Point / Counterpoint: Do We Need Tough Love from Hillary?

Counterpoint to:

Try tough love, Hillary
"Nobody's been more solidly pro-Israel than Hillary Clinton. But to be effective, she must become a tough taskmaster. That is in the best long-term interest of Israel."

Roger Cohen
The New York Times
December 1, 2008

Columnist Roger Cohen, writing in the New York Times, believes that the next US secretary of state should apply pressure on Israel, and should do so as a friend. Israel, he implies, is incapable of doing what is good for it and therefore needs a friend, such as Hillary Clinton, to force it into acting in its best interest. She must be "a tough taskmaster", opines Cohen.

To some of us this attitude may sound extremely condescending, yet it is not new. The United States has applied pressure on Israel on numerous occasions in the past, and there are some prominent Israelis who share Cohen's view that this is what we now need. 

But in relationships between people and countries there are various forms of pressure. When hostile forums discuss the need to pressure Israel, they are usually referring to intimidation and bullying. And when those truly concerned about Israel's security talk about pressure, they are usually referring to the need to deliver tough, even unpleasant, advice. So it is not surprising that any hint of impending pressure raises concerns among Israelis as to the nature of the approaching beast.

Pressure on Israel from US secretaries of state has ranged from soft prodding (Henry Kissinger) to hostile posturing (James Baker). And while it would be incorrect to claim that pressure has never worked, it has been more often the Kissinger rather than the Baker approach that has produced results. Predictably, Israel has always more readily accepted tough advice from those it trusted than from those it suspected, and bullying has never gone well with trust.

Cohen quotes broadly from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's recent mea culpa statements about Israel's need to make painful concessions for peace with the Palestinians. He rightly claims that Olmert's words carry extra significance coming from a former "right-wing hard-liner".

He firmly embraces Olmert's words, as well as some that Olmert never said but which Cohen would have liked to have heard.  He ends with an appeal to Obama for tough love for Israel, with the emphasis on 'tough'.

A key point in Cohen's analysis is that if Israel has been wrong in the past, as Prime Minister Olmert has admitted, (and as few Israelis would deny) then it follows that so has the United States. Cohen believes that broad US support for Israel was therefore wrong (and if not wrong then certainly excessive) and with a firmer hand the United States could have prevented Israel from making mistakes. 

So what exactly is Roger Cohen requesting? He wants Hillary Clinton to be Israel's "tough taskmaster", and he wants President-elect Obama to express "tough love for Israel, with the emphasis on 'tough'". Thus, Cohen is urging the next administration to take the James Baker rather than the Henry Kissinger approach.

There is no reason not to accept Cohen's statement that he is "fiercely attached to Israel's security". In fact, his words, I suspect, are well intentioned. He makes some valid observations about the effect of 40 years of occupation on Israel's "moral authority", and he remarks that neither domination (over the territories) nor demography favors Israel over time. He has no doubt that Israel will survive militarily, but he fears that it "will be corroded from within".

There is nothing new in Cohen's perception of Israel. He is on the left of the political divide in Israel, as are many - possibly most - Israelis (we will know for sure in February). There are, however, three problems with his analysis. 

First, Cohen almost entirely ignores the Palestinians; he devotes just 30 words to them in an 800-word article. It is as if he believes that all the cards are in Israel's hands, and there is no Islamic Jihad, no Hamas (and no Hamas charter calling for the annihilation of Israel), and no Palestinian rejection of just about every attempt to conclude a peace agreement, including the Clinton proposals at Camp David in 2000.

The second problem with Cohen's analysis is his belief that pressure from a tough taskmaster will cause Israel to bend. The science of metallurgy provides us with two other possible responses to pressure - break, and retort (or snap) - which Cohen should also consider. 

The point is that Israel may not respond well to pressure. Israel is a society divided a hundred ways, but nothing unifies the country more than concern for its security. Thus, while the United States has tremendous influence in Israel, any hint that Israel is being coerced into making existentially dangerous concessions can become a call to rally around the flag. (In metallurgic terms, fear of a break may produce a snap.)

Lastly, while Israel can be influenced, urged, and prodded, any flaunting of the p-word, especially on the pages of the New York Times, is counterproductive. Apart from heightening concerns within Israel, it creates undue expectations among the Palestinians. This does not promote an atmosphere for compromise on either side.

Israel does not need tough love from Hillary, at least not in the sense that Cohen imagines. Israel needs the political support that will enable it to feel confident enough to make the painful decisions necessary for peace with the Palestinians. This can, and should include tough advice and strong encouragement from friends, but Israel does not need another James Baker.