Sunday Aug 30, 2009

Window on Israel: Obama should leave Israel alone

Posted by Ira Sharkansky
Comments: 10
BOOKMARK or SHARE: technorati digg del.icio.us reddit newsvine facebook What's this?
Print  |  
Decrease text sizeDecrease text size
Increase text sizeIncrease text size

When I was at the University of Wisconsin-Madison during 1968-75, I occasionally spoke out against anti-war students and faculty colleagues. I also learned what tear gas smelled like, as it was impossible to avoid the mass demonstrations, or the police and National Guard response.

At the same time, I was lecturing several times a year to junior officers at military bases in the United States and overseas. Numerous students came to class while on leave from Vietnam. One of them had earned a Congressional Medal of Honor. My topic was domestic policy making, in the framework of an MA program in public administration, but there were conversations about other things.
 
I do not recall just when I turned against Vietnam. I still think there was justification, in the context of the time, for making a forceful statement against expanding Communism. I knew it was a confused situation, with corruption in the South and perhaps as much national liberation as Communism per se in the Vietcong and those who supported them. The results, though, were not worth 58,000 American deaths, and many more broken lives.
 
In Vietnam, more than in Korea, we saw a dynamic of war and politics that kept the thing going far beyond the point of utility. I fear the same for Afghanistan. I have no doubt that 9/11 justified a hard blow against the Taliban, but controlling Afghanistan and seeking to reform it? It's one of the least governable places on earth.
 
What the United States has lacked is another Dwight Eisenhower, who knew the costs and limitations of combat, got out of Korea, and stayed out of Vietnam and most other places. Colin Powell expressed something similar: Do not enter a conflict except with the intention of using the force necessary to succeed, define goals clearly, and do not stay longer than necessary. His advice prevailed more in Iraq I than in Iraq II, and not at all in Afghanistan.
 
Neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama even come close to Eisenhower or Powell.
 
I have been in Israel since 1975. I was drafted at the age of 42 and spent 10 years as a reservist in the lecture corps., talking about public policy to support personnel and fighters throughout Israel, in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon. Here I sharpened my perception of the United States as an arrogant and naive meddler in areas its leadership and military do not understand.
 
Israel has been led by individuals who have shown something of what motivated Eisenhower and Powell. It has also learned from its own mistakes. Unlike Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, and earlier Israeli efforts in Lebanon, current thinking among the Israeli leadership is to strike hard in response to aggression, and not to remain as an occupying force.

Lebanon II was more successful than Lebanon I, and even more successful was the recent conflict in Gaza. Neither played well on international television, but both were less costly for all sides than either Iraq or Afghanistan. And despite the heroic claims of victory by Hizbullah and Hamas, Israel's border areas have been quiet since those operations.
 
Shimon Peres wasn't a military man, but was heavily involved in the development of Israel's nuclear program. Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon were military professionals who became successful politicians. Each has a well-documented record of success on the battlefield, and - along with Shimon Peres - later achievements in withdrawing from conflict.

Peres and Rabin tried peace with the Oslo Accords of 1993. Barak made the controversial decision to withdraw unilaterally from a "security zone" in southern Lebanon and Sharon tried to break a stalemate by withdrawing unilaterally from Gaza.

Former head of the general staff Amnon Lipton-Shahak is another military figure who entered politics on the left, and became one of the leaders of the Geneva Initiative. This has not gone far, but was meant to join non-governmental Israelis and Palestinians in a draft that might provide the basis of a peace agreement.
 
Eisenhower could stop the fighting half a world away from his White House, and work to avoid conflicts in other distant places. Israelis who might be compared to him have a more difficult task. Palestine is across the street. Israeli citizens who identify as Palestinians comprise 20 percent of the population. Other Palestinians demand a right of return, and individuals who claim leadership of Palestine claim part or all of what Israelis call their country.
 
Neither Eisenhower nor Powell would be useful here. Israelis are learning by themselves how to deal with their problem. No doubt Jimmy Carter helped at Camp David, but lately he has been more of a nuisance than facilitator. The engager Barack Obama may have good intentions, but only 4 percent of Israeli Jews view him as supportive. An earlier poll showed that 6 percent of Israeli Jews viewed Obama as supportive. The drop of two percent follows what Americans say have been efforts to improve their relations with Israel.
 
The American president should attend to Washington, do something better in Iraq and Afghanistan, show whatever mettle he has in Iran, and leave us alone.

BOOKMARK or SHARE: technorati digg del.icio.us reddit newsvine facebook What's this?
Print  |  
Comments: Post your own comment
1  |   Ron Virginia USA, Monday Aug 31, 2009
PART 1. Israel has made it impossible for the US to leave Israel alone. Since Israeli statehood, the US has been Israel’s most fervent and loyal ally. It has vetoed anti Israeli UN resolutions, guaranteed Israeli international loans, and supplied aid (now $3 Billion a year). Without this support Israel would be isolated politically, financially and militarily in the world, and may not have survived. This unwavering US support has cost the US great animosity in the Arab world and made it extremely difficult for friendly Arab governments to govern hostile populations and still remain US allies.
2  |   Ron Virginia USA, Monday Aug 31, 2009
PART 2.For some years, there has been growing realization in DC that US receives little or nothing from its unnatural relationship with Israel. Israel says US benefits because: (1) Israel the only democracy in Middle East. False and irrelevant. (2) Israel is military bulwark for US in ME. Irrelevant and false. For example, in the Gulf War, Israeli participation would have destroyed the coalition. (3) We fight war on terrorism together. False. Israel faces Hizbollah and Hamas. They don’t attack US. US faces Al Qaeda and Taliban. They don’t attack Israel. We have no common terrorist targets.
3  |   Ron Virginia USA, Monday Aug 31, 2009
PART 3. US national security interests lie more in Arab world than in Israel. Arab world has oil, supports US in UN, World Bank and IMF, provides US military bases and provides superb intelligence on Al Qaeda and Taliban. Israel defies and ignores US. Illegal Israeli settlements in West Bank and annexation of Jerusalem are violations of UN resolutions 181,and 242 and violate articles 53,49 and 143 of 4th Geneva Convention.These violations are war crimes. The US cannot leave Israeli alone and continue its unrestricted support of Israel. Israel has a decision to make.
4  |   Randy, US, Tuesday Sep 01, 2009
Ron, you are correct in part 2, but the points are not false or irrelevant. Israel is a force stablizing moderate Arab governments in the ME which serves US interests. It shares common values with the US, and is a natural ally. The oil producing countries' ability to influence US policy toward Israel by moderating prices is about the only leverage America has. However, US policy is not only guided by self-interest. It is one of few countries guided by morality and justice in a world that has historically given Jews little. That is why the US will always support Israel, and I'm proud of it.
5  |   jinny usa, Tuesday Sep 01, 2009
Ron, you must be insane or one of the terrorists. maybe both. Your insanity is not worth futher comment.
6  |   Kevin Joubert USA, Tuesday Sep 01, 2009
Israel and the USA have more than oil in common. Yes we need peace in the middle east, but it's unfortunate that it will never happen. The US, regardless of who is in the white house, should always back up Israel. Should we tell Israel how to defend it's self? No
7  |   Ron Virginia USA, Tuesday Sep 01, 2009
Jinny. Could you be more specific? Just to proclaim insanity conveys nothing and suggests a lack if vocabulary. It might be constructive if you could point out specific points with which you disagree.
8  |   Rpn Virginia USA, Tuesday Sep 01, 2009
PART 1,#4 Randy.Thoughtful comments Randy, but I don’t understand how Israel is a stabilizing force on moderate Arab governments. The US may be a stabilizing force because of its influence on friendly Arab gov’ts. But the only influence Israel has is to convince Jordan, Syria and Egypt of the folly of attacking Israel. Israel seems intent on testing its allied status with the US starting with the deliberate attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, and its continuous aggressive running of espionage operations against the US. Our Arab allies don’t do that, and the FBI is angry about it.
9  |   Ron Virginia USA, Tuesday Sep 01, 2009
PART 2. Randy. Israel being a natural ally depends on US benefits from the relationship. With continuing Israeli illegal activities in occupied territories, sharing of like values are in sharp conflict, and many in US gov’t intend to bring them into line at Israel’s expense. Paramount in US interest in ME is war on terrorism. Intel services of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia provide invaluable support. Mossad does not. CIA official described Mossad intel against Arab targets as “lousy and mostly gossip stuff.” I agree with you, US must support Israel, but not its occupation of Palestinian land.
10  |   B Sturges, Sunday Sep 13, 2009
I agree. We shouldn't interfere in Israel's affairs. No more support either. That extra money will help us with our own financial problems. We can finally pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and use that money at home as well. Good luck solving your own problems in the world. Let us know how it works out. I hope all of those settlements were worth the price. We certainly will sleep easier after losing our baggage...
Add your comment remaining characters
Name and Location *

NOTE: Comments are moderated and will not appear on this blog, until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting.

For more information, please see our
Readers' Submission Policy.

E-mail * (will NOT be published)
Your Blog/Website
--------------------------------
* All fields are required

About this blog

Window on Israel Hebrew University Political Science professor evaluates the latest happenings in Israel.

Search this blog

Archives
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs

Most Popular

  1. World opinion: who cares?
    Posted in Guest Blog by Glen A. Fritz
    Tuesday Nov 17, 2009
  2. Mr. President, bring the troops home
    Posted in Koch's Comments by Ed Koch
    Thursday Nov 19, 2009
  3. Our base is broader
    Posted in Green-Lined by Yisrael Medad
    Sunday Nov 22, 2009
  4. The shawl and the hood
    Posted in Reform Reflections by Rabbi Michael Marmur
    Sunday Nov 22, 2009
  5. Interfaith dialogue - naïve or necessary?
    Posted in Guest Blog by Ruth Wasserman
    Sunday Nov 22, 2009

Top Rated Posts

Recent Comments

Laine Frajberg Montreal: Response to John R #10, Why not set an example John and return the southwest to Mexico which Pres. Polk STOLE fron Mexico in 1847?You Americans called it "manifest destiny".The rest of the world called it THEFT. Till then you have no right to criticize Israel for taking-and keeping- land in a DEFENSIVE WAR.Now go away!
Laine Frajberg Montreal: Response to EdB #1, Hey Ed,didn't your country steal northern Georgia from the Cherokee in 1838?You did this even though the Cherokee were at peace with you and your own Supreme Court declared that the Cherokee had a right to retain their land.Didn't make any difference.General Winfield Scott expelled them anyway-and over a quarter died on the way to their new homes.Contrast this with Israel,which took east Jerusalem after being attacked by Jordan on June 5,1967-so indeed Israel's Jews have every right to build anywhere they want in Jerusalem.
David USA: Just when did Gilo become part of Jerusalem? Surely not at the time of David hamelech. When and by whose idea was Gilo "Jerusalemized "? Pretty soon Maale Adumin will also be Jerusalem. And why not Ariel ?? The sky is the limit when it comes to gerrymandering. (For instance, Montreal could become New York just at some poltician's say-so, even if Canada objects).