Window on Israel: Remember Thomas Hobbs

Current events justify a few words about domestic and international politics.
 
Politics is tough in a democracy with a complex society. Witness the squabbles in the United States over health care that have been prominent at various times since the 1940s, and which are currently testing the capacity of the Obama administration.
 
Compared to international politics, domestic politics are a cakewalk.
 
A line of Thomas Hobbes' is appropriate for international politics: life is nasty, brutish, and short.
 
Times have been better since the devastation of World War II and the development of the United Nations and other international bodies. But not all that much better. Africa provides even more extreme examples of Hobbes' contention than the Middle East.
 
The concept of national sovereignty is overplayed. No nation is entirely sovereign or independent. We're all dependent to some degree on others.
 
Israel is more dependent than most other countries, insofar as it aspires to membership in the club of the civilized. Membership would give it access to technology, science, culture and markets. At the same time, Israelis have a well-honed sense of insecurity, have created an impressive defense establishment and are politically sophisticated. That sophistication has its roots in ancient Jewish history, as well as in more recent Israeli history.
 
Barack Obama may have the world's greatest military at his disposal, but one can wonder about his sophistication.
 
The countries high on his list of engagement are not likely to be responsive. North Korea, Syria and Iran have been called "rejectionist" for good reason. Obama may have the key to unlocking them, but until he delivers, we have reason to be skeptical.
 
With respect to Israel's concerns, he is putting together a package that looks something like this: Israel will behave as he wishes with respect to settlements, the Palestinians will work against violence and incitement, other Arab countries will make gestures toward Israel in the form of partial normalization of relations, Syria will demonstrate good behavior with respect to its ties with Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas, and will stop aiding those fighting against the United States in Iraq, and Iran will limits its nuclear aspirations.
 
Again, none of these countries are completely sovereign, but neither are they likely to be as compliant with Obama's wishes as are US congressmen and senators with respect to his aspirations for health policy. With the American politicians, the president can employ the tools of political favors and his influence on public opinion. Again, that will not be easy and may not produce a significant health bill. But compared to his overseas tasks, it is within his expertise and that of his advisers.
 
The president is not likely to threaten armed intervention with any of his overseas problems, given the overextension of American forces elsewhere.
 
With Israel, he can try persuasion. He got off on the wrong foot by demanding a cessation of building for Jews in east Jerusalem.
 
If anyone wants a lesson on the problems Israeli officials face with even the smallest and least justified of the settlements, current news is that settlers are completing initial construction at 11 new locations in the West Bank.
 
Israel can move against its crazies, but will not do so with dispatch unless Obama can deliver something from the Arabs. As far as we can tell, that ain't happening.
 
Sanctions on Israel would depend on the cooperation of Congress and to some degree on public opinion, Jewish and otherwise. I doubt the president wants that fight. Tougher sanctions on Iran and others will depend on the cooperation of Russia, China, France, Germany, Italy and Britain, none of which have recently shown great willingness to cooperate.
 
Remember Hobbes.