On the value of realism

What does the future hold?

Who knows? In Jewish tradition, Malachi was the last prophet, i.e., the last person to hear the word of God. He died  2,500 years ago. All else is speculation, whether colored by ideology, what the speculator would like to happen, or what is thought to be inevitable.

There are many who think that unless Israel shows more flexibility, its future will be nasty, brutal and short. It is likely that the Arabs will continue to multiply. Soon, if not already, they will be a majority between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Their power will increase in international forums, not only because of numbers and oil, but because American and European governments will tire of Israel's stubbornness.

The settlements, in particular, are a problem. They must go, or at least be frozen, to satisfy the current demands of the Palestinians. Insofar as the Palestinian prime minister has said there will be state in two years, Israel must work hard to salvage what it can.

Dream on, those of you who forget, or who would not like to reckon with the element of power in international politics.

The Palestinians and their friends, including Americans and Europeans, have lost the Israeli Left. Meretz and Labor declined to their lowest polls ever in the previous election. Since then, the Labor leadership has coalesced with right-of-center Likud.

The Israeli government, and the dominant Jewish population, hold the keys to Israel's future. The country has a preponderance of military power in the area of conflict. It inflicted severe damage on Lebanon and Gaza in the most recent conflicts, and destroyed Syria's nuclear facility without a response. Greater powers have shown no signs of imposing their will.

Things do change, but no one knows the future. In the absence of certain knowledge, it is wise to assume that present realities will continue. Dreamers and ideologues may be right, but theirs is a risky bet.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (4)

Has Obama done more harm than good - and does it matter?

This post is about some little details of international politics. For our understanding of the current situation we must rely on the media, which does not always get things right. And in any case, the media does not provide the nuances of private conversations, body language meant to decrease or increase the impact of what is said. Perhaps one can rely on the media's portrayal of events, without assuming that it is the whole truth.

The story begins with the Obama administration's efforts to jump-start a peace process between Israel and Palestine. Among the demands made of Israel, both by Secretary of State Clinton and Special Envoy Mitchell, was a total freeze on construction in settlements over the 1967 borders, including the new neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
 
There followed a series of meetings between Israelis and Americans, and turmoil within Israel. What emerged was an offer by Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu's government to freeze new construction for several months, not including Jerusalem, housing units already authorized or under construction, or public facilities in settlement areas.
 
Currently it seems the Americans recognize that this is the most they can get from Israel, and Clinton is saying that the US never demanded a total freeze as a precondition to negotiation.
 
Maybe yes, maybe no. We should not expect individuals with the kind of ego that goes with high office to admit failure.
 
Now Secretary Clinton is saying that the prime minister has offered a landmark concession.
 
But the Palestinians stopped listening at "full settlement freeze."

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (12)

Why the stalemate?

Headline in Friday's Ha'aretz:  "Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] is losing hope: 'I sense that Netanyahu has not changed since 1996'"
 
A headline on an inside page in the same edition: "Paralysis at the summit of coordination between the government and the territories." That story goes on to say that things are not happening in the policy to advance "economic peace" on account of the failure of Israeli government to make appointments to key positions in the program.
 
Elsewhere in the news we hear that negotiations about freeing Gilad Schalit are moving at the speed of a crippled snail. International donors are complaining that Gazans are still living amid the rubble because Israel will not open the borders to the supplies and equipment that their contributions will provide.
 
Let me offer explanations for these disparate items, summed up in some pithy epigrams:

• There is no free lunch in international relations
• You screw us, we'll screw you
• "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" may be a spiritual ideal, but the more popular norm in international politics is the simpler "Do unto others."

Israel can live well enough without solving the problem of Palestine. The Palestinians may pride themselves in their willingness to die for their national cause, but they have committed national suicide. There will be no Palestinian state as long as key factions persist with the dreams of turning back the clock to 1967, to 1947, or to the mid-19th century before Jews began coming to this area.
 
I perceive that Netanyahu has changed since 1996. He appears to be wiser, and more skilled in expressing what he demands as conditions for moving forward with a peace process.
 
Abu Mazen's problem is that he has not changed. From the information available to the public, I see no signs of flexibility in his position. No matter what Israel has offered, it is not enough.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (14)

Political aggression and its consequences

Excerpts from an official United Nations summary of the Human Rights Council resolution on the Goldstone Report:

. . . while the Israeli Government sought to portray its operations as a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self defence, the Israeli plan had been directed, at least in part, at the people of Gaza as a whole ... the treatment of many civilians detained or killed while trying to surrender [is] one manifestation of the way in which the effective rules of engagement, standard operating procedures and instructions to the troops on the ground appeared to have been framed to create an environment in which due regard for civilian lives and basic human dignity was replaced with a disregard for basic international humanitarian law.... The destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses had been the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces and not because those objects had presented a military threat ... other Israeli activities, particularly in Jerusalem, including ... limits to Palestinian access to properties and holy sites based on national origin, religion, sex, age or other grounds ... a grave violation of the Palestinian people's civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights ... Israeli violations of human rights in occupied East Jerusalem, particularly the confiscation of lands and properties, the demolishing of houses, the construction and expansion of settlements, the continuing construction of the separation wall built in part on land Israel occupied in the 1967 war, and the continuous digging and excavation works in and around Al-Aqsa mosque and its vicinity.... The Council demanded that Israel allow Palestinian citizens and worshippers unhindered access to their properties and religious sites in the occupied Palestinian territory, cease immediately all digging and excavations beneath and around the mosque, and refrain from any acts may endanger the structure or change the nature of Christian and Islamic holy sites."

What to do?

An obvious option is to persuade friendly and neutral governments that the resolution is one-sided, distorted or false, and a threat against Israel's elementary right to defend itself. Israel will work with its friends to assure that other United Nations forums, the courts and governments of individual countries do not respond to the Human Rights Council resolution with any concrete actions against Israel, its citizens, officials, or soldiers.

The most obvious falsehood is the claim that Israel is digging and excavating in, around, or beneath the Al-Aqsa mosque. The closest Israeli excavations are outside the large elevated area on which the mosque sits. The one-sided nature of the resolution is evident in that 10 out of 11 paragraphs deal with Israel's alleged violations, while only a "by the way" paragraph deals with allegations about Hamas:

(The Report) also found that Palestinian armed groups caused terror within Israel's civilian population through the launch of thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel since April 2001, determining that both sides may thus have committed serious war crimes and possible crimes against humanity."

Some Israeli politicians are blaming the resolution on the lack of sufficient efforts by Israel to explain its actions. More and better explanation is their solution.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (8)

Obama's strength is also his weakness

Barack Obama won the most powerful office in the world, along the way promising widespread changes that magnified expectations. Now he has won the most prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. The Committee has cited him for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples."
 
Extraordinary efforts there have been. The question is whether they have excited expectations beyond capacity. I remember a teacher telling me that effort is fine, but it is accomplishment that pays the bills.

On the same day as the announcement of the Nobel, there appeared two articles in respected journals that lambasted him for naivete and hubris.
 
The Economist noted that on the less-than-hot-button issue of the Olympics, Obama put his reputation on the line with a high-profile trip to Copenhagen, along with his wife, only to see Rio get the nod over Chicago.
 
The journal also joined those noting that the war in Afghanistan is not going well. The president finds himself in squabbles not only involving Taliban and al Qaeda, but also his lead general, vice president, congressional democrats and republicans, not to mention talk show vipers.
 
On his primary domestic initiative, the administration-friendly Washington Post headlines a dirty fight between a health insurance company and a prominent hospital, each accusing the other of putting profit ahead of patient care. Sick people who thought themselves insured are in the middle, being threatened with bills they cannot pay. 
 
Will this help the president advance his initiative, or does it point to the fatal illness of profit-making firms too heavily involved in health care?
 
Commentators on one of Israel's most prominent news programs ridiculed the president for not getting the message about the Middle East. His point man has arrived on another trip to the region, seemingly seeking the same concessions that Israeli leaders have already rejected.
 
The major headline in Ha'aretz notes that the White House is "furious over Israeli incitement against President Barack Obama." Is this a threat meant to force Israel into changing its decision about a settlement freeze, with or without parallel concessions from the Arab side? The Nobel will add to the pressure. Must Jerusalem be behind Oslo in recognizing the President's genius?
 
Barack Obama is a fascinating individual. He is also sitting in the world's most important seat. Observers the world over risk a great deal if they fail to understand him. Yet the task is not easy.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (10)

Big egos, good intentions and failed policies

Seventy years ago, a distinguished scholar documented one of the keystones of politics: politicians have abnormally large egos. (Harold Lasswell, Psychopathology and Politics)
 
His finding is worth remembering today - policy failures continue to hurt because people with big egos have trouble admitting mistakes.
 
American history, wealth and military power may serve to magnify the phenomenon, in a field where even the leaders of small and pathetic states think of themselves in grand terms. It is certain that the mistakes of American leaders touch directly more people than the mistakes of national leaders elsewhere. The world-wide reach of American aspirations means that poor judgment in the White House has greater impact than errors coming out of other national capitals.
 
There is no shortage of examples.

'Don't make things worse'

For over 40 years, the principal field in which I have taught and written, and which most of my conversations have focused on, has been public policy.
 
I spent about a quarter of my career among American students and officials. Most of the rest was spent among Israelis, and in meetings with individuals high, low and middle in other places. Sooner or later we usually got around to discussing what governments were doing, and how they were doing it.
 
My classes and queries usually focused on the elements that influence policymakers and the benefits or costs to citizens: what is, what explains it, and what is likely to be. Sometimes, I wandered into the realm of what should be.

The shape of things to come

Israel's election took place on February 10, and the results were known the next day. 

Remember that the Likud won fewer seats than Kadima, but President Shimon Peres, along with much of the population, concluded that the Likud would have a better chance of putting together a coalition that would get the support of a Knesset majority. So far, agreements have been reached with Israel Beiteinu, Labor, Shas and Habayit Hayehudi. Together with the Likud, they amount to 69 seats, a clear majority in the 120-seat Knesset. Negotiations continue with United Torah Judaism and National Unity.

Some Labor MKs may be angry enough with party leader Ehud Barak for joining Prime Minister-designate Binyamin Netanyahu's government that they will not support the coalition. Some members of the Likud may be angry enough with Netanyahu for giving away prized appointments that their support will be tepid. Individual Likud MKs may work subtly - or not so subtly - to undermine Netanyahu in the hope an early election can be brought about.

'Distortion of democracy' or faulty vision?

We are hearing, once again, that the results of the Israeli election are a "distortion of democracy." 
 
The complaints vary depending on who's doing the complaining. One problem this time, as on other occasions, is the weight of religious parties. On their menu are increased funding for religious schools, increased family payments that will benefit the large families of religious Jews (as well as Arabs, whose parties are allied with the ultra-Orthodox on this issue), opposition to civil marriage and their usual opposition to non-Orthodox Judaism.
 
Another problem is the weight of right-of-center Likud, Israel Beiteinu and National Unity.
 
What those who talk of "distortions of democracy" really mean is that they aren't happy with the election results.

'In your face' politics

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (5)