Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
America and Israel: Sentiment and Strategy
I was recently at a dinner party in mixed company. The political views of my fellow diners ranged across the spectrum from archconservative to radically liberal. I prefer the sort of arrangement. I’m a bit of a contrarian and I find nothing more tedious than agreement. This is particularly so when, as in this case, everyone at the table is intelligent and articulate.
Because we were a politically minded group, the topics focused mostly on current events, including Ukraine, the Obamacare rollout, and the latest Supreme Court decision on affirmative action. Eventually conversation turned toward the recently failed peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and, inevitably, to a discussion of settlements and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute generally.
Opinion at the table was fairly evenly divided, with conservatives taking a staunchly pro-Israeli stance and the liberals (with the exception of one of my friends who is Jewish) taking a more sympathetic view of the Palestinian position. I tend to side with Israel because I admire its liberal democratic values and military prowess, and I consider the Palestinian leadership to be at best corrupt and disingenuous and at worst genocidal terrorists. On settlements I’m fairly agnostic, as I have not taken the time to delve into the intricacies of the subject. To the extent that I care about the specific issue of settlements or even the larger Israeli-Palestinian dispute, it is through the lens of how it affects America and its interests.
In the course of arguing that Israel was justified in breaking off negotiation with the Palestinian Authority, my friend said that America needs to support Israel, not merely because it is the morally just thing to do, but because Israel is America’s closest and most valuable ally in the Middle East. This is a commonly held opinion, particularly on the Right, and usually goes without question.
As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an issue that I do not feel strongly about, I had been largely a passive observer of the conversation, a position to which I am unaccustomed. Feeling the urge to participate, as well as desiring to divert a conversation which showed signs of degenerating into charges of apartheid and anti-Semitism, I asked my friend what made Israel a particularly valuable ally to America. Specifically, I asked him to explain why, setting aside the moral case for doing so, it was in America’s strategic interest to be closely allied with the State of Israel.
This was not meant to be a gotcha question and I had every expectation that my friend would provide a convincing answer since up to this point he had demonstrated a knowledge of subjects relating to Israel which was masterful, bordering on encyclopedic. However, to my considerable surprise and mild disappointment, the question seemed to stump my friend. Aside from saying that Israel shares intelligence with United States regarding Islamic terrorists and Arab states, and that we conduct some joint military technology research, he didn’t have much of a response. Even these reasons were presented in the most general terms, contrasting sharply with the level of detail and specificity with which he had made his previous points.
I was actually a bit shaken by his lack of a robust answer. So, I submit it to you Ricochet members, what does America gain strategically from its close alliance with Israel and why, from the perspective of someone who is solely concerned with American interests, is America’s close alliance with Israel a net-benefit?
Dean Rusk, former Secretary of State, stated in the 1960s that America’s alliance with Israel was based more on sentiment then on strategy. Was he wrong? If so, why?
Published in General
I think you’re being overly charitable to Larry. He’s primarily directed his passions in my direction and I haven’t said a word in support of the Palestinian Cause or about “justice” for anyone. In this discussion I’ve tried to avoid the issue of the Palestinians altogether. If you want to take the position that skepticism about the purely strategic value of our alliance with Israel is nothing but an attempt to “dress up support for another genocide of Jews”, you are of course free to do so, but I think that’s a bit unreasonable.
Wasn’t that, basically, Jordan in 1948?
Not quite. The territory which became the Kingdom of Jordan was under the rule of the British Mandate, but it was recognized as a separate entity from Palestine (which was to be partitioned between Arabs and Jews). Jordan was granted independence in 1946. The UN partition plan in ’48 was for the Palestinian portion of the Mandate to become two separate and sovereign states. One for Jewish Palestinians and one for Arab Palestinians. Now, I do think the responsibility for Palestinian statelessness lies primarily with the Arab Palestinians who rejected the two-state partition, but I think it’s important to understand how the problem came about.
While the inhabitants of Jordan were Arabs, they were predominately Bedouin and culturally very different from the mainly agricultural/urbanized Palestinians. One of the major sources of instability in modern Jordan is that Palestinian refugees and their progeny are demographically overwhelming the Bedouin Jordanians.
So, Sal, are you saying that we should reduce our moral and strategic support of Israel? We’ve all talked about it for quite a while — what’s your position on our support of Israel? Are you just asking the question trying to learn in order to form your own opinion?
Quite the diplomat! :))
#213 Salvatore
You’re playing into Zafar’s disingenuous and historically distortionist position here.
As I pointed out way back in this thread, the Brits held the Mandate in trust for the Jewish National Home, establishment/constitution of which was ratified under the San Remo accord post-Versailles; note that the provisions of this have yet to be superseded by any other development in international law, notwithstanding illegal developments on the ground propagated by the Brits, the Arabs, and other interlopers.
(See archives at Caroline Glick’s website plus her newest book.)
For all practical purposes, Jordan was established in the 1920s, after and in spite of San Remo, by British fiat and in express violation of its trust responsibilities under the Mandate.
This fiat decision was a political step taken to “compensate” the Hashemite dynasty vis-a-vis its “loss” to the House of Saud; in geographic terms, Jewish National Home territory in the Mandate was lopped off from the eastern bank of the Jordan river and voila, a new Kingdom appeared.
Palestinians drifted into Mandate territory gradually during Ottoman times, and then in a flood due to antisemitic British policy; even in modern-history terms, they were mere squatters.
(Further to my #216 above)
One other quick note re the Kingdom of Jordan, and then I’ll address further something about the Mandate, Partition plans, etc.
There are two or more Bedouin groupings within Jordan’s territory, with one being the group that came up from the Arabian Peninsula as followers of the Hashemite sherif of Mecca when the Saudis put them all on the run.
This group loosely allies with other Bedouin that have wandered in and out of the Kingdom’s territory (note that there are Bedouin relatives of these across the border, in Israel).
They are all in aggregate a much smaller group than the so-called Palestinian Arabs, but whether they ought to lay stronger claim to the Kingdom is hotly debated.
As for Partition plans, note first of all that these were voted on by the UNGA, and therefore don’t actually have force of law (i.e., strictly speaking don’t supersede San Remo).
Moreover, practically speaking, the Mandate-era Jewish population was powerless to halt illegal British territorial loppings-off, and the same population agreed to Partition for the sake of peace, not as a matter of any Arab population’s rights.
Yes, I know that’s what MoveOn.org says. I think Chomsky is another source for this.
Interesting. What do you suppose were the rights and privileges of Palestinian “citizens” of the Ottoman Empire? Due process? Jury of one’s peers? Registered property titles? Again, I’m asking. Because without certain institutions to which one has access, “citizenship” doesn’t mean much.
And isn’t it ironic, if Danny Alexander is right (and he seems quite knowledgeable), the “occupied territories” are in Jordan, and they’re Jewish territories being illegally occupied by Arabs. But, somehow, that’s not an imperative at the UN or in “public” opinion, nor does it justify “proportionate” responses by Israel of lobbing rockets into Amman.
I think Sal’s first mistake was in compartmentalizing the “moral” (sentimental) rationale from the “strategic” ones. It’s always in the US’s long term strategic interests to be on the side of what’s right.
Yep. That’s me. Total moral relativist.
Paris linked to Daniel Pipes’s book on the subject. Israel bought and paid for Palestinian properties up until 1948 when it was forced to take defensive action against Arab aggression. Property seized by Israel at that point would be “wages of war” in my view. Read Danny’s comments as well.
It seems only Jews are expected to return lands won in battle. And, unfortunately imo, they often do.
One also has to wonder why Palestinian refugees have not been made citizens of Jordan and elsewhere at this late date, if the concern is really for providing them a state.
It’s not the real concern — it’s what we call a canard. But, it will serve for the drumbeat.
These included the right to inherit property and to use that inheritance.
That’s the very basic private property right that is being denied the Palestinian refugees since 1948. Even to some within Israel’s borders:
A present absentee is a Palestinian who fled or was expelled from his home in Palestine by Jewish or Israeli forces, before and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but who remained within the area that became the state of Israel. Present absentees are also referred to as internally displaced Palestinians (IDPs). The term applies to the present absentee’s descendants too.[1] In 1950 these were 46,000 of the 156,000 Palestinians in Israel.
Present absentees are not permitted to live in the homes they were expelled from, even if they live in the same area, the property still exists, and they can show that they own it. They are regarded as absent by the Israeli government because they left their homes, even if they did not intend to leave them for more than a few days, and even if they did so involuntarily.
Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and others within walking distance, in Park Slope to support Israel. I bought a VIP ticket http://www.eventbrite.com/e/stand-with-israel-tickets-10875215061?aff=eorg
Since you seem interested in the subject
The New Historians (Hebrew: ההיסטוריונים החדשים, HaHistoryonim HaHadashim) are a loosely-defined group of Israeli historians who have challenged traditional versions of Israeli history, including Israel’s role in the Palestinian Exodus in 1948 and Arab willingness to discuss peace. The term was coined in 1988 by Benny Morris, one of the leading New Historians…
Some of them have been made citizens of Jordan.
Wrt Lebanaon – I think their position is that Israel created the problem and Israel is responsible for resolving it. Not Lebanon.
Harsh, but you can see the logic.
Much like the New Left of the 1960s, eh? That “New” instills my heart with such confidence. After all, Israelis would never talk this way, would they — unless it was the truth? You know, about their own country.
Most conservatives quote the traditional historical story and then cover the alternative views — not you, though. You go straight for the most left-wing explanation.
The truth is that the poor Palestinians have been used as pawns between the two competing systems: 1) the New Islamists (now eclipsing the former experts, the Soviets) and 2) the Americans. I recognize the Soviet/Islamist view — it hasn’t changed in many years. In a way, the Palestinians are similar to the Cubans and North_Koreans.
Larry, Left and Right come into it when you interpret historical facts – but historical facts are based on physical evidence, textual evidence and oral history. Those are the three things that need to be looked at when you ask whether there were are Palestinians displaced/ethnically cleansed in 1948, if so how that happened, and by whom was it done. What this means, whether it was justified or not, comes after – and is informed by the facts and by a Right or Left view of the world (I guess).
Similarly, the question ‘Does the US-Israel alliance make strategic sense for the US?’ is based on an assessment of the pros and cons of the relationship. There’s nothing intrinsically Left or Right (or Wrong) about just asking the question. For example, I am pretty critical of Israel and its founding, but I think the alliance is a great deal for the US as things stand now. There’s nothing wrong with asking a question.
When you see the left and right using different facts, what do you do? Did you know that the facts are reported differently from different sources? You should look into this because your statement above falls flat on it face.
There are conservative references that a person can use just as well as reading Chomsky. A choice is made in this — especially with regard to controversial subjects. Why would you not know this? What are you reading that would confuse you about something so basic as this?
I once waded into the Wikipedia entry for Clarence Thomas and the controversy on Anita Hill’s testimony. The entry claimed that Anita Hill had accused Thomas of sexual harassment. I watched the Thomas hearings in 1991 gavel to gavel. She never used that term. The transcripts clearly show that she refused to call what she experienced as sexual harassment. Yet, the Wiki entry claimed she had. I got it changed after much back and forth. Small victory for the truth about a single fact.
Check them, and check their sources. Imho neither side of politics is always right or always truthful.
You are a rational person, you don’t need pre-chewed ideas based on bogus facts, no matter what the source and no matter what your own political loyalties.
So, the facts are in dispute sometimes — it sounds like you are saying. Otherwise, you wouldn’t need to check them. I wonder what that means. This “checking” seems an important part of your process. Does it mean to read someone else? Or two or more someone elses? If so, what is the selection process for the other “check” sources.
Larry, you are disputing the facts I cite. So – obviously in dispute. Right?
And yes, of course then look at different sources and try and decide which position is supported with historical evidence. You used textual evidence (the transcripts) to set the wiki record straight on an aspect of the Clarence Thomas hearings. That seems like a good approach.
I can’t see how any of this has anything to do with Left or Right sources of information per se. Unless you’re arguing that Conservatives always tell the truth and the Left always lies?
Yes, on some things the left does usually lie. That’s been my experience for many years when I “check” things. Israel is one of the areas of maximum lying by the left and the U.N. and most of the media in the world.
But, let’s not lose sight of my original complaint — that it’s important to know what the consensus is in the conservative world on things. Being able to articulate the conservative view in a fair and accurate matter on a subject takes real study. Most people have the media’s take on conservatives and cannot state with accuracy what the conservative position is on a controversial or nuanced subject.
There is a wide variety of opinions among conservatives but in general they hate Israel bashing.
That’s a good thing, but I wish they hated Arab bashing as well. Perhaps that will come with time. Peace.
All good conservatives and good people do hate Arab bashing — else they could not be considered good. But, you confuse Arab bashing with hating Arafat (long history of hating Arafat and with good reason) and hating bin Laden and hating the rockets from being launched against Israel with full coverage of the response from Israel all over the news in the world. This is contrived — this Arab bashing you are implying. No one should support any claims, moral or otherwise, by leaders of Hamas or Hezbollah. Instead, we have the world news agencies all exercised about Israel when on this same planet we have North Korea and Cuba and Mugabe. Where is the film of what Castro does to Cubans. He has them shot in the back and the Left in this very country (who supply you with news about Israel’s misdeeds) admire him — truly admire him. It is the worst form of moral preening — the very worst. Who is standing up for the truly wretched of the earth? — the North Korean citizens?
No one — because they are too busy — busy perfecting Israel.
You can feel what you feel about Arafat and Hamas without discounting Palestinian history or rights as individuals, don’t you think? Just like people can criticise the Nakba or the occupation or Israel’s treatment of Arabs without discounting Jewish history or rights as individuals.