Wanted: Israeli Realism

Daniel Levy makes the case that what Israel needs is a school of "realist" thinking about its policies:

What is missing and needed is for an Israeli school of realism to emerge, capable of addressing the new challenges of the region. This realist school should set out four strategic goals for Israel: to stabilize Israel's security environment; prevent Al-Qaida copycats from gaining a foothold on Israel's doorstep; pursue an end of occupation that will allow for realization of permanent, agreed, recognized and legitimate borders on all fronts; and more effectively isolate the Ahmadinejadist wing in Iran's leadership.

This sounds correct to me. Israel is an interesting place in that it's extremely close -- both chronologically and ideologically -- to its essentially Romantic origins, which seems to make it difficult for the political system to wrestle honestly with what the country is trying to achieve. Is establishing a peaceful relationship with its neighbors a strategic priority, or is it something that might be nice if and only if it can be achieved consistently with other, more important, strategic parameters? If the nuclear arsenal is deemed insufficient to deter the use of an Iranian nuclear weapon, then what's it for?

Comments

What's Peace Now? Chopped liver?

Also, "realism" in the mouth of someone who writes, "if Jerusalem needs to explain this to Washington, so be it" is just risible.

Posted by rilkefan | July 2, 2007 2:06 PM

I don't see this as saying too much. We need less discussion by Levy and co on overall objectives and various isms and more discussion on actual policies: are we planning to stabilise the security environment/get recognised borders by a. colonising the Palestinians, demonising them in the US policy process, and toying with expelling the Israeli arabs (including under the guise of 'land swaps') or b. pursuing these objectives without seeking to maintain any colonists on the land conquered in 1967, without attempting to crush them by force, and without seeking to expell the Israeli arabs one way or another. All of the problems would be easier with option b., but the central chauvinism of Israeli politics - the view that arabs are there to be colonised - gets in the way.

I hope your book will also be relatively thin on 'isms' and more concrete about specific policies.

Posted by otto | July 2, 2007 2:13 PM

It strikes me that Yglesias is wrong again -- where were you during the last "realist" phase -- 93-00? under what school was Oslo and "peace" with Arafat justified except under a realist school.

again, yglesias' premises are of the immature, un-informed and "hanging out at the coffeeshop" with my grad school friends (or bloggers).

Overall, not helpful.

Posted by ILP | July 2, 2007 2:24 PM

Matt:

It takes both sides (or all sides) to make peace, but only one side to make war. To believe--no matter how fervently--that both sides in this conflict want peace is just delusional.

There seems to be this notion--even after all these years and all the evidence to the contrary--that if Israel were only to "get serious" about peace (i.e., leave the West Bank), responsible Palestinian leaders would suddenly materialize and squelch the fanatics. The truth is that unilateral territorial concessions by Israel only vindicate the "talk, terrorize, repeat" long war policies of the current nihilist (Hamas) and near-nihilist (Fatah) Palestinian leaders. It may be true that a lot of ordinary Palestinians would support a peace agreement along the lines of the 2000 proposal. But they're not in charge, are they? And there's no sign that someone who holds that view will EVER be in charge.

Israel could withdraw to the pre-'67 lines tomorrow. What would happen? The various and sundry terrorist groups would start lobbing rockets over the new border. Then the leaders of Palestine would start talking about the "next round" of negotiations. Israel could withdraw to Tel Aviv, and the Palestinians would pocket those concessions and watch as the terrorists fire rockets into the city.

Posted by Claudius | July 2, 2007 2:46 PM

To borrow a line from Letters from Iwo Jima, Claudius, there's a certain value in doing what is right because it is right.

Posted by JP | July 2, 2007 2:49 PM

A post like this makes me wonder if Matt has put any thought at all into the middle east except "israel bad." This post might make some sense if Israel's neighbors were Belgium, Iceland, and New Zealand.

Maybe he's forgotten that Israel is at peace with Egypt and Jordan after making the realist view to give back all of the Sinai?

Maybe he forgot that Israel made the realist decision to leave Lebanon to a UN mandated border (and is still being attacked by Hezbollah despite this).

Maybe he forgot about the realist decision to leave Gaza (and Israel is still being attacked despite this).

Who exactly does he want Israel to make peace with? Syria and Iran? Neither have any motive or shown any desire to make peace with Israel. Iran would like the country of Israel wiped off tha map.

Posted by Dave | July 2, 2007 3:07 PM

Re otto

Well, Mr. otto, as usual, weighs in with his prescription for peace in the Middle East. Mr. Claudius, Mr. rilkefan, and Mr. ILP are, of course absolutely correct and accurate. The only prescription that the Palestinians have so far indicate that they will accept is one in which the State of Israel agrees to go out of business. Of course, Mr. otto is all in favor of that, as all his comments on all threads of this blog indicate. There can be no doubt from these comments that Mr. otto considers the State of Israel to be an illegal abomination which has no other purpose then to impose an Eichmann solution on the Palestinians.

Posted by SLC | July 2, 2007 3:10 PM

"This conflict, even with Hamas, is not about an absolute rejection of the "other" or clash of civilizations. It remains grievance-driven - and can be resolved by ending the occupation."

This quote from the linked article ends all credibility the author may have had. Hamas's version of "ending the occupation" is ending Israel and if you think otherwise, your head is in the sand.

Posted by Dave | July 2, 2007 3:10 PM

"there's a certain value in doing what is right because it is right."

True enough. But I suspect that such value would be cold comfort if, having made the gesture, your towns were still being shelled, your buses still being blown up, and the international community still putting pressure on you to make more concessions because "it would be the right thing to do."

Posted by Claudius | July 2, 2007 3:21 PM

Hamas's version of "ending the occupation" is ending Israel and if you think otherwise, your head is in the sand.

Hamas biggest piece of military hardware is an ancient anti-aircraft gun. The idea that they could end Israel the way the Israeli's ended Palestine is just out there. What does it matter?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 2, 2007 3:22 PM

Hamas's version of "ending the occupation" is ending Israel and if you think otherwise, your head is in the sand.

Hamas biggest piece of military hardware is an ancient anti-aircraft gun. The idea that they could end Israel the way the Israeli's ended Palestine is just out there. What does it matter?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 2, 2007 3:22 PM

Of course there is the elephant in the room that no-one wants to acknowledge: once again religion rears its ugly head. The old testament is nothing but a list of one covenant after another where god promises some version of the land of palestine to his chosen people.

Religion, being by definition, based on something other than rationality, you now have a population who don't care about realism, fairness, negotiation or any other such mundane matters.

And, as we all know, the last third of the old testament, all about Israel getting its come-uppance from Assyria, never to be heard from again, and Babylon wacking Judah but good, are not the popular parts. Much better to forget real history and rant obsessively about exodus through 2 kings. But of course, religions never make sense, even within their own chosen framework.

Posted by Maynard Handley | July 2, 2007 3:24 PM

Re: "Israel could withdraw to the pre-'67 lines tomorrow. What would happen? The various and sundry terrorist groups would start lobbing rockets over the new border. Then the leaders of Palestine would start talking about the "next round" of negotiations. Israel could withdraw to Tel Aviv, and the Palestinians would pocket those concessions and watch as the terrorists fire rockets into the city."

If Israel will get attacked no matter what they do, why don't they just drive all the Palestinians out of the West Bank altogether, and take it completely? Why the half-assed policy of taking it in tiny increments, one settlement at a time?

Posted by Jim W | July 2, 2007 3:45 PM

"Israel could withdraw to the pre-'67 lines tomorrow. What would happen? The various and sundry terrorist groups would start lobbing rockets over the new border. "

Never know until you try.

"But the appearance of Al-Qaida-inspired Fatah al-Islam in Tripoli and the Jund al-Sham and Usbat al-Ansar in Sidon should focus minds in Jerusalem."

Plus Iran with nukes. If they don't try, looks like the really hard-core enemy will grow.

I disagree with the author's take on Syria. The U.N. should squeeze Syria on the Hariri assassination.

The Clinton deal wasn't that good a deal for Palestinians. Anyone objective could see that.

However, Arafat wasn't that great a leader either, to say the least. As some else put it, rather well:

"Edward Said asked many times, in public and private, where the Mandela of Palestine could be. In rather bold contrast to this decent imagination, Arafat managed to be both a killer and a compromiser (Mandela was neither), both a Swiss bank-account artist and a populist ranter (Mandela was neither), both an Islamic "martyrdom" blow-hard and a servile opportunist, and a man who managed to establish a dictatorship over his own people before they even had a state (here one simply refuses to mention Mandela in the same breath)."

Posted by Peter | July 2, 2007 3:52 PM

"The Clinton deal wasn't that good a deal for Palestinians. Anyone objective could see that."

Well, it depends if you believe Clinton as to what was offered or you believe Carter, who wasn't there.

Posted by Dave | July 2, 2007 3:58 PM

"Edward Said asked many times, in public and private, where the Mandela of Palestine could be. In rather bold contrast to this decent imagination, Arafat managed to be both a killer and a compromiser (Mandela was neither), both a Swiss bank-account artist and a populist ranter (Mandela was neither), both an Islamic "martyrdom" blow-hard and a servile opportunist, and a man who managed to establish a dictatorship over his own people before they even had a state (here one simply refuses to mention Mandela in the same breath)."

if we're going to run the world based on Mandelas not much is going to happen. They are pretty rare on the ground, and we'd all be better off working on creating structures that operate adequately even when peopled by venal fools. In this regard both the US and Israel have not been especially helpful, obsessed as they are by personalities rather than systems, and providing buggerall incentive for the Palestinians to adopt a different political setup.

As for South Africa, while Mbeki has been a reasonable successor to Mandela, let's see what happens in the third innings. Zuma will make a powerful bid for control, he has a large base of support, and he is no Mandela (or Mbeki). How about the institutional framework? Well, it's never a great idea to have a party in place with more than 70% control of the legislative. I guess we're going to see soon enough just how independent the SA judiciary is, and how hard it will be to alter the consitution.

Posted by Maynard Handley | July 2, 2007 4:25 PM

I'm not impressed by the goals. In particular, what does prevent Al-Qaida copycats from gaining a foothold on Israel's doorstep mean? Prevent a group arising next to Israel that's capable of sending suicide bombers into Israel itself? Has he been reading the news in the last few years?

Posted by william | July 2, 2007 4:54 PM

Notice the predictable one-sided recitation of one side's violent actions in the posts of the Israel-defenders above. People interested in a just peace probably would notice that civilians are being killed by both sides. They'd also notice that the US was eagerly arming Muhammad Dahlan's faction, though Dahlan is notorious for his corruption and human rights violations. This is the kind of support for democracy one comes to expect from the US.

As for that realism during the Oslo period, during that same period settlement expansion never stopped.

If the Israelis offer the Palestinians something along the lines of the Geneva initiative and uproot settlements in the West Bank, then it'll be up to the Palestinians to reciprocate. If they're incapable of controlling their own terrorists then Israel would have every right to strike back and certainly they'd have the ability with or without settlements present. They have zero right to have settlements beyond the 67 borders and claims that they are interested in peace while those settlements exist ring hollow. The same applies to the Palestinian side so long as rockets cross the border, though again, violence against civilians goes in both directions across that border.

Posted by Donald | July 2, 2007 6:38 PM

Commenters interested in a just peace definitely acknowledge that civilians are not being targeted by both sides, that settlement activity _and_ terror against Israeli citizens continued during Oslo, that it's not the case that both sides (govts) accept the other's existence, that Israel withdrew from Gaza, that Olmert's govt was elected on a platform of turning over most of the WB to the Palestinians, that many Israeli policies have hurt the peace process in various ways but that the Palestinians are responsible for their own actions.

Posted by rilkefan | July 2, 2007 7:08 PM

Someone remind me again what's so magical about the 1967 borders? Wasn't the PLO formed when all of the West Bank and Gaza was in Arab hands? Why should Palestinians be appeased now by what didn't satisfy them in 1966?

Posted by Harry | July 2, 2007 11:36 PM

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 2, 2007 3:22 PM:"Hamas biggest piece of military hardware is an ancient anti-aircraft gun. The idea that they could end Israel the way the Israeli's ended Palestine is just out there. What does it matter?"

Israel did not "end" any Palestinian state because there was none. Ever. So what if their biggest piece of military hardware is an aircraft gun? The whole Third World was transformed by people with less. Britain was driven out of Africa and Asia. France out of Algeria and Vietnam. Portugal out of Timor and Africa. All these people had even less and no suicide bombers. Terrorism has worked well in the last 50 years or so. And no doubt America will be driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bottom line is that Israel has no desire to "end" the existence of any Arab state. Not even the Palestinians (and the Fence shows that they have accepted a Palestinian state will exist one day). The Arabs and Muslims have shown that they do not really accept Israel's existence. So no doubt Israel will defeat the Arabs time and time again - as they have done in the past. But the Arabs will never disappear. Israel will never wipe them off the map. And they will learn. One day they will win and Israel is disappear. They only have to get lucky once after all.

Posted by HeiGou | July 3, 2007 6:55 AM

Re: " Israel did not "end" any Palestinian state because there was none. Ever. "

I keep hearing this argument, and I don't understand what its relevance is. If there had been a Palestinian state 2000 years ago, would that mean different policies should be called for now?

Is the fact that the people in the region were colonized and had their rights abrogated by the British, mean that they shouldn't have any rights now? Does the fact that they had no say as to their statehood under the British mean they shouldn't have any say now? What is the line of reasoning here?

Posted by Jim W | July 3, 2007 9:16 AM

Posted by Donald | July 2, 2007 6:38 PM:"Notice the predictable one-sided recitation of one side's violent actions in the posts of the Israel-defenders above. People interested in a just peace probably would notice that civilians are being killed by both sides."

Notice the predictable false equivalence displayed here. Israel does not try to kill civilians. The Palestinian terrorists rarely try anything else. The IDF even puts soldiers on trial when they wrongfully kill civilians. Hamas names schools after them. The Israelis are a legal democratic government. The Palestinians are mostly thugs and murderers. You may as well compare the Public Prosecutor with a lynch mob. People interested in genuine peace would notice that if the Arabs put down their weapons there would be peace in the Middle East, and if Israel put down their weapons, there'd be no Jews in the Middle East.

Posted by Donald | July 2, 2007 6:38 PM:"They'd also notice that the US was eagerly arming Muhammad Dahlan's faction, though Dahlan is notorious for his corruption and human rights violations."

Dahlan was the head of the PA's police in Gaza. The US has worked to strengthen the President of the PA. If he employs thugs, that's his problem.

Posted by Donald | July 2, 2007 6:38 PM:"If the Israelis offer the Palestinians something along the lines of the Geneva initiative and uproot settlements in the West Bank, then it'll be up to the Palestinians to reciprocate."

And if they don't? What you do recommend? A stiff letter? And perhaps another one? We have been here before with Barak. Arafat rejected that remember. Oslo called for building trust. Israel was not a good observer of that agreement, but they did try. The Palestinians did nothing at all. Let them take the next step.

Posted by Donald | July 2, 2007 6:38 PM:"If they're incapable of controlling their own terrorists then Israel would have every right to strike back and certainly they'd have the ability with or without settlements present."

They would in fact have no right to do so whatsoever. The second Israel withdraws, the UN et al will recognise the Palestinian government. Any move to re-occupy the West Bank would be seen as an act of aggression by all the usual suspects who do not accept that terrorism against Israel is a crime - the UN for instance. Once Israel is gone it will not be able to go back no matter how much terrorism takes place. Look at Gaza.

Posted by Donald | July 2, 2007 6:38 PM:"They have zero right to have settlements beyond the 67 borders and claims that they are interested in peace while those settlements exist ring hollow."

Sorry but what is the evidence that they have no right to any settlements beyond the Green Line? The Green Line is not a border, it is a Ceasefire line. It is recognised by no one. It was fixed not be agreement but by fighting in 1948. A real border requires negotiation. Barak and Arafat talked about adjusting the border so clearly there is nothing inherently sacrosanct about it.

Posted by Donald | July 2, 2007 6:38 PM:"The same applies to the Palestinian side so long as rockets cross the border, though again, violence against civilians goes in both directions across that border."

Yet again the hypocrisy of false equivalence. Only one side is trying to kill civilians. The terrorists. The other side is trying to keep law and order. The government. You may as well equate the Mafia with Trenton City Council.

Posted by Jim W | July 3, 2007 9:16 AM :"Is the fact that the people in the region were colonized and had their rights abrogated by the British, mean that they shouldn't have any rights now? Does the fact that they had no say as to their statehood under the British mean they shouldn't have any say now? What is the line of reasoning here?"

It is simply a matter of historical accuracy for me. The claim was false and needed to be corrected. As the claim that the Palestinians, as they then were not, were colonized. They were not. Britain was granted a League of Nations mandate. Their rights were not abrogated either and certainly not by the British. Perhaps you could argue that the UN, in creating Israel, did so but that is a problem for the UN. They had a say as to their own statehood under the British. They chose not to have half a state wanting it all. The Jordanians and Egyptians then declined to allow them to exercise that right despite their rejection of the UN Partition plan.

Posted by HeiGou | July 3, 2007 11:05 AM

I still don't see what the relevance is of the fact that the Palestinians did not have a state prior to 1948. They were controlled by outsiders (the British, and prior to them, the Ottomans I assume?). The fact that, due to historical reasons, they were not powerful enough to have a state of their own back then does not seem relevant to the issue of whether they should have a state of their own now.

The implication I seem to be getting, albeit unstated in explicit terms, is that, since they didn't have their own state then, they don't deserve to have one now. This seems like a non sequiter to me.

Posted by Jim W | July 3, 2007 11:23 AM

Posted by Jim W | July 3, 2007 11:23 AM:"I still don't see what the relevance is of the fact that the Palestinians did not have a state prior to 1948."

It is still mostly a historical issue for me but it does have minor legal implications. No one can claim that the PA is entitled to the historical Palestinian borders as there are none. No one can claim that the Israelis *must* withdraw to the Green Line because the Green Line is not a border. A return to the status quo ante would involve giving it back to the Jordanians who now reject any claim to the territory at all. There is an argument that the OTs are stateless territory to which Israel has a more or less free hand precisely because there is a vacuum on the other side.

Posted by Jim W | July 3, 2007 11:23 AM:"The fact that, due to historical reasons, they were not powerful enough to have a state of their own back then does not seem relevant to the issue of whether they should have a state of their own now."

The issue is not one of power but of Palestinian nationalism for most who make that argument. They lacked a state under the Ottomans and the British (and then the Egyptians and Jordanians) because Palestinian nationalism did not exist (and is still weak). It really only took off after 1967.

Posted by Jim W | July 3, 2007 11:23 AM:"The implication I seem to be getting, albeit unstated in explicit terms, is that, since they didn't have their own state then, they don't deserve to have one now. This seems like a non sequiter to me."

Well I'd agree although there must be some basis for defining a nation. In the Palestinians' case it seems to be anyone who believes they are strongly enough and murders enough Westerners. The Kurds ought to take note.

Posted by HeiGou | July 3, 2007 11:43 AM

Re: Terrorism has worked well in the last 50 years or so.

Guerilla warfare (generally used in most anti-colonial rebellions including our own) and terrorism are not the same thing. Guerilla warfare aims at military or govermmental targets (albeit with unintended collateral damage to civilians, liker most military actions) and has some tactical purpose in mind: cutting supply lines, asassinating leadership and so forth. Terrorists strike at civilian targets with no tactical or straetegic purpose in mind unless wanton slaughter and destruction count.

Re: Is the fact that the people in the region were colonized and had their rights abrogated by the British

Palestine was not "colonized" by the British. The British governed the region for a generation under a League of Nations mandate after the Ottoman Empire (which had been ruling the Middle East as an imperial power) had collapsed-- and that mandate included instructions to prepare the region for nationhood in an expedited manner. Ditto for Syria and Lebanon under the French and Iraq under the British.

Posted by JonF | July 4, 2007 12:24 PM

Posted by JonF | July 4, 2007 12:24 PM:"Guerilla warfare (generally used in most anti-colonial rebellions including our own) and terrorism are not the same thing. Guerilla warfare aims at military or govermmental targets (albeit with unintended collateral damage to civilians, liker most military actions) and has some tactical purpose in mind: cutting supply lines, asassinating leadership and so forth. Terrorists strike at civilian targets with no tactical or straetegic purpose in mind unless wanton slaughter and destruction count."

I agree that the two are not the same and I should not conflate them but I can't think of a single anti-colonial rebellion that follows your model except perhaps the American one and even there I'd think that enough anti-Tory violence existed to disprove your categorization. When the Malayan Communist guerillas murdered Rubber planters, how was that "unintended"? When the FLN famously took two young newly married French teachers off a bus and murdered them after raping the wife, how was that "collateral damage"? The vast majority of victims of *all* guerilla campaigns are civilians - usually those who support the government. When Mugabe's guerillas murdered a group of nuns they did not do so by accident, but on purpose.

Posted by HeiGou | July 4, 2007 12:39 PM