and adopt a policy that actually furthers American interests in the region.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:14 am
“If all foreign aid to Israel stops, Israel’s enemies would be emboldened to attack Israel with everything they’ve got.”
A really dumb statement, since “everything they’ve got” would be insufficient to defeat Israel in a conventional war, not even allowing for Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
Which is why Israel’s nuclear arsenal should be forcibly removed by the international community. The UN should require Israel to disarm its nukes, verifiably, and the international community should impose a full boycott and blockade against Israel if it fails to comply.
That at least would show Iran we’re serious about nuclear weapons in the Middle East, and would show good faith to Iran in negotiations over making their program more transparent.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:24 am
“A really dumb statement, since “everything they’ve got” would be insufficient to defeat Israel in a conventional war, not even allowing for Israel’s nuclear arsenal.”
So long as Turkey isn’t involved. But they certainly won’t go against Israel, they train with them. But Turkey has a really huge army, and they have really slick weapons. They have some nice weapons from the US, and they buy what they can’t get from us from the Chinese. And if you want to talk about training? Their pilots are trained in Colorado Springs, just like our pilots. It’s true that our planes are better than theirs, but their planes our are hand-me-down technology, but new planes. And those are still some sweet planes. Their army does joint operations with Israel and the US. They are well trained, and have more military bases than you’d ever want to imagine. Turkey has a larger conventional army than Israel by far, but Israel has nuclear weapons. But if Israel launches those weapons at Turkey, they get some of the fallout. So those weapons are as useless as can be, and Turkey still has an army that dwarfs Israel’s. Ultimately, neither Turkey nor Israel could ever risk a confrontation. Either Turkey would win, or Israel would launch enough nuclear weapons to make sure everyone loses. And by that I mean global climate meltdown.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:32 am
“But if Israel launches those weapons at Turkey, they get some of the fallout.”
I’m assuming Israel woudn’t be so crazy, but who really knows?
January 4th, 2009 at 10:18 am
I’d like to heartily commend M. Y. for discussing these issues.
Seems like very few folks in the liberal blogosphere are willing to do so, on the grounds that it generates too much controversy.
January 4th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“Seems like very few folks in the liberal blogosphere are willing to do so, on the grounds that it generates too much controversy.”
And stupidity, from the “Weakness is a form of Moral Superiority” crowd.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Just as we did in the war on Lebanon, the US runs interference for Israel again. What more evidence is needed that we that we can’t be an unbiased party to any peace effort in Palestine?
US Blocks UN Action on Gaza Conflict
Saturday 03 January 2009
by: The Associated Press
United Nations – The United States late Saturday blocked approval of a U.N. Security Council statement calling for an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel and expressing concern at the escalation of violence between Israel and Hamas.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
That’s a pretty safe bet.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
That’s a good point, Mr. Anderson. We have an intrinsic bias toward believing that Hamas’ stated goal of wiping Israel off the map and replacing it with a Muslim theocracy, or its alliance with Iran, are impediments to peace. We need someone to broker a secure, lasting peace between Israel and Hamas who can see past these shortsighted and trifling mere annoyances.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Anyway, this talk of brokering final agreements is nonsense. Turkey’s an interesting suggestion, I’ll grant you that. But they have their own grievances with Syria – where Hamas is headquartered. And Egypt, who is at peace with Israel, has tried to get Hamas to get their act together since the beginning of this years ago. The point is that both Egypt and the Saudis are fed up with Hamas’ willingness to be a proxy for Iran, and Israel’s onslaught against them comes with their more-or-less tacit approval. You guys are living in a fiction to just lump all the Arab states and non-states together into one big giant party that wants nothing more than to live a decent life and for Israel and Hamas to make peace. Utterly delusional.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Military aid is a big deal, but cover at the UN is also significant.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:27 am
viagra
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 1st, 2009 at 7:37 pm
cialis
Great site. Good info
March 11th, 2009 at 5:12 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:54 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:32 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:39 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:49 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 5th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Hey. If you want creative workers, give them enough time to play.
I am from Namibia and also now am reading in English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Locate the best rates on airline tickets for travel to cities in and around find the latest cheap flights, airline tickets, airfare specials and other air.”
Thank you very much
. Ghaliya.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:08 am
thanks !! very helpful post! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:37 am
thanks !! very helpful post!
viagra