Debating Israel
- 03.20.2007 - 12:24 PMAccording to Nicholas Kristof, writing in the New York Times last Sunday, American politicians, whether Republicans or Democrats, always bite their tongues when it comes to discussions about Israel. Both sides have “learned to muzzle themselves” and to acquiesce in President Bush’s “crushing embrace” of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. “That silence,” he argues, “harms America, Middle East peace prospects, and Israel itself.” Kristof’s piece is part of a growing genre: criticism of Israel whose starting point is to bemoan how such criticism cannot be made in public.
In Israel, Kristof informs us, there are no such constraints. Debates there “about the use of force and the occupation of Palestinian territories” are healthily “vitriolic.” “Why can’t [our] candidates be as candid as Israelis?”
Among the examples of sabra candor he admires is a 2004 remark made by Tommy Lapid, then Israel’s justice minister, comparing the Israeli army’s razing of a house in Gaza to the Nazis’ dispossession of his grandmother during World War II. “Can you imagine an American cabinet secretary ever saying such a thing?,” asks Kristof. He omits the fact that the house in question was an entry point for a network of tunnels running across the adjacent border with Egypt, tunnels used for smuggling terrorist weapons. Nor does he attempt to explain how our political conversation might be improved by importing Nazi analogies as irresponsible as Lapid’s. Is this the sort of “discussion” that Kristof wants to see?
Still, there is no denying that political debate is somewhat more contentious in Israel than in the U.S. (although we seem gradually to be catching up). But it is also the case that, despite the rough-and-tumble of the debate Kristof praises so highly, a fairly stable consensus has been reached in Israel about certain policies pertaining to the Palestinians.
One is the need for a security fence to keep suicide bombers from entering Israel. Another is the disinclination to offer more concessions to a Palestinian entity that shows no inclination to live in peace with Israel. Despite his avowed admiration for Israel’s freewheeling brand of politics, Kristof takes the opposite view on both these questions.
His own analysis of the problem, such as it is, is little more than a series of clichés: he blames Israel and its “hard-line policies” for “radicalizing young Palestinians, empowering Hamas and Hizballah, isolating Israel in the world.” It does not occur to him that these “hard-line policies” (though it’s hard to see what is “hard-line” about building a defensive barrier and refusing to negotiate with radical movements devoted to your destruction) might be a response to years of Palestinian terror. And nowhere in his column does Kristof press for the Palestinians (or the larger Arab world) to engage in the kind of self-lacerating debate he so admires in Israeli politics. Apparently, the mere fact that “the Palestinian cause arouses ordinary people in coffee shops” across the Middle East is enough to warrant demanding of Israel that it bend over backward to address their grievance.
For all of the noise Kristof makes about candor in politics, his main concern is that Israel be cast, permanently and publicly, as the primary cause of its own problems: “The best hope for Israel isn’t a better fence or more weaponry. . . . Ultimately, security for Israel will emerge only from a peace agreement with Palestinians.” Why Kristof ignores Israel’s repeated demonstrations of its willingness to make peace is unclear. But before he demands more concessions of Israel, or changes in American discourse on the Middle East, he ought to wait until some healthy “vitriol” appears in Palestinian political debate. The silence of dissenters in that arena is truly deafening.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
March 20th, 2007 at 2:14 PM
“For all of the noise Kristof makes about candor in politics, his main concern is that Israel be cast, permanently and publicly, as the primary cause of its own problems:”
Not quite a fair reading. Kristof is not saying Israel is the cause of its problems. Rather, Israeli’s strategic direction offers little chance for creating a lasting solution to the problems it faces.
I’m not sympathetic to terrorists. I would simply warn that the clock is working against our friends in Israel, at least as far as American support goes.
The Cold War is over. Increasingly, Americans will call for the balance sheet on our unquestioned alliance with Israel to be re-audited.
Is our alliance increasing or decreasing our security? Time and again, we hear that the inability of Israel and Palestine to settle their differences — and our inability to be a unbiased broker — contributes to our own security risks. Many of the worst actors in the region use the conflict to channel the rage of their people not only toward Israel, but toward America.
We have backed a roadmap to peace and a two-state solution. If that does not materialize, I think America may be forced to re-evaluate. If the only option for stability is a one-state solution, then Israel knows where America stands: All people are created equal, regardless of religion and race. Each adult gets one vote. Majority rules.
If this is the future Israel wants, it is on the right path.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:40 PM
“Nor does he attempt to explain how our political conversation might be improved by importing Nazi analogies as irresponsible as Lapid’s. Is this the sort of “discussion” that Kristof wants to see?”
Perhaps a better example might be the aerial bombing of Lebanon. While Israel had the prerogative to recover their soldiers, there might be a credible argument that the sort of mindset that Kristof identifies prevented people here in the states from making constructive criticism regarding how Israel went about doing it.
I certainly think Kristof overstates the case, but I do think there was a failure on our part to provide better advice in that whole affair. Things might have turned out a lot better had we urged Israel to make a stronger ground showing and eliminate Hizballah outright, rather than taking their time bombing Lebanon from above.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Oops, the latest (2/07) Gallup Poll shows Americans support Israel over the Palestinian Arabs by a ratio of three to one. Don’t worry, R.A.C., even if you favor majority rule, I’m pretty sure Nick Kristof doesn’t.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:39 PM
“Oops, the latest (2/07) Gallup Poll shows Americans support Israel over the Palestinian Arabs by a ratio of three to one. Don’t worry, R.A.C., even if you favor majority rule, I’m pretty sure Nick Kristof doesn’t. — Seth Halpern”
Of course we do (support Israel). I would hope so. Still, I predict that you will see support for Israel eroding if progress toward an equitable peace is not made. If this drags on, and becomes framed as an internal civil rights issue as opposed to the war between nations it is viewed as today, Israel will be isolated like never before.
And if fear-mongering about militant Islam continues to drive US policy, it is at least equally as likely that the American public will begin to say, “Why are we backing Israel? It’s more trouble than it’s worth” as it is to say “America and Israel are in this together.”
Interesting, isn’t it, that the argument I made automatically put me, in your mind, in the “enemy of Israel” camp? This is exactly what Kristof was arguing. Friends of Israel with differing opinions of what’s in its vital interests are quick to be branded and attacked. “Friends don’t question” is decidely anti-democratic and un-American. It’s like price-fixing in the marketplace of ideas.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:04 PM
I find it amusing that while Kristof’s thrust is precisely the same as President Carter, the attacks on him thus far have mostly been in the from of debate. As the number of critics of Israeli policy - and US political cowardice - multiply, the old strategy of smear and silence will no longer work. Like mushrooms after the rain, criticism of Israel’s self destructive policies will spread, and so will those who demand that the US stop playing the enabler.
Here in the UWS of Manhattan, my synagogue colleagues are quite pleased with Kristof, his article, and the breath of fresh air blowing through the policy debate. God willing, someday soon AIPAC, ADL and AJC will experience it in the form of doors slamming shut in their faces.
http://www.Thankyoukristof.org
March 20th, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Did Kristof ghostwrite the George Soros article in the current issue of the New York Review of Books? It covers almost exactly the same points — Soros praises himself for how brave he is for criticizing Israel, paints himself as the victim of unfair charges of anti-Semitism because of his honesty, insists that Jewish interest groups prevent honest criticism of Israel in the United States (unlike the strong self-criticism within Israel), states that Israel is mostly to blame for Palestinians’ hatred of it, and recommends that the United States should deal politically with the reasonable elements that he finds in Hamas and send aid funds to a Hamas-led government.
Or do these same few talking points simply define a new genre and a new generation of anti-Israel politics?
March 21st, 2007 at 12:12 AM
RAC,
With regard to your first post, I’m not sure I see the arguments. First, I do agree that Americans hear that the US is contributing to its own security risks with regard to its “biased behavior” with negotiations. But analysts who make that claim only exhibit a rather severe ignorance for Middle East politics. It’s quite clear, if you take a cursory glance at the internal fighting raging across the Arab world (border disputes, religious conflicts, tribal wars, etc), Israel’s “lack of strategic vision” is in no way responsible for preventing Arab development. It’s much the opposite–the Israel-Palestinian conflict is much more the result of the problems endemic to the Middle East, rather than the cause. When James Baker first raised the idea in the ISG that Iraq could somehow be solved by making peace between Israel and the Palestinians, I forgot who it was, but a member of the group responded with incredulity something to the effect of “would the gunman in Fallujah, if he heard about peace between Israel and Palestine, suddenly say ‘that’s it, no more need to fight!’ and drop his gun?” The equation is all wrong–solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not stop tribal infighting, it will not stop the civil conflicts, and it will not stop the repression. You may be a supporter of Israel, RAC, but I think you might be giving it a little too much credit. Israel may do a lot of great things, but as far as I can tell, it doesn’t hold the keys to solving the power struggles, poverty, resentment, and anger of 350 million other people.
With regard to your second argument, that Israel knows where Americans stand, I think you forget just how passionately Americans feel about self-determination. It was Wilson himself who so strongly promoted the idea, much to the ire of the Europeans. And I would give Americans more credit than you do. I think policymakers, at the very least, understand the nuance of the situation. If it was just one man, one vote in the middle east, then a bi-national solution would’ve been implemented long before. Already in 1948, the international community recognized, after much deliberation, that there could be no co-existence between Jews and Arabs. The state would not function, to say the very least. It seems proponents of the single state concept have forgotten their history–it’s without a doubt “been there, done that,” and fundamentally little has changed in the relationship between Jews and the Palestinians and the Arab world, despite years of peace efforts. Ultimately, however, America stands for democracy, it stands for countries that share it’s values on equality, on human rights. Americans see Israel, it’s emphasis on Western notions of achievement and lifestyle, and know that Israeli society is much more closely aligned with their own than Palestinian society. If America drops its support for Israel out of misread security concerns, it is dropping its soul.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Temper, temper, R.A.C. Did I call you an “enemy” of Israel? But your predictions of an Emerging Kristofian Majority and the death of the pro-Israel consensus seem (with apologies to Mark Twain) greatly exaggerated. Believe me, such prognostications have been around for at least 40 years. In the 1970s it was claimed (and not just by ex-Harvard Crimson types, but by some really scary generals and politicians) that our support for Israel was forcing the Arabs into the arms of the Soviets. You remember the Soviets. Then it was said, over and over and over, that Israel would commit demographic suicide. Yet Jews have kept a solid and remarkably enduring majority in the entire Land of Israel since 1967. So majority-rule-warnings don’t cut much ice there either. Does that mean I am personally wedded to a maximalist view of the conflict? Not necessarily — it might well be enough for me if the Palestinians literally and figuratively grew up and changed from super-weaponized, hyper-politicized, perpetually-aggrieved gang members into genuinely civilized people. But that will take at least the rest of your lifetime. That is, I’m assuming that since you seem to think Kristof is on to something you are too young to have experienced a thousand identical columns by Anthony Lewis. Lucky you.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:57 AM
JCH, I commend your patience and attempt at reason with RAC. But for people like him — who are obviously intelligent enough and educated enough to do some cursory reading of their own, so that they may familiarize themselves with the realities of the situation, so that they may go beyond typical platitudes and protestations of being a “true” friend of Israel, all the while blisfully unaware or purposefully obfuscating on the more clear truths of the conflict — for people like him, your words are wasted.
Sadly, RAC and those like him can contort their logic like pretzels to assure taking a “neutral” position, casting blame in equal proportion on the Arabs and Israel, at best, or laying the fault on Israel in the entirety, at worst.
Seth, I commend your civility with RAC. But, truth be told, he is an “enemy of Israel.” Whether his neutrality is based on malice or simple ignorance, it is no matter - such ignorance by someone who clearly has available the resources to remedy such “useful idiocy” helping the cause of the terrorists, throat slitters, and suicide bombers, is inexcusable. Clearly he and those like him are not anywhere near the level of reprehensibility of the the true evil, the radical Islamists in Israel and elsewhere. Still, the willful ignorance he displays is just as much a threat to Israel, America, and western civilization and values as that of the jihadis themselves. De facto, he is an enemy of Israel.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:30 PM
MJS
Your bilious distortions only underscore the strength of my argument and prove Kristof right.
Spewing the word “neutrality” in my direction, when I advocated no such viewpoint, shows just how reactive and closed minded you are. Addressing ad hominems meant for me to other commenters suggests you are, at heart, a coward.
You can snatch charges from thin air — “… RAC and those like him [cast] blame in equal proportion on the Arabs and Israel, at best …”. They are your inventions. You only show that your forte is rage, not reading comprehension.
My contentions concern post-Cold War, post 9-11 pressures I see developing between America and Israel if things continue as they are, the urgency of the shot clock, and the utility of debate in creating a lasting peace. Other commenters here who disagree with me at least made a (largely) good-faith effort at rebuttal, which I appreciate, even if I remain unpersuaded.
It is sad that those who might suggest an alternate course (or who see the value in debating alternatives) for Israel represent such a threat to those like you who drive it blindy toward the rocks. In fact, one could just as easily brand you a “de facto enemy” of Israel. Fortunately, it sounds like the number of people open to the message is growing.