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.
Relationship Status with Bibi: It’s Complicated
Hey, everybody. Greetings from King Bibi-Land. Troy suggested I drop in and offer a word or two about the Israeli election from ground zero, as it were. I’m happy to do so, although I confess to some slight hesitation, as my views on the result run somewhat counter to the general sentiment at Ricochet.
There appears to be much (forgive me) rather uninflected delight being expressed at Ricochet over Bibi’s victory — a victory that does offer obvious satisfaction to anyone who views it strictly in terms of the thumb in the eye it offers to President Obama. I understand this. I can see that the result has really energized some of you, who view it as evidence that a rhetorical, chest-thumping lunge for the throat can, under certain circumstances and when executed by a pro, be a productive strategy against Obama.
But from my perspective here in Israel, it’s hard to view Bibi’s dissing of the US president and subsequent electoral triumph with unalloyed joy. This is not because I have any problem in principle with this president being flipped a well-earned bird, but because the consequences could be precisely the opposite of what Bibi intended. They could, in fact, be horrendously costly to us.
Over the course of the run-up to this election and during the election itself, Bibi managed not only to worsen an already fraught relationship with the White House but to shift the rules of engagement with regard to the Palestinians in a direction that Americans cannot possibly follow — and to take this dramatic second step as an eleventh-hour electoral tactic, making it appear spectacularly cynical.
It is hard to imagine this remaining unanswered. I would not be at all surprised if, over the course of the interminable remainder of his term in office, Obama does something truly dramatic in retaliation.
I hate making specific predictions, but it’s entirely conceivable that he will withdraw the American veto of UN Security Council resolutions condemning settlement construction, which would plunge us even deeper into the pariah mire than we are already. Obama might even go so far as to back a UN resolution recognizing Palestine. Like so many hapless leaders before him, Obama has seized on Israel/Palestine as his ticket to a “legacy”, and Bibi appears to have put paid to any kind of negotiated settlement. If Obama can’t get the legacy with us, he may well try to get it without us.
But let me back up a little. Part of what has been so astonishing to me over the course of this campaign has been the failure of Bibi’s usually strong instincts. He is not a stupid man by any means, but his acceptance of John Boehner’s curiously timed invitation to speak before Congress was a truly boneheaded move from an international standpoint. I know that speech delighted many who relished the spectacle of Bibi getting his rockstar on at Obama’s expense. But over here, it horrified a lot of us, including those of us who find much to admire in Bibi and little to love in Obama.
I, for one, was absolutely floored by Bibi’s decision to flout basic diplomatic protocol and decorum for the sake of a domestic campaign strategy, a cynical move by anyone’s measure. Not because I’m so enamored of diplomatic protocol and decorum per se, but because Bibi’s choice did two highly unpalatable things: a) it disrespected the office of the presidency itself, which, as a passionate champion of US-style democracy, I find highly problematic; and b) it put many Democrats in Congress in the embarrassing, difficult, unnecessary, and self-defeating (from Israel’s perspective) position of having to take a public stand against our prime minister. Bibi’s swagger has its place and has served us well at other times in our long national relationship with him, but this time he really overstepped, and I — and many other Israelis, including some right-leaning ones like me — believe he did us harm.
In the wake of the election, a trope is making itself heard in right-wing American circles that any criticism of Bibi’s election night demagoguery is nothing more than empty, sour-grapes, liberal/progressive bilge. That just doesn’t wash. It was disgraceful of Bibi to attempt to drum up votes for Likud by condemning Arab Israelis for exercising their right to vote, no matter who was encouraging them to do so. Of course, it seems to have worked, insofar as it convinced late-voting right-wingers to back Likud itself rather than their own, smaller right-wing parties in the hope of being part of the coalition (the argument being that if Likud isn’t forming the government, those smaller parties are out on their tushes anyway). But that move was pure, unadulterated, hail Mary demagoguery, and it’s silly to pretend otherwise. The fact that Democrats are saying it, or that they’re guilty of the same kind of thing when it suits them (takes one to know one), doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
As you can probably tell, I’m deeply torn about Bibi. I believe that his central premise is absolutely right: until things change a hell of a lot for the better around here, our number one concern has to remain security and defense above all else. Despite my issues with his sense of timing and the respect I believe is due the White House, I’m profoundly grateful to Bibi for insisting on shouting from the hilltops to anyone who will listen about the reality of the threat we face from Iran, no matter how much scorn or vilification he brings down on his own head. Frankly, it’s heroic.
On the other hand, I believe his approach to the Palestinian problem, which is, as ever, an immediate and perpetual security threat, is totally short-sighted and ultimately dangerous to the whole Israeli experiment.
There is a perception abroad that there are two options available in this country with regard to the Palestinians: the Bibi/Likud option — dig in your heels and don’t give an inch (or even discuss giving an inch) until the other side demonstrates that they are acting in good faith; and the left option, which will give away the whole country in a heartbeat if it’ll get the Arabs to at least pretend to like us for a few minutes.
This is a false dichotomy. The fact of the matter is that there is less daylight than most people think between Likud and Labor in terms of territorial concessions (or at least there was, until Bibi decided at the last second to cement his electoral victory by disavowing his commitment to an eventual Palestinian state, a statement he is now frantically backtracking). There are, however, two areas of critical difference between Bibi and Labor: the expansion of settlements and the willingness to negotiate.
Let’s start with the second one. It is generally assumed that the willingness of Labor simply to talk to the Palestinians implies an ipso facto willingness to make crazy concessions to them. The awful, tragic truth is this: we all know, left and right alike, that the Palestinians will blow it no matter what’s on the table. They always do. They are so hopelessly fractured and poorly led that they are practically guaranteed not to agree to anything we offer them, no matter how much it’s in their interest to accept.
Our center-left parties (I’m not speaking about the hard left, which is so decimated that it has no power to do anything anyway) are simply not so stupid as to make gigantic offers with no security guarantees, no international guarantees, no reciprocal concessions, no nothing. It is not what they want. It is not what the people want.
The Palestinians will not agree to give us any real guarantees in any case. They’re hamstrung by the maximalists in their camp who view any concession to us, no matter how trivial, as both a sign of weakness and an unacceptable grant of legitimacy. As a result, there is little to no danger of an agreement being hammered out in the first place. So, with Bibi, there’s no agreement but we’re the villains because we won’t even talk to them; with Labor, there would be no agreement either, and we’d still probably be blamed for the failure — but at least we wouldn’t be writing the Israel-bashers’ script for them. Sitting down with the enemy can be a strategy unto itself.
On the other distinction between Bibi and Labor — the building of settlements — we wade into very difficult territory. If you believe, as many evangelical Christians and religious Jews do, that God gave this land from the Jordan to the Mediterranean to the Jews and that’s all there is to it, then you’re probably (although not necessarily) going to favor Israeli settlement throughout the territories. But there is a demographic reality on the ground here that cannot be ignored.
Yes, it is a fiction that the West Bank and Gaza were “Palestinian” before Israel took them over in 1967, but that does not mean that they are, or should be, Israeli, particularly since they contain Muslim populations that, if incorporated into Israel, will quickly completely undermine the Jewish nature of the state. It’s extremely difficult to see what the desired endpoint is of all the settlement building other than to make a division into two states ultimately impossible. And then what? The Palestinians are never going to just throw up their hands and all move to Belgium. They’re not going anywhere, and their claims — flimsy and ahistorical though they may be — will become more and more cemented into an unshakeable reality the more time passes. We have wrought this; we must fix it. It’s in our best interests as well as theirs.
As to the physical advantage of holding a wider area: I am all for strategic depth (although it’s of much more limited value in this day and age than it was in 1948 or 1967), but I am even more for a healthy Israel living alongside a healthy Palestine. Yes, a healthy Palestine might be an impossible dream at this moment in history, but choking off the possibility that one might ever emerge doesn’t seem likely to end well for either party.
I hope you’ve stayed with me all the way through this long post. I know how profoundly so many of you care about Israel, and your concern has been a great comfort to me during very difficult times here. The situation in Israel is in some respects extremely complex — I haven’t even touched, for example, on the domestic issues that played into the election. But, in other respects, it’s awfully simple. We have a big problem — the Israeli-Palestinian problem — and if we don’t solve it, this country might not make it. We have to use our heads and figure out which of the myriad approaches to the problem is most likely to leave us not only alive, but stronger. King Bibi gives a hell of a speech, it’s true. But we are more isolated now than ever. A good deal of that is down to him.
Published in Foreign Policy
And it’s not a good argument. Because it is lacking in nuance. One of the things to think about if you want lessons from 1939 in Europe is the Maginot line.
There’s a reason for the cliche about generals always fighting the last war–that’s how nations get wiped out.
No, actually I thought it was unlikely that State was directly funding something like that – more than it was private US donors (who can fund whatever they want, be it Nakba Remembrance Day to Settlements in Hebron).
But – after looking it turned out State did fund that group – and that indeed it funds many groups in many foreign countries. To promote outcomes that it thinks are in America’s interests.
Which is unsurprising, given some of the more violent regime changes the US has been covertly involved in. (As have many many other similar polities – Great Britain, France, Russia, China…honestly, you are not alone here.)
The thing is, once you accept that it’s okay for the US to do that in one country, you need to explain why it’s not basically okay to do it in another. Which is a different question from whether it’s desirable, or wise, in a particular instance.
And then whether it’s alright for foreign countries to try to effect regime change here in the US. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Oh, for those too young or new to the US to remember, do an Internet search on phrases like “no controlling legal authority” and “raising money from Buddhist monks.”
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/we.html
Oddly enough, the CIA World Factbook includes the West Bank among nations of the world. Go figure.
Many borders between various nations are disputed. That Palestinians don’t control all they want to control doesn’t undermine the simple fact that some territory is generally recognized among the world’s nations as Palestinian territory. If Syria entered that territory, the UN would consider it a violation of sovereignty (whatever legalisms they might hide behind). When Israeli soldiers enter that territory, Western journalists and politicians call it an occupation.
It would also sell out the 20% (15%?) of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian Palestinian Arabs.
I am not convinced of the theological argument – Abu Mazen’s lot specifically don’t want to create an Islamic State – because something like 15% of the Palestinian population is Christian.
What specific territory is that? Area A of the West Bank? Area B? Area C? East Jerusalem? Gaza? Do the Palestinians control their borders, the first basic attribute of statehood? Do the Palestinians control ANY points of entry or exit from or to the West Bank or Gaza? Do they control any ports? Any functional airports? Any airspace? How much of this area can they even grant a house building permit for? What about allowing the immigration of refugee Palestinians from places like Lebanon?
Can Palestinians stop the IDF from arresting anybody they want across the West Bank? Can they stop Israel from declaring parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem military areas, clearing the Arab population, and then building housing there for Israelis? Can they stop foreigners from settling on their land? Building a whole slew of infrastructure (settlements, roads, water) that is off limits to the natives?
Because if the answer to these questions is no (and it is repeatedly no) then the CIA Handbook can say what it wants, but the Palestinians do not have a State in any truthful sense of the word – and while I am convinced that this was not your intention, it is misleading to say that they do.
I think “uninflected” may have been a terribly terribly gentle and not directed at any particular political group criticism. Just possibly.
Is a Jewish State any State with a Jewish majority, or is there more to it? Basically my question is: are there many ways of ensuring a Jewish majority in Israel that undermine the Jewish nature of the country?
Also – wrt the inevitability of anti-semitism in any country that is not officially a Jewish State – do you think that the secular Western democracies like the US or Canada or Australia will inevitably trend anti-semitic? What about India or China? I honestly don’t think it’s likely – it is a sickness, but it is not a universal attribute for civilisations.
Thank you, Aimee!
Mike, you sweet thing. I’ve got two books cooking — neither is an Evan Adair novel, but he is always in the back of my mind…
I entirely take your point, but we can choose neither the necessity of the relationship nor the occupant of the White House. This president is striking for many negative qualities, not the least of which is his vituperative petulance — and he’s a second term president with nothing to lose electorally if he just goes with his gut. It is strategically foolish on our part to encourage an already hostile Obama to feel in any way justified in his loathing of us, as Bibi’s flagrant disrespect of the office obviously did, to say nothing of his tactics on election day.
I understand this view, as I held it for a long time. But I have lived here for fourteen years now, and I have Israeli children. With respect, it is easy from a distance to counsel that we just stay at each other’s throats until one of us collectively dies.
That might sound naive, but I submit that it is more naive to believe that a fight to the death is a reasonable position here. It will not result in either side simply “deciding it can fight no more” and leaving the field; it will result either in generation upon generation of bloodshed and heartbreak and tragedy (which is what we’ve got already), or — God forbid — that the whole place might be wiped out. Trying to find some kind of compromise now has a better chance of ensuring our ultimate survival and strength than gritting our teeth and fighting an eternity of wars.
I have not gone soft; nor am I suffering some kind of Stockholm Syndrome. I am thinking solely in terms of what is in this country’s strategic best interests, which translates, I believe, to the best interests of both populations. I am not denying the mess that is Palestinian society, and I am certainly not denying the danger they pose to us. I am not proposing that we trust them. I am proposing that we talk to them not in the hope that they will love us; they will never love us. What I have in mind is a divorce, one that involves minimal bloodshed.
I like your phrasing, and appreciate your sentiment! Thank you.
Hi, Scott. A unity government would probably be too hamstrung to accomplish anything. It is also not going to happen, since Bibi received enough of a mandate to preclude the necessity to reach out. He’s already putting together his coalition.
I didn’t vote Labor. I voted for Kahlon, an ex-Likudnik who has some actual political accomplishments to his credit and who had the good sense to include on his candidate list Michael Oren, the historian and former Israeli ambassador to the US, whom I rate highly. Kahlon’s party, Kulanu, has joined Bibi’s coalition, as expected. This is very much to the good, in my opinion.
Oh how I love the Carolinas. How blessed you are to live there! Thank you, and may you be protected too.
I am not objecting either to the fact of Bibi’s addressing Congress nor the content of the speech, and yes, I’m aware that Bibi has spoken to Congress before. I’m objecting, as I said, to two elements of this event: the timing, two weeks before the Israeli election (making Congress into a whistle stop on Bibi’s campaign trail), and the failure to extend the courtesy of clearing the acceptance of the invitation with the White House. No, that is not because I am a closet Obama fan; it is because showing disrespect to the office of the presidency is not in Israel’s best interest.
I don’t know, ET. Something tells me Obama is itching to do something big, and ideally something big that rubs Bibi’s nose in the dirt.
Obama has behaved disgustingly toward Bibi; no question. But as I am constantly telling my children, the fact that other people behave poorly does not mean one should behave poorly oneself. It would be far more productive for Bibi to out-statesman Obama than to match him in general boorishness, since the costs for such boorishness can be extremely high.
This may well be the case. In which case, it is a situation that has to be handled intelligently and cautiously to protect our interests.
Hi, Zafar. I am passionately in favor of encouraging a healthy Iran, but in my view, a healthy Iran is not an Iran with a hostage population and a theocratic exterminationist leadership in possession of a nuclear bomb.
Hi, Aaron. Thanks for your questions.
First: sitting down with the Palestinians doesn’t mean an agreement is in the offing. That’s my point. As things stand, with the Palestinian polity in the state its in, they are not going to offer any reciprocal concessions, and we’re not handing over anything without anything in return. There is therefore little danger in sitting down. We will stop being the obstructionist villains, and who knows — maybe something might even be accomplished. Also, note that the Gaza withdrawal, which resulted in the disastrous Hamastan enclave on our border, has a) not been forgotten by any of us, including on the left; and b) was a unilateral action by Israel with no negotiated reciprocal concessions.
Second: As you say, Israel is about 3/4 Jewish. The Jewish birthrate is already relatively high for a developed country (3 kids per Jewish woman, including the secular population), and both the Jewish and Christian birthrates in Israel are increasing. The Muslim birthrate, on the other hand, is slowing down. It’ll be quite some time before we have a demographic crisis inside the Green Line, and if current trends continue, the prevailing populations will be Jewish and Christian rather than Jewish and Muslim.
Hi, David. I do know exactly what you mean. There is something exhilarating about the spectacle of a strong man of principle facing down a pouting, feckless git. The trouble is, he’s a dangerous pouting feckless git who can do us immeasurable harm. He is a problem that must be managed with finesse, not kicked to the curb.
Still, I do understand. I heard Bibi speak live at AIPAC a few years ago and his charisma really is powerful. I wonder what the dynamics would have been if he had been prime minister while Clinton was president.
Zafar, I accept a difference between overthrowing an ally and overthrowing an enemy. I realize it’s a matter of fair debate. Thank you for your clarity.
So we should ensure it, and even give him some kind of fig leaf for it? Not very sensible, I’d say.
Obama can’t be elected to the presidency again. I don’t think he gives two hoots about the opinion of flyover country.
I did not say his speech would be the only reason he would do this. The speech is the least of it. As I said, Bibi’s eleventh-hour disavowal of his prior commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state gives Obama just the entrée he needs to do an end run around us and give the Palestinians what they want on a platter. This is hardly strengthening to the state of Israel.
Of course he did. As I said in an earlier comment, sinking to Obama’s level of petty childishness is not in our interest, and to use a term of EJ Hill’s, it’s unbecoming.
Yes, it’s a terrible thing. That’s why it isn’t very shrewd to ensure that he will not listen to a word we say under any circumstances.
They’re not false. I never said they were false. I said that to condemn Arab Israeli voters for exercising their right to vote, and to use that as an election night scare tactic, is demagoguery. And it is.
We might be safer (possibly — Laborites fight when necessary too) in the short run, but not in the long run, which is what I was trying to get across.
I’m at a loss as to you how you inferred from anything I wrote that I want peace at any price.
No right of return.
In which case the talks collapse. Which would be their doing, not ours. And we fight again, as we must, until the other side faces reality and gets its act together.
I agree with you. I trust God. In the meantime, I’m trying to do the best I can for my people, my family and my two countries, which entails finding a decent, civilized, humane way forward in a set of circumstances that are thoroughly indecent, often uncivilized, and sometimes appallingly inhumane.
I thank you for yours. Stay with us, even if some of us annoy you. ;-)
Are the consequences sufficient to contain him? I hope so. His loathing of Bibi and overall discomfort with Israel in general appears to be so intense that I fear logic might not be enough to stop him once he decides to take action, particularly as his inner circle is now exclusively virulently anti-Israel, with (as far as I know) no mitigating voices among them.
I read this morning that he’s thinking of handing off the Israel problem to Joe Biden, I guess because John Kerry was such a towering success. What a parade of clowns.
I entirely agree with you. What’s terrifying about the current scenario is that Bibi’s strategic interests actually align directly with the US’s strategic interests, but Obama’s loathing of Bibi is so overwhelming that he can’t see it. A weakened Israel threatened by an emboldened and hostile Palestinian state that was formed without negotiation with Israel is strategically dangerous to American interests, as is, obviously, a nuclear Iran that is busily (and successfully) forging a Shiite crescent across the region and that has a missile base in Venezuela. US interests are should be uppermost for Obama; of course they should. My fear (or one of them, to be more precise) is that they will get lost in the shuffle.
Ball Diamond Ball: I shudder to think what many of the modern critics of Israel would have had to say in 1939. Did they have it coming? Were the huffy bull-necked Jews simply too balky for Europe to exist in peace?
Claire Berlinski:
And it’s not a good argument. Because it is lacking in nuance. One of the things to think about if you want lessons from 1939 in Europe is the Maginot line.
BDB: Please tell me why. It’s an interesting objection to my parallel, and I confess I do not see the connection.
CB (cont’d): There’s a reason for the cliche about generals always fighting the last war–that’s how nations get wiped out.
BDB: It is one way. Another way is lack of preparation. Non-military people like to point to military lessons learned and snicker that the military lives in the past. 1. An obsolete threat no longer countered is no longer obsolete.
2. A mediocre plan executed violently today wins more often than a perfect plan executed deliberately tomorrow.
3. A flawed plan is still a plan from which to deviate in measurable increments.
4. The future is murky, especially when concealed.
5. A failure to plan is a plan to fail.
What do I need to know about Maginot?
Uh oh. Bring it on.
That’s true, and it will continue to be true. So I fail to see the risk in agreeing to talk to him.
See point above. Let them be the obstructionists.
Agreed. So it is a situation that must be managed carefully and diplomatically. The last thing we should be doing is giving Obama fig leaves for his Bulworth.
You’re right! You know, I actually forgot this happened. I’ll just restate that it is not in our interests to lower ourselves to Obama’s behavior level, since we’re the weaker party. The consequences can be much more serious for us than for him.
Very interesting. This makes sense.
Yes. Tzipi is the main reason why I couldn’t vote for Bupi. Well, I couldn’t stand Herzog either.
Absolutely. Obama is positioning himself in direct opposition to us, which is why I fear a big move. All the more reason why we should be extremely cautious.
Yes, I’ve been yelling for years that we need to learn something from the Arabs’ extraordinary patience. But do you really believe clinging to the status quo — i.e., building up the territories so they can never be divided and fighting a bloody war every few years — is the path to ultimate strength, safety, and security? Do you support, as Bibi does, simply “managing” the situation rather than trying to improve it? If so, you must have a better end in mind than what we’ve got now. What does that end look like?
I voted for him.
Fantastic! Welcome!
From your mouth to God’s ears.