Borders and Guarantees

Somewhat related to the issue raised in last night's debate about extending the U.S. nuclear umbrella to cover Israel, it's always worth making the point that one of several reasons it would serve Israel's interests to aggressively seek a resolution of the Palestinian issue is that it would be much more feasible for the United States to extend security guarantees to Israel under those conditions. With a peace deal in place, Israel would be a friendly democracy with internationally recognized borders -- just the sort of place the U.S. would make a formal treaty with.

But as things stand, Israel has no internationally recognized borders to guarantee. Obviously, some actions like a hypothetical unprovoked Iranian nuclear first strike would obviously go far beyond the scope of border ambiguity, but nuclear-armed Israel doesn't actually need U.S. guaranteed to have a credible threat of massive retaliation. Guarantees and formal alliances would be much more useful in a much lower-intensity setting, but country without internationally recognized borders isn't a good candidate for NATO membership or other kinds of similar relationships that might be useful to Israel.

Comments

But the US already guarantees Israel's security and everyone knows it. What good are "NATO membership or other kinds of similar relationships"?

Posted by right | April 17, 2008 5:42 PM

A real nuke attack isn't what the question is about. It's all about making the candidates jump through hoops to prove that they won't do anything against Israel's interest while they're in office. Israel already has its own nuke deterrent and an Air Force far ahead of any other power in the region. They don't need us to defend them.

Posted by Helter | April 17, 2008 5:55 PM

One has to ask why Matt comes up with these sorts of posts.

Does he set there and say, "Gee, I need to make a post demonstrating my completely ignorant, superficial and shallow conception of what's going on in the world!"?

Or, to paraphrase the preacher in "Blazing Saddles", is he just jerking off?

I mean, he could have said something along the lines already posted by right and Helter. But instead, he has to pose as a "Very Serious Person" and babble inane nonsense that is irrelevant to the reality of the situation.

Bravo, Matt! You'll be getting the "William Kristol/Michael O'Hanlon Award for Absolutely Correct Foreign Policy Analysis" any day now!

When Matt gets a clue about "Israel's interests",, i.e. Israel's REAL interests, email me.

And, yes, I know objectively that Israel is doomed if it doesn't get its head out of its ass and get rid of the Zionist freaks running the country. Nonetheless, that is the reality and Matt is just ignoring it with this kind of pablum.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 17, 2008 6:27 PM

Israel has its own nuclear weapons. The question is rather silly.

The dirty little secret here is that although Iran will have the bomb soon it will only get to the same level as India and Pakistan, a bomb with no missile to carry it. Both lack a compact warhead that they can fit on their existing missiles. It took the US and USSR ten years to manage that and they had the benefit of being able to perform extensive tests.

On the two state solution, it is a delusion. Sharon and Hamas both did whatever they could to destroy it. Hamas knows it will not be very long before the Arab population of greater Israel outnumbers the Jewish. So did Sharon, that is why he reversed course and attempted to abandon Gaza.

There is no chance that the Likudite faction is ever going to allow even Bantu independence for the Palestinians. They will insist on controlling the borders and continuing the settler land grabs.

We all know that there is no possibility that the US can continue to support Israel if the issue ceases to be protection from terrorism and becomes maintaining an apartheid system. That is why Carter's book was so unpopular.

Posted by PHB | April 17, 2008 6:31 PM

A real nuke attack isn't what the question is about. It's all about making the candidates jump through hoops to prove that they won't do anything against Israel's interest while they're in office. Israel already has its own nuke deterrent and an Air Force far ahead of any other power in the region. They don't need us to defend them.
Posted by Helter

Incorrect.

What is feared is the Iranian nuke will be followed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia and perhaps Syria, Egypt, and even Turkey racing to get their own nuke bombs or bombs through Pakistan to deter the Zionists and Persians. With passions what they are in the ME and launch to arrival distances under 5 minutes, there would be no trust or adequate reaction time to avoid a "use 'em or lose 'em" strategic nuclear mentality.

PHB - The dirty little secret here is that although Iran will have the bomb soon it will only get to the same level as India and Pakistan, a bomb with no missile to carry it. Both lack a compact warhead that they can fit on their existing missiles. It took the US and USSR ten years to manage that and they had the benefit of being able to perform extensive tests.

Horseshit.

Both India and Pakistan have nuke-tipped missiles. The 1st NORK test was on a missile deliverable bomb. Within 2 years of the US and USSR determining the credibility of either side developing a credible long range missile (1953), both managed to develop miniaturized fission and boosted fission warheads weighing about 80-200 pounds, depending on yield.

Iran is doing it's MRBM, SRBM work in parallel with it's uranium enrichment and bomb design work.

***************
The only thing that will avert a ME arms race is a nuclear umbrella backed by the Big 5 (but not the ineffectual UN as a whole) - in return for a nuclear-free region with international borders guaranteed.
Nuclear bomb-free regions have now been established in Latin America, Africa, Oceana - and the ME is even more critical when the alternative is either an unrestrained WMD race in 6 or more unstable countries or using nuclear weapons and precision munitions to preempt the global danger of Muslim fanatics outside Pakistan with nukes. Just Pakistan in that class is bad enough.

Clearly, the Lefty opinion is America will no longer be allowed to invade and end weapons work in ME nations.

Israel has nuke warheads, no need to perform tests when they have workable French, American, and Russian designs through their Jewish spies in those countries..

Posted by Chris Ford | April 17, 2008 7:15 PM

Let's take a look at the big picture, long term history. All of these (I'm sure I'm missing a few) at one time occupied the land that makes up the state of Israel... Romans, Greeks, Crusaders, Turks, British.

6-8 million people surrounded by many more millions of their enemies. A reliance on an outside nation for funding and defense. That same outside nation bribes neighboring nations to play nice.

Israel is very simialar to the Crusader state, the Kingdom of Jerusalem. A highly militarized fortress with great wealth, greatly dependant on an outside source for protection. The long term does not look good.

Posted by del | April 17, 2008 7:29 PM

Re Yglesias

1. "But as things stand, Israel has no internationally recognized borders to guarantee."

Mr. Yglesias has joined the totally wrong club. Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and Jordan. These borders are also recognized by the requisite countries (aside from the issue of Sheba Farms which Israel claims belongs to Syria and Lebanon claims belongs to Lebanon). Israel does not have a recognized border with the West Bank or Syria; the so-called green line is a cease fire line left over from the 1948 war, the Golan Heights were occupied as a result of Syrian aggression in 1967.

2. "Somewhat related to the issue raised in last night's debate about extending the U.S. nuclear umbrella to cover Israel, it's always worth making the point that one of several reasons it would serve Israel's interests to aggressively seek a resolution of the Palestinian issue is that it would be much more feasible for the United States to extend security guarantees to Israel under those conditions"

That's all very well but it takes two to tango. The Palestinians are not interested in a resolution of the Palestinian issue that leaves the State of Israel in business.

Posted by SLC | April 17, 2008 7:37 PM

Re Chris Ford

Actually, Mr. Ford is incorrect in stating that Israel has never tested a nuclear device. They set off at least two in collaboration with South Africa in the 1970s.

Posted by SLC | April 17, 2008 7:40 PM

"The real issue is not Palestine. Unless they are neutralized, Israel lobbying groups, Israel advocates, Zionists, Neoconservatives, and Friedmanites will steal America and effectively abolish the Constitution in all but name to create a society of servitude for all Americans except for those belonging to the hyper-wealthy transnational Zionist political elite."

They said it couldn't be done five years ago (the neocons coup d'etat), and, now this will be dismissed as Celine meets Jeremiah Wright. This is the real root of "bittergate", the inevitable tropism of mincing around.

Posted by Trevor | April 17, 2008 7:56 PM

Re Chris Ford
Actually, Mr. Ford is incorrect in stating that Israel has never tested a nuclear device. They set off at least two in collaboration with South Africa in the 1970s.
Posted by SLC

Sorry, SLC, but BS. When S Africa voluntarily denuked, they showed investigators from the IAEA, UK, America, Russia the docs of each of the bombs they made and showed investigators proof that the bombs then were dissassembled with the HEU taken out and diluted with U-238 to be harmeless were the only ones made.
There was no testing. All the bombs were gun-type assembly HEU weapons reliable enough no testing was needed.
The VELA incident that led some conspiratists to speculate was a covert test was debunked as two lightning bolts occuring within milliseconds of one another. That was concluded years before S Africa denuked.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 17, 2008 8:25 PM

Re Chris Ford

Mr. Ford is totally full of shit. South Africa didn't make the bombs, Israel did. All evidence of Israeli involvement in the tests was destroyed before the apartheid South African Government fell.

Posted by SLC | April 17, 2008 8:34 PM

I liked Hilary better when she didn't do hypotheticals. That is all this will ever be because we are all missing the point, Iran doesn't have a fucking nuke. This statement is devoid of credibility, as is she. Can we please stop acting like Iran is a nuclear power, which we all know is not the case.

Posted by Kyle | April 17, 2008 9:09 PM

Well we went over this when Matt made the exact same post a week ago. Land based nukes can be wiped out before a second strike and no one knows if Israel actually has nukes on subs.

Posted by Dave | April 17, 2008 9:15 PM

Now this is rich! Ford and SLC arguing over who are the bad Jews!

You can't make this stuff up, folks!

"Israel is very similar to the Crusader state, the Kingdom of Jerusalem. A highly militarized fortress with great wealth, greatly dependant on an outside source for protection. The long term does not look good."

Correct. But if you say this over at TPM, Josh Marshall will ban you for being an "eliminationist", which is his code-word for "anti-Semite."

As for South Africa's nuclear program, Wikipedia has this to say:

"According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in 1977 Israel traded 30 grams of tritium in exchange for 50 tons of South African uranium and in the mid-80s assisted with the development of the RSA-3 ballistic missile. [8] Also in 1977, according to foreign press reports, it was suspected that South Africa signed a pact with Israel that included the transfer of military technology and the manufacture of at least six atom bombs. [9]

Chris McGreal has claimed that "Israel provided expertise and technology that was central to South Africa's development of its nuclear bombs".[10] In 2000, Dieter Gerhardt, Soviet spy and former commander in the South African Navy, claimed that Israel agreed in 1974 to arm eight Jericho II missiles with "special warheads" for South Africa. [11]"

Wikipedia also has a page devoted to the "Vela Incident" here which concludes that the evidence is not clear one way or the other, but that there is some corroboratory evidence and that some people like Tyler Drumheller do believe it was an Israel/South Africa nuclear test:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_Incident

The suggestion that it was a micrometeoroid impacting the satellite and throwing out dust which reflected light on the sensors is just a little bit unlikely to me.

So Ford is wrong again. Surprise!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 17, 2008 9:16 PM

Matthew I normally agree with a lot of your views, however:

1) Iran has not attacked another country in a century or more.

2) Despite the NIE which reported Iran is not building a nuclear bomb Bush & Cheney denounced it.

3) the IAEA said likewise about Iran

4) Ahmadinejad never threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. He was mis-translated.

I looked for the translation, but could not find it off-hand. But anyhow what he said was something like Israel will cease to exist over time... it was not a threat... but as you know our press parrots what the Bush administration says without question.

It bothers me that Bush and Cheney's accusations against Iran directly counterdicts the reports from the intelligence agencies, the NIE, the IAEA and various groups that visited Iran, etc. etc. etc. The set-up is so similar to Iraq.

Iran has been making peaceful overtures to its neighbours. And for the first time -- in a very long time -- Iran's President Ahmadinejad was welcomed in Saudi-Arabia and Iraq.

Saudi Arabia held talks with Israel because the US abdicated its peace-making role.

It was reported about a year or so ago that Cheney intervened warning Israel to forget about engaging in peace talks with Syria. I believe Cheney and Bush have derailed several different peace talks to keep the Middle-East in turmoil -- if peace broke out god forbid -- there would be no excuse to keep our troops over there. That may be a bit simplistic, but i thinks it gets to the heart of it and in-some-part plays in overall scheme of things ... IMHO. Granted I could be mistaken; It will not be the first time.

Last but not least Iran knows it would immediately be annihilated if it attacked Israel. It is doubtful that Iranian leaders would subject their country to such a thing. It makes no sense. But if, and that is a big if, they were building a nuclear weapon it would be for deterrence considering neighbouring countries have nuclear weapons: Pakistan, India, and possibly (a rumour ?) Saudi Arabia.

With nothing to gain except possible annihilation for Iran to attack Israel that has an estimated 200 to 400 nuclear bombs in its arsenal would be sheer idiocy.

Posted by serena1313 | April 17, 2008 10:02 PM

I use an American flag mousepad. It was a clearance item at the Staples. It cost 99 cents.

Posted by Linus | April 17, 2008 10:03 PM

Apparently I clicked on the wrong thread.

In any event they didn't have one with an Israeli flag, or one depicting tropical fish, or Atzecs.

Posted by Linus | April 17, 2008 10:06 PM

SLC:

Could you point me to the source that says that "Egypt, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and Jordan" or the "requisite states" recognize israel's borders as they currently are, which extend into the west bank and have annexed west jerusalem. I would love to see a source.

Instead, what you have done is misinterpret the difference between border recognition and state recognition. When these countries signed peace treaties they recognized Israel, not their status in the west bank or Jerusalem. In short, not their current amorphous borders.

As to the "so called green line." This line has been recognized by law (see UNSC 446 452 463 471 & ICJ rulings, UN 242) If you can find a definitive source that bestows Israel legal claim to the West Bank or East Jerusalem, again, i would like to see it. Note: A legal argument (e.g. Eugene Rustow, Arthur Goldberg, or, god forbid alan dershowitz) is not the same as a ruling or precedent. I do know that the acquisition of land from war is illegal. Again, I would like a source.

Posted by jeff | April 17, 2008 10:38 PM

"Israel is very similar to the Crusader state, the Kingdom of Jerusalem. A highly militarized fortress with great wealth, greatly dependant on an outside source for protection. The long term does not look good."

Correct. But if you say this over at TPM, Josh Marshall will ban you for being an "eliminationist", which is his code-word for "anti-Semite." (R. Hack)

That doesn't surprise me. Not long after the bombs started dropping on Bagdhad, April 2003...And, *Matthew, here's something I know you'll relate to:

I saw Marshall on some dinky 2-man C-Span panel with Josh M. seated daintily next to Richard, yes, Richard Perle. And, he just sat there like a little beetweed scrunching his eyes once or twice as Perle was being Perle, and all you could think was - this dainty, four-eyed little intellectual fuck is sitting next to someone a tad worse than Himmler or Goering - he's right there fucking next to you...and all you can do is scrunch your little eyes and clean your glasses. Pussilinamy - that is your name Josh Marshall.

*our gracious host

Posted by Trevor | April 17, 2008 10:40 PM

Got that right, Trevor. Just look at any of the interview videos he does over at TPM. He's an expert at written "drive-by snark", but he's a dweeb in every other respect. You couldn't imagine him actually confronting anybody verbally in a discussion.

Not that I disagree with him about everything. He's got a good handle on "All Republican Corruption All the Time". It would be nice if someone was dealing with the Democratic corruption as well, but I guess we should be grateful someone is at least dealing with Republican corruption. Marshall is a partisan Democrat, so that's what he does.

He's also what I call a "crypto-Zionist" which is my main complaint about him. That and being a hypocrite about the way he runs his blog.

Since the redesign of the TPM blog, it's gone WAY down hill. Compared to the lively discussions they used to have over there, from commentors like Howard Berkowitz, it's practically a bunch of inarticulate dead people posting there now. I guess even Larry Johnson has been kicked off the roster, since I haven't seen any articles from him since he went off the rails attacking Obama over Rezko. I went round with Larry about that and Huma Abedin via email. MJ Rosenberg is about the only regular poster who still manages to stir up any significant arguments.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 17, 2008 11:17 PM

I don't know jack about sites. Here, at least, there seems to be an appreciation for astuteness, and so far enough rope for a *virulent anti-Semite like myself to not garrote myself with. Wrote a few things years ago for "Counterpunch" (one unpublished masterpiece on Leon Wieseltier) under another name, and as I'm not the son of a Persian Prince, I have to scratch out a living as a Hollywood, cough, cough, writer, and am way too much the lazy lion to ever be a blogger. But, I don't want to sound like Lenin's ghost, but "leftist" like Josh M. are worse than useless. Fine, let him do his thing, but he's a pedant, a small little muckraker in the Age of Armageddon. I have more respect for someone like Michael Reagan, who's not a rote Republican.

Posted by Trevor | April 17, 2008 11:48 PM

Israel, as a colonial occupier, has deliberately resisted defining its borders, which are ever-expanding thanks to $3B per yr. from US taxpayers, plus donations from rich Zionists. As a result, we've these viciously racist settlers, the Mideast's Aryans.

Posted by Dick Fitzgerald | April 18, 2008 1:34 AM

"Well we went over this when Matt made the exact same post a week ago. Land based nukes can be wiped out before a second strike and no one knows if Israel actually has nukes on subs.

Posted by Dave | April 17, 2008 9:15 PM"

Nothing is preventing Israel from equipping their 3 submarines which in the Indian Ocean with nukes. These subs have the capability, yet Israel chooses not to equip them. No one is stopping them from doing so. Personally, I would be in favor of it because an effective nuclear deterrent can bring stability and peace. However, the fact that the Israeli government doesn't do so suggests to me that they don't take the threat of Iranian nukes that seriously at all.

Posted by Reality Man | April 18, 2008 1:48 AM

"Israel, as a colonial occupier..."

In what sense is Israel a colony?

Posted by Chaim | April 18, 2008 2:05 AM

Israel as Zionism is an outgrowth of the "colonial" impulse of the late 19th Century. It wasn't founded by "locals" - it was founded by Europeans who basically decided that the indigenous population "didn't exist".

Notable, some prominent Zionists at the time, when they discovered that Palestine was in fact occupied by a large population of Arabs, were mortified that their plan required the displacement or disenfranchisement of the indigenous people.

The following is from:

Palestine--The Suppression of an Idea
by: Muhammad Hallaj
January - March 1982
The Link - Volume 15, Issue 1
Americans for Middle East Understanding

"The Zionist movement disseminated several versions of the myth of Palestinian non-existence. The first was that Palestine was a country without people. From the beginning the Zionists adopted the slogan: “A land without people for a people without land.” There are indications that the Zionist movement intended that this slogan be accepted in its literal meaning. Even Max Nordau, the British Zionist leader, seemed to have been temporarily deceived by it. The famous Jewish philosopher Martin Buber related in his memoirs: “When Max Nordau, Herzl’s second in command, first received details on the existence of an Arab population in Palestine, he came shocked to Herzl exclaiming: ‘I never realized this--we are committing an injustice.’”

The Zionists’ need to convince the world that their scheme victimized no one required them to maintain the delusion that Palestine was a land without people. When they sought Gandhi’s endorsement of Zionism, their emissary brazenly asserted to him that “Palestine itself was a waste space when we went there... No one else wanted it.” 5 Even after the Zionists created their Jewish state they continued to insist that the Palestinians did not exist. “It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them,” Golda Meir, Israel’s prime minister, said after the 1967 war. “They did not exist.” 6"

Gandhi, who was aware of the Palestinian people and therefore saw the Zionist movement as a European colonial endeavor detrimental to the anti-colonial struggle of an Asian people, steadfastly resisted Zionist attempts to secure his endorsement by saying “you want to convert the Arab majority into a minority.” 15 Similarly, Nehru perceived Zionism to be on the wrong side of the anti-imperialist struggle, precisely because it was detrimental to the liberation struggle of the Palestinian people. The Zionists, Nehru wrote in 1942, “preferred to take sides with the foreign ruling power [Britain], and have thus helped it to keep back freedom from the majority of the people.” 16

One of the Zionists’ greatest fears has always been that the Jews themselves would refuse to be party to the oppression of the Palestinian people. Some Jews soon discovered that Zionism would make them an instrument for the dispossession and displacement of the Palestinian people. Ahad Ha-Am (Asher Ginsberg), one of the best-known Jewish literary figures in this century, was so disillusioned with Zionism that he said: “If this is the ‘Messiah,’ then I do not wish to see his coming.” 17 Ahad Ha-Am, who visited Palestine in the early 1920’s, discovered the existence of the Palestinians, and witnessed the beginnings of Zionist behavior toward the indigenous population. The early Jewish settlers, he said, “treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds.” 18 He warned that political Zionism was perverting the ideals of Judaism and asked: “Is this the dream of a return to Zion which our people have dreamt for centuries: That we now come to Zion to stain its soil with innocent blood?” 19

Dr. Arthur Rupin, described by an Israeli writer as the “godfather” of Zionist colonization in Palestine, wrote in 1928: “it became clear to me how hard it is to realize Zionism in a way compatible with the demands of universal ethics. I was quite depressed.” 20

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 18, 2008 3:59 AM

Chaim, Israel is not a colony, it is a colonial empire. Inhabitants of the West Bank are not allowed to vote, and only prescribed basic substandard public service, while their land is bought or confiscated to make room for foreign settlers.

How is that not a colony?

Posted by David Shor | April 18, 2008 8:20 AM

Chaim:

Israel is not a colony. Palestine is.

Posted by jeff | April 18, 2008 8:36 AM

Chaim, Israel is not a colony, it is a colonial empire.

An 'empire' 40-miles wide.

Posted by David | April 18, 2008 9:02 AM

it would serve Israel's interests to aggressively seek a resolution of the Palestinian issue... - Matt

Um, no. That's what they've been doing for forty years. Israel should peacefully seek resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 18, 2008 9:08 AM

What 'Europeans' ? Jews were the scum of the continent.

A few were smart enough to heed Herzl and escape extermination.

Posted by spacegoat | April 18, 2008 9:12 AM

Re Jeff

Apparently I didn't make myself clear. Thus to be perfectly clear so that there be no misunderstanding, I will restate it as follows.

1. The border between Israel and Egypt is recognized as the international border by Israel and Egypt.

2. The border between Lebanon and Israel is recognized as the international border by Lebanon and Israel, with the exception of Sheba Farms as previously noted.

3. The border between Israel and Jordan is recognized as the international border by Israel and Jordan.

4. The border between Israel and the Gaza Strip is internationally recognized but is rejected by the current governing authority in the latter as they claim that there is no border and that the State of Israel must go out of business.

As I previously stated, there is not, at the present time an international border between Israel and the West Bank; there is the so-called green line which was the cease fire line at the end of the 1948 Arab/Israeli war. The cease fire line in the UNSC resolution to which Mr. Jeff refers to was not recognized as an international border by either Israel or Jordan, which was occupying the West Bank at the time it was passed. Since Jordan no longer controls the West Bank, and in fact, no longer claims it as part of Jordan, the resolution is moot.

Eventually, I presume that the PA and Israel will agree on an international border between the West Bank and Israel when the PA decides that its' position that there is no border and that all of Palestine belongs to the Palestinians is untenable.

Re Richard Steven Hack

One of the difficulties with trying to determine whether Israel tested 2 or more nuclear weapons near South Africa is that it has been developing very low yield weapons (

Re Trevor

A Hollywood screen writer! Is that the best that the son of a federal judge can do? Just as a matter of information, I went to junior high school with the son of a Hollywood screen writer, Paul Jarrico, who was blacklisted during the 1950s for alleged Communist affiliations.

Re serena1313

The claim that Mr. Amadinejad was mistranslated is a big lie spread by Prof. Juan Cole that has been totally discredited.

Posted by SLC | April 18, 2008 10:45 AM

SLC lies again. Juan Cole - nor the other experts in the Persian language who have weighed in - has not been discredited in the least about Ahmadinejad's quote.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 19, 2008 3:39 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Mr. Hack, this boards favorite bank robber, advocate of the assassination of police officers and purveyor of threats of violence against op-ed writers and Michael Savage has about the same credibility as the late and unlamented Jeffery Dahmer. Or possibly the late and unlamented Caryl Chessman. Hopefully, Homeland Security is investigating him as we write and he will shortly be on his way to Guantanamo where he belongs.

Posted by SLC | April 19, 2008 8:10 AM