What’s a Nice Jewish Boy Like Me Doing Wading into an Issue as Messy as This?
by JL Wall
John Mearsheimer’s essay elsewhere on the site is the first piece I’ve ever read of his (or of Stephen Walt, for that matter) — and he doesn’t quite live up to the, ah, “reputation” their book may have garnered him. He is, ultimately, right when he asks
“In fact, would it not have been better for Israel if the United States had long ago stopped it from building settlements and instead helped create a Palestinian state?”
The fact of the matter is that there cannot be a viable Jewish state in, for lack of a better term, “Greater Israel.” Ben Gurion’s triad of alternatives is just as true today as it was in 1948: you can have a Jewish state in Greater Israel, but you can’t have a democracy; you can have a democracy in Greater Israel, but it won’t be a Jewish state; or you can have a Jewish democracy, but it will not encompass all of Greater Israel.
Let us just take for granted that any apartheid-like State of Israel would not be long viable (the withering of support from, among other sources, American Jewry in particular would be devastating). The same has to be said of a binational state: it might take a generation, but the emigration Mearsheimer notes now would be far surpassed. There would be, quite simply, far, far safer places to live as a Jewish minority. And while the Israeli-Jewish population wouldn’t die off, it would wither to the point where we could not rightly call the state “binational.” Which leaves us with the two-state solution, and Olmert’s ominous vision.
So far I haven’t said anything new, or even new-ish. But as one who does care about the continued existence of the State of Israel, I can’t say that I see it barrelling toward much good right now — which leaves me with the belief that something needs to change in American-Israeli policy. I err on the side of giving Israel the benefit of the doubt — I did with Lebanon and with Gaza, and I think that the best interests of the State of Israel and the United States overlap exceptionally more often than they do not. But this cannot mean that any Israeli action is beyond criticism.
That, in my opinion, holds especially true from the Jewish perspective, and, I suppose this is where my reservations about what Mearsheimer and Walt have termed “The Israel Lobby” begins. (A brief side note: that term makes me nervous and wary, not because of any secret motive on the part of the authors, but because I immediately start wondering where They are going to take the term and run with it. So I’ll do John one better and offer 20 blogger-bucks to anyone who can come up with a phrase less likely to set off a neurotic fit.) As Will Herberg put it half a century ago:
“It is the antithesis between the Jew as Son of the Covenant and the Jew as citizen of his secular community that gives rise to the peculiar tension of Jewish existence. And this antithesis is basically no more overcome for the Jew in the State of Israel than in the United States, for the secular society of the State of Israel is no more to be simply identified with the covenant-community than is any group of Jews elsewhere in the world. Not even in the State of Israel can the ‘self-alienation’ of the Jew be finally overcome, for the State of Israel, however highly we may regard it, is, after all, but another community of this world, whereas Israel transcends all historical boundaries of whatever sort.” (Judaism and Modern Man, p. 278)
Or maybe it’s more effective to take Heschel on the pious individual and extrapolate it out to the pious community:
“The aim of Jewish piety lies . . . in the maintenence and fanning of a discontent with our aspirations and achievements, in the maintenance and craving that knows no satisfaction. … It plants in him a seed of endless yearning, a need of spiritual needs rather than a need of achievements, teaching him to be content with what he has, but never with what he is.” (Man is Not Alone, p. 258)
That only through and on account of this dissatisfaction — this ongoing self-critique — is moral progress within a man and within society possible.
But at the end of the day, the question I’m left with is this: If I insist that Israel be treated like any other nation, that America use sticks as well as carrots, what do I say if the day comes when Israel and the United States are at odds, and the withdrawal of a certain level of American support endangers Israel? It leaves me uneasy that such a situation might arise (and I don’t pretend to know what my answer would be) – but I think that I would take that possibility over the inevitability of either demographic or moral suicide that the present course appears to betoken.
(Elsewhere, and in greater detail: “Jewish Thoughts on Israel’s Moral Failures in Gaza”)
Filed under: foreign affairs
I await for Mearsheimer and Walt to tackle the Oil Lobby. I think they paint an incomplete picture focusing on the feud between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Mearsheimer mentions “moderate Arab states” (a term used when a mouth is planted between two Arab dictators cheeks) in his latest essay. It was a term of endearment the Bush Administration gave to the Saudis as their people were coming into Iraq to kill coalition forces and Iraqis. Michael Scheuer awhile back called them Islamo-fascist. He said America is allied with them. America’s support for them was one of the reasons for 9/11. Arabs are tired of American political meddling. Where is the book and papers on those “moderate Arab” Islamo-fascist?
I think Jewish birthrates need to increase. There is security in numbers. Then there can be a Jewish state that is also a democracy. Israel was founded on land that is considered Holy by dangerous fanatics (John Hagee, etc) and has authoritarian “moderate Arab” regimes for neighbors. The icing on the cake is the oil that brings other powers in to destabilize the whole area. That is probably part of Israel’s problem too. I read once that they are seen as European invaders and not indigenous. The surrounding problems can’t be ignored. Imperialism needs to be addressed.
Anyone – whatever their reputation – who still promotes a 2-state solution will find themselves pegged as irrelevant by a growing number of the only Jews whose opinion really matters – those of us living in Israel.
Missile attacks from first Lebanon and now Gaza have made it clear that the West Bank is more strategically important than ever – just as the rise of Hamas and the decay of supposedly “moderate” Fatah proves to most Israelis that we really don’t have any Palestinian partners for peace. Our papers have twice printed maps showing the range of shoulder-mounted missiles – you don’t need to be a defense expert to know that Tel-Aviv is within shooting range of the West Bank.
The Olmert years have seen a stream of “mea culpa” editorials from the major cultural, governmental, and military promoters of the Oslo peace process. Most admit that the Palestinians never intended to embrace a 2 state solution, and that their recognition of Israel was a scam.
The articles by former generals usually end with a call to re-establish Israel’s credible deterrence.
Do Israelis agree with that?
Yes they do – as shown by the widespread, unwavering support for Operation Cast Lead. Peaceniks and left-wingers were barely able to gather a hundred protesters in Tel-Aviv, where before they brought tens of thousands into the streets. Ehud Barak’s decision to stop short of re-occupying Gaza – or even ethnic cleansing – was perceived by many as pulling in Israel’s horse just as he was going to jump.
This decision cost Barak and Livni in the elections. The left-of-center, pro-peace parties resembled a girl frantically tugging at her miniskirt as they tried to stretch their shrinking support to cover both Labor and Kadimah. In the end only an influx of voters from the hard-left Meretz party saved Livni’s Kadimah party – but even after nosing out Likud, they were unable to form a coalition.
Israelis are unwilling to pursue any peace plan that calls for more concessions on our part.
We are unconvinced that there is a credible partner for peace – since none of the agreements signed so far are worth the paper they’re printed on.
We are ready for bold action that re-establishes deterrence in the eyes of our enemies.
I’d probably also describe myself as unconvinced that Hamas is a credible partner for peace — and that if Fatah wanted to be, I’m not sure it has enough strength to be effective. That’s part of why I was willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt and believe that the Gaza incursion was necessary — I still wouldn’t say that some action was unneeded, or claim that it failed. I am, however, disappointed in (and worried by) some of what went on during that operation. And while such actions may be effective and proper in short term (or even medium term), I am exceptionally skeptical that any long term SOLUTION can be had without two states.
And yes, I do realize it’s hard (and a touch hypocritical) for me to sit snug in Chicago and say what Israelis should and should not be doing. I’ve visited; I have friends/family who do/have live/d there and I can certainly say that I simply don’t have the emotional or moral fortitude necessary for that.