Obviously, expressing willingness to hold diplomatic discussions with Iran's leaders is a political blunder whereas running around the world threatening to attack them like Rudy Giuliani is politically savvy toughness. That everybody knows. So I suppose that by the same token, promising to expand NATO to include Israel -- thus committing the United States to the armed defense of the borders of a country that lacks internationally recognized borders -- also reflects the politically savvy toughness rather than, say, a dangerous ignorance of what NATO is or how it works or international relations more broadly.
« Mark Versus Women | Main | Bringing Sexy Back »
Giuliani's Dangerous Ignorance
20 Sep 2007 08:11 am
Comments (39)
Re Israels' borders.
What's this, is Mr. Yglesias now claiming that Israel doesn't have internationally recognized borders? If Israel doesn't have internationally recognized borders, how can Mr. Yglesias complain about Israeli settlements? Has Mr. Yglesias finally come to recognize that the so-called green line is a cease fire line, not a border? If the green line is not a border, as Mr. Yglesias is now claiming, then the settlements East of the green line are not illegal but subject to negotiation as to the final borders.
Including Israel in NATO may not be a good idea (we've been a little too quick to add NATO members recently in any case), but Giuliani didn't just pull this one out of his ass. This idea has been mooted by the influential NY Times columnist Tom Friedman, who thought Egypt should be added as well.
This idea has been mooted by the influential NY Times columnist Tom Friedman, who thought Egypt should be added as well.
Well, if Friedman thinks it's a good idea, then we should definitely do it.
Re Israel in NATO
This idea has also been floated in the Knesset by Avigdor Lieberman. It does not seem to be very popular in Israel.
"Well, if Friedman thinks it's a good idea, then we should definitely do it."
Right. That's why I prefaced that by writing "Including Israel in NATO may not be a good idea". The point isn't whether or not it's a good idea, but whether Giuliani's bringing this up is, ipso facto, a demonstration of his "ignorance" about "what NATO is or how it works or international relations more broadly," as MY claims. That America's most prominent foreign policy columnist has also mooted the idea suggests that Rudy may be basing his idea on knowledge of current views on the subject, rather than ignorance, as MY claims.
Matt's charge would have more weight if there were still universal agreement about "what NATO is or how it works or international relations more broadly", to repeat Matt's mellifluous phrase, but NATO's post-Cold War eastern expansion, and its mission in central Asia have raised questions about this.
Just make Israel a state! This solves all sorts of problems. Couple it with DC statehood. Guliani's Homeland Security advisor, Peter King, can give some helpful advice. No worries about pretexts for attacking Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Syria and Lebanon.
Does the fact that a nutjob like Tom Friedman proposed this silly idea first somehow make it more appealing than if Rudy had "pulled it out of his ass"?
Also, I'd appreciate it if people wouldn't use phrases that invoke repellent imagery, such as Rudy pulling anything out of his ass.
There have been hints in your posts all along, but with your statement that Israel is "a country that lacks internationally recognized borders" you have fully and finally revealed yourself: as someone who basically questions Israel's very right to exist. Instead of reacting to the NATO proposal on the merits, you dismiss the entire country as a worthless aberration. The underlying premise of the idea is that in return for giving up the West Bank, and strategic depth, the country would be given an extra measure of protection through an affiliation with NATO. Personally, I hate the settlements. But I wouldn't trust Israel's security to European leaders who, like you, wouldn't lose a moment's sleep and would probably even break out the champagne if the entire country went up in flames. It's your reflexively anti-Israel attitude, so very widely shared, that is the real reason giving that country NATO "protection" is a bad idea.
"Does the fact that a nutjob like Tom Friedman proposed this silly idea first somehow make it more appealing than if Rudy had "pulled it out of his ass"?"
Again:
"The point isn't whether or not it's a good idea, but whether Giuliani's bringing this up is, ipso facto, a demonstration of his "ignorance" about "what NATO is or how it works or international relations more broadly," as MY claims."
Substitute "appealing" for "good" above if you like, and see if it makes sense to you. I've got a McDonald's breakfast sandwich coupon I'm going to go use. When I come back, I'll walk you through this if you need help.
Suppose some crazy guy on the street comes up to me and says that we should expand NATO to include Mongolia, and I propose that idea. Would you say that I am ignorant about "what NATO is or how it works or international relations more broadly"?
Or, would you say that I'm not ignorant because I didn't come up with the idea myself? Lets use some logic here.
Italian Defense Minister Antonio Martino recently announced that in his opinion, the time has come to include Israel in NATO as a regular member, and he intends to raise the issue at the meeting of NATO defense ministers next week.
And the article continues:
The idea itself is not new.
I wouldn't vote for Giuliani in 1000 years, but talking about Israel as part of NATO hardly reflects "a dangerous ignorance of what NATO is or how it works or international relations more broadly."
In fact, MY, hate to say it, and I wouldn't use the word "dangerous" to describe your post, but ignorance isn't too much of a stretch.
You can take it up with the Antonio Martino - who presumably knows just a bit about NATO - if you like.
From last April:
Israel, NATO conduct Red Sea naval exercise
And from June:
Israel moves closer to NATO missions
Israel moved a step closer towards joining global NATO missions after the IDF agreed to upgrade relations and joint military training and exercises to enhance interoperability with the western military alliance, Assistant NATO Sec.-Gen. John Colston told The Jerusalem Post .
In Tel Aviv last week as a guest of OC IDF Planning Division Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan, Colston said Israel had agreed to "broaden operations" with NATO and to participate in the coming year in a wide range of exercises, as well as training regiments.
The aim, he said, was to add Israel to NATO's "operational capabilities concept" with the goal of creating better cooperation between the militaries - essentially a unified operational language - that would lay the groundwork for potential Israeli participation in NATO-led missions.
"The operational capabilities concept would enable Israeli units to work alongside forces from allies and other partner nations and benefit from mutual exercises and shared evaluation," explained Colston, who is responsible for defense policy and planning at NATO headquarters in Brussels.
Assistant NATO Sec.-Gen. John Colston sounds dangerously ignorant of what NATO is or or it works or international relations more broadly.
Maybe I'm missing something. Where does John Colston propose that Israel should be a regular member of NATO?
And, if an Italian defense minister proposes something, that alone doesn't make it a mainstream idea. Obviously, if you produce quotes of several reasonable people (ie, not neocons and not Tom Friedman) who have expressed support for this idea, then you'd be right to say that Giuliani is not ignorant in proposing it, regardless of the merits.
But, so far all I've seen is a nut (Friedman) and an Italian defense minister.
Allow me to defend MY for once.
I believe he used muddled language in saying that Israel does not have internationally recognized borders. Clearly it does. It just so happens that Israel itself recognizes some very different borders. In other words, Israel is a country with a very significant border dispute. For us to enter into a joint agreement to protect the borders of a country in the middle of such a dispute would be a bit risky, to say the least. Of course, when NATO was first formed there was a pretty hefty border dispute going on in Germany, so that doesn't exactly disqualify NATO membership by itself.
Regardless of who else has proposed this idea, it is a pretty wacky and poorly thought-out fringe concept. For a presidential candidate to float something like this really demonstrates a deep immaturity when it comes to foreign policy. Perhaps next Guilanni will call for Taiwan independence, and Tibetan independence while he's at it--both worthy causes, but with major downsides that presidents would be advised to steer clear of.
Jim W,
With due respect, I think you are missing something.
The initial characterization here was "dangerously ignorant," right?
Yet, more than a year and a half ago, a high ranking European defense minister - right in the heart of NATO country - called for just that.
And joint operations between Israel and NATO have been occurring for quite some time, and one of the top NATO officials is publically on the record calling for increased military and operational ties.
If you insist on characterizing whatever gulf exists between Colston's stated desires and full Nato membership as "dangerously ignorant" - then so be it.
Then is anything outside what you consider "a mainstream idea" akin to "dangerously ignorant"?
I would guess no, so it's looking like a huge goal post shift here to defend MY's characterization of Giuliani's remarks.
If NATO membership is "dangerously ignorant," why aren't "joint military exercises," "enhanced interoperability," "a unified operational language - that would lay the groundwork for potential Israeli participation in NATO-led missions" dangerously ignorant ideas?
You (and Matt) might think it's a bad idea, but NATO-Israeli cooperation has been happening for quite some time, and a high ranking NATO commander wants the cooperation to continue increasing.
But, so far all I've seen is a nut (Friedman) and an Italian defense minister.
Here's another one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022001121.html
Ronald Asums, executive director of the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center in Brussels, served as deputy assistant secretary of state for European affairs from 1997 to 2000
Here's NATO's Deputy Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs and Security Policy Dr. Patrick Hardouin calling for expanded Israel-NATO ties about a year ago:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1159193514483
Here's Czech Deputy Prime Minister Alexandr Vondra and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar calling for Israel (and Australia and Japan) to join NATO:
http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070123-121510-4676r
SoCalJustice,
Wow. I had no idea there were so many dangerously ignorant people out there.
Seriously, though, you do have a point. It sounds like a nutty idea to me, and I've never heard of any of the people you mention, but perhaps the sheer number of them allows it to cross the threshold from a "dangerously ignorant" idea to merely a "dangerous" idea.
I do have a technical quibble. If we do end up allowing countries to joint who are nowhere near the north atlantic, wouldn't it make sense to change the name? I suppose it doesn't really matter, but the inappropriateness of the name would bother me.
There are several countries not exactly near the North Atlantic in NATO.
http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm
Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania - all closer to the Middle East than the Atlantic.
By that token, it's already misnamed.
But I am not at all invested in what the organization is called. I'd like to see stronger economic/military alliances between the U.S., Europe and our Arab allies as well.
Well, let's see. NATO is
1) traditionally, a mutual defense pact, originally designed as in instrument to deter a Sovjet takeover of Western Europe
2) nowadays, for the most part, an instrument for out-of-area peace-keeping and peace-enforcment missions, supporting the GWOT while checking Russias ambitions.
Israel would not be very helpful for mission No. 2).
Remains mission No.1).
What the supporters of Israeli NATO membership think of, I suppose, that this would help to deter Iran et al from attacking Israel. I think nearly unqualified US support for Israel is quite enough for this and NATO membership would not bring a dramatical improvement to Israel's security.
Moreover, the idea is ignorant to Israel's interests. Do you honestly think Israel would like to join an organisation and thus give several countries which are (rightly or wrongly very critical to Israel's policies in the OT a reason (or pretext, if you prefer) to stick their nose even further into what Israel thinks are its internal affairs?
Think again. What Israel wants is US support. Which it has. End of story.
Patrick,
Depends on what you mean by Israel's interests.
Most Israelis want out of the West Bank and Gaza, and outside security guarantees and strengthened alliances are one possible way of marginalizing the "we can never depend on others - especially Europeans! - and are going to dig our heels into the ground" mindset pervasive on the right/center over there.
It doesn't have to be part of the process, but such an alliance can easier pave the way towards the creation of a Palestinian state, sooner rather than later.
SoCal,
I am afraid you mix up two different kinds of security concerns Israel has.
One is the threat of terrorism from inside the OT or Lebanon. Here NATO could not provide any help Israel would want, but would very likely try to restrain Israels freedom of action.
The other is an attack on Israel with WMD (by Iran, for example). Here NATO membership is supposed to provide enhanced security by better deterrence. But the only thing NATO countries have to offer here is a threat to retaliate against the atacker in the case Israel can't anymore. That retalliation would (have to) come from the US, for the most part, the support of which Israel already has.
And the Iranian threat has little, if anything, to do with the OT in the way that giving up the OT would make Israel more vulnerable to Iran's nukes so that NATO membership would make Israelis feeling secure enough to disengage anyway.
Thus, there is no real bargain to make for Israel. Which is why, I guess, support of NATO membership is a fringe position in Israel, as far as I know.
"That America's most prominent foreign policy columnist has also mooted the idea suggests that Rudy may be basing his idea on knowledge of current views on the subject, rather than ignorance, as MY claims."
Friedman is prominent because most Americans don't know squat about foreign policy. Most Americans can't find Ohio or Iraq on a map. Trotsky may have once been prominent in the field of economic policy, but that doesn't mean following his advice meant you weren't a bit crazy.
Rudy Giuliani threatened to put Iran "back five years"
5 years? He's planning to put Iran back to where it was in 2002? Isn't that about the time we started worrying that Iran was "5 years" from getting the bomb?
No. We've been worried that Iran is 5 years from getting the bomb at least since the early 90s.
Jinchi,
don't try to reason with Rudy. Just like you are not supposed to feed trolls in discussion forums. It's counterproductive, they only get even nuttier.
a country that lacks internationally recognized borders
Our borders are not free from dispute either.
"Our borders are not free from dispute either."
That's tongue-in-cheek, right? I really hope so, because if it isn't, it's simply moronic. As if a dispute over some rock in the middle of nowhere is in any way comparable with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Patrick,
I am afraid you mix up two different kinds of security concerns Israel has.
I would not at all be surprised if membership in NATO is one of the tools used to induce Israeli concessions at any peace talks with the Palestinians.
Those different security concerns are not completely independent of eachother. For example, the two top people in Hamas have their offices in Damascus, and they get most of their funding from overseas.
NATO isn't only about Kosovo style air campaigns.
Similarly, minimizing one of Israel's chief security concerns can have a positive impact on the other, as they can shift their resources to deal with what concerns/issues remain - if membership in the alliance came to be, they could potentially focus less on the direct state v. state threats.
Still no post by MY about the conspiracy theories swirling around the mysterious Israeli air strike on Syria? A couple of reporters asked Bush about this today and he refused to comment.
"For example, the two top people in Hamas have their offices in Damascus, and they get most of their funding from overseas".
Why would Syria stop supporting Hamas because Israel is a NATO member? If Damascus isn't scared enough of the IDF (which, by all accounts, is superior to the Syrian AF) then I don't see why it would be scared of NATO. There is no chance in hell that NATO would help Israel retalliating against Syria if Israel is provoked by some Damascus-backed terrorist act. Remember the Lebanon war (and I don't say that the Lebanon war was justified)?
"if membership in the alliance came to be, they could potentially focus less on the direct state v. state threats"
And do what instead? Again: The reason for Israel not withdrawing form the OT is not because it thinks the occupation enhances its defense against hostile nation states. That may have been part of the rationale for the occupation after the 6DW, but not anymore. Today, what Israel fears is Iran and it's future WMD's, not a conventional invasion by one of Israel's neighbours in which the OT could serve as some sort of buffer zone which could be replaced by mighty NATO. The rationale for the occupation today is securing the settlements and preventing terrorist attacks. NATO membership does not change this calculation.
And again, the only meaningful military support Israel needs is from a strong friend with a lot of nukes, and Israel has this friend already.
What the countries of Eastern Europe has motivated to join NATO was (besides the feeling that joining NATO, like joining the EU, meant cultural reunification with the West) that NATO had be the Alliance that had protected Western Europe from the Sovjets the yoke of which Eastern Europe had just thrown off, and that getting under NATO's umbrella would protect them from the ambitions of a reemerging Russia. And basically, for them, NATO membership meant institutionalised support from the US.
Israels situation is completely different. Israel do not have an overwhelmingly strong neighbour. It fears rogue states with nukes. And it is sure in US support.
"NATO is one of the tools used to induce Israeli concessions at any peace talks with the Palestinians".
All things considered, the advantages for Israel in becoming a NATO member would be, at best, minimal. And that would not be enough to eek concessions out of them they otherwise would be unwilling to make.
Why would Syria stop supporting Hamas because Israel is a NATO member?
Because NATO becomes bound to defend member countries against foreign threats - and if a foreign country is a staging ground for attacks against members, then - in theory - they would have to deal with the entire alliance.
There is no chance in hell that NATO would help Israel retalliating against Syria if Israel is provoked by some Damascus-backed terrorist act.
No chance now, but if Israel was a member of NATO, there is indeed a big chance they would. Or be involved in strategies devised to make Israel's response smarter and less scattershot.
Remember the Lebanon war (and I don't say that the Lebanon war was justified)?
Israel was not a member of NATO when that war took place. That's one of the points here.
NATO alliance adds to the deterrence factor in theory, and Assad would know that and discourage Hamas activity in his capital. Again, in theory.
And do what instead?
Less money into the nuclear program, more into counterterrorism.
Again: The reason for Israel not withdrawing form the OT is not because it thinks the occupation enhances its defense against hostile nation states. That may have been part of the rationale for the occupation after the 6DW, but not anymore.
I don't think it was part of the rationale after the 6DW, but part of any peace deal with the Palestinians is contingent in part on relations and circumstances with surrounding countries - which is why there is a Saudi/Arab League plan to begin with and those countries are talking comprehensive - as opposed to just Israeli/Palestinian - peace. Since '48, it has been an Arab/Israeli - not just Palestinian-Israeli - conflict.
And again, the only meaningful military support Israel needs is from a strong friend with a lot of nukes, and Israel has this friend already.
I disagree. The more backing Israel has militarily (and by extension, diplomatically), the more leverage it has to do many things - including arguing to its own people that the country is safer, and a welcome member in the Western family of nations and, as such, the time for such a brazen military footing is coming to an end.
It fears rogue states with nukes.
Israel + U.S. + NATO vs. rogue states with nukes is a stronger position than just Israel + U.S. vs. rogue states with nukes.
Some Israelis would want that, and some wouldn't.
And that would not be enough to eek concessions out of them they otherwise would be unwilling to make.
Some leverage is better than none.
The issue of whether the Israelis would want to be a part of NATO is much more important, in my opinion, then whether it's a position of "dangerous ignorance" to call for their inclusion in the alliance. As show above, their cooperation with NATO on a host of issues and exercises is already high.
Well, aside from making it even more difficult to be at least seen as fair partners in negotiations and obligating ourselves to a country with numerous enemies, I don't see much of a problem with it.
Maybe we can get Israeli troops to help in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Damn, Rudy seems to think that running around lower manhattan on 9/11 makes him an expert on foreign policy. Does he honestly think the rest of the NATO countries would go along? I'm sure the large muslim populations in France and Britain would just love that. And yet, I doubt we'll hear much in the way of Rudy=Stupid coverage on the TV. I just can't picture Wolf and Candy Crowley having an indepth look at the feasibility of including Israel in NATO. Not when there are haircuts and cleavage to discuss.
"Because NATO becomes bound to defend member countries against foreign threats - and if a foreign country is a staging ground for attacks against members, then - in theory - they would have to deal with the entire alliance...if Israel was a member of NATO, there is indeed a big chance they would. "
"Theory" is the operating word here. In practice, some suiside bombings supported by Damascus short of a 9/11-like event (which Syria wouldn't dare, anyway) would not trigger a military response by NATO (in which form, by the way? Sending ground troups? Please!) Damascus knows that. And again: Damascus knows that Israel is militarily superior to Syria, by far and that they wouldn't have a chance against the IDF.
"Or be involved in strategies devised to make Israel's response smarter and less scattershot."
That's exactly what Israel would fear. Some Europeans meddling in what it sees as a neccessary military strategy.
"And do what instead?
Less money into the nuclear program, more into counterterrorism."
Before Israel shifts money away from its nuclear program (which it sees, when all is said and done, the only thing it can really, 100% rely on, unlike highly dubious support by NATO), some very dramatic things would have to happen (for example, the whole Middle East becoming the democratic peaceful paradise the Bushies promised us). If the US support is not enough for such kind of shift, NATO won't be either.
"Israel + U.S. + NATO vs. rogue states with nukes is a stronger position than just Israel + U.S. vs. rogue states with nukes."
Not much, if at all. Again, what a rogue state with nukes deters is the prospect of being nuked itself. And NATO membership does hardly make this prospect more likely that US support alone. Or do you think the US would say "Oh well, we won't nuke Iran, but hey, if the French would like to..."?
"The issue of whether the Israelis would want to be a part of NATO is much more important, in my opinion, then whether it's a position of "dangerous ignorance" to call for their inclusion in the alliance."
My point exactly. In the sense that applying for NATO membership is a fringe position in Israel, for all the reason I cited above.
"As show above, their cooperation with NATO on a host of issues and exercises is already high".
Which is to say that Israel seems to get at least some of the alleged benefits without being actually member.
Now, we could go on like this forever, but it's late (11.45 PM for me, since I'm German) and I have to work tomorrow. Nevertheless, it was a pleasure to discuss this with you, SoCal.
Have a good night.
Which is to say that Israel seems to get at least some of the alleged benefits without being actually member.
Exactly, and they might seem to get more with membership.
And most of the drawbacks you describe - from an Israeli point of view - are mostly drawbacks for the Israeli hawks (and incompetents, like Amir Peretz - at least from a military standpoint), people I would like to see checked and marginalized.
Obama was properly slapped upside his naive head when he suggested that the US invade Pakistan to get the "real" terrorist problem.
Giuliani should be slapped upside his head - for (1)His cynical pandering to Jewish bigbucks donors "Bring Our Beloved Israel into NATO"; (2)Saying that India should be favored; (3)Suggesting that various Pacific Powers should join NATO to help defend W Europe, in return for them coming to the aid of Pacific nations....
Rudy has always had to out-Zion the Zionists in demonstrating his Israel fealty as NYC's mayor - but being President should mean an obligation to be more balanced with America's traditional allies in the Ummah.
India definitely should be courted, but not with a treaty that isolates Pakistan from the West (NATO).
There is much to recommend nations like Australia (our closest ally), Japan, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, Philippines, even pacifist New Zealand and shaky Muslim Indonesia and Malaysia bond together with US leadership & commitments to ensure they are not dominated by Rising China. At one time they all could afford to kick back and let economically and militarily dominant USA do the work. But the US is in rapid decline as an economic competitor, a financial basketcase, and soon to face a modern Chinese military with more ships, subs, and warplanes than the US can bring into theater.
The answer is not NATO with Germany telling the Philippines how to comport themselves, but with a resurrected SEATO-type defensive pact.
Israel wants to be in NATO simply because it would make it easier to sell them weapons and other technology.
It's a business deal.
Plus they could probably use their membership to enhance their capabilities in dominating the ME in some manner. Raise FUD in NATO as well as in the US.
Gee, Israel and Germany in the same organization. That must make some people unhappy.
It's worth remembering that Rudy is also pandering to the pro-Israel wing of the Religious Right here. Indeed, some prominent figures in the Religious Right (John Hagee, Pat Robertson, etc.) believe that God has defined Israel's borders, and that God's borders have been compromised by Palestinian rule in Gaza and the West Bank.
Comments closed October 04, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"I'm crazier than Bush and Cheney" is the subtext of Giuliani's campaign. Just look at the wild gleam in his eye to see the future of right-wing America. If America wants to go looking for bigger trouble, Guiliani is the right man to lead the search.
Posted by HH | September 20, 2007 8:19 AM