History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
After the last eight years, we need the highest quality work from international relations theorists. Instead, alas, we have the anti-Israel obsessions of Stephen Walt.
Walt’s latest came in the new (and very good, as a whole) blog, foreignpolicy.com:
Imagine that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria had won the Six Day War, leading to a massive exodus of Jews from the territory of Israel. Imagine that the victorious Arab states had eventually decided to permit the Palestinians to establish a state of their own on the territory of the former Jewish state. (That's unlikely, of course, but this is a thought experiment). Imagine that a million or so Jews had ended up as stateless refugees confined to that narrow enclave known as the Gaza Strip. Then imagine that a group of hardline Orthodox Jews took over control of that territory and organized a resistance movement. They also steadfastly refused to recognize the new Palestinian state, arguing that its creation was illegal and that their expulsion from Israel was unjust. Imagine that they obtained backing from sympathizers around the world and that they began to smuggle weapons into the territory. Then imagine that they started firing at Palestinian towns and villages and refused to stop despite continued reprisals and civilian casualties . . . Here's the question: would the United States be denouncing those Jews in Gaza as"terrorists" and encouraging the Palestinian state to use overwhelming force against them?
Ross Douthat and Chris Brose have already taken apart Walt’s arguments. But, it seems, Walt doesn’t know very much history, either.
Since he bases his hypothetical on Israel losing the 1967 war, Walt assumes that the State of Israel existed 19 years before its destruction. In that respect, Walt’s hypothetical Israel resembles the Baltic States, which were independent for 21 years before they were overrun by powerful neighbors—first the Soviets, then the Germans, finally the Soviets again—and lost their independence.
Throughout the Cold War, U.S. policy supported Baltic independence, and the United States never recognized the Soviet annexation of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Perhaps Walt’s newest book will be The Baltic Lobby, explaining this policy as a result of the Lobby’s intimidating Congress, aided by well-placed Balts in high-level U.S. executive positions who were more loyal to their ethnicity than to their country. But for now, I’ll go with the argument that U.S. policymakers perceived it as in their national security interests not to recognize the Baltic States’ losing their independence.
By positing an independent Israel (for 19 years, anyway) which then lost its freedom, Walt’s hypothetical doesn’t apply to the Gaza. No independent Palestinian state was overrun by Israel in 1967, or in any other year. In this respect, in terms of international relations, more appropriate analogies for the Palestinians would be the Kurds in the Middle East, or the Ruthenians in Eastern Europe. Would the United States support the Ruthenians if they started lobbing rockets into the Ukraine from eastern Slovakia; or the Kurds if they started lobbing rockets into Turkey from northern Iraq? I doubt it.
Perhaps the biggest flaw with Walt’s hypothetical comes in the following: “Imagine that they obtained backing from sympathizers around the world and that they began to smuggle weapons into the territory.” Hamas is obtaining weapons from a state—Iran. In Walt’s hypothetical, which state would be supplying arms to the rump Jewish entity? France? Russia? Saudi Arabia?
But then, of course, this is the same Stephen Walt who demonstrated his knowledge of how U.S. politics functions with the following assertion, “[T]he mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about.”
Groups devoted to causes like gay rights or civil rights also have lobbies. Perhaps Walt’s admirers on the academic fringe might want to ask themselves if their champion is also suggesting that gay rights or civil rights aren’t in the “American national interest” as well.
Israel faced a real threat in 1973 (from the armies of the nation states of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc); they do not any more, yet continue to use combined arms tactics - aerial bombardment, etc. - against threats (Hamas, Hexzbollah, etc.) that amounts to light infantry at best.
As far as Iran goes, given that the only route between Iran and Israel crosses at least two other nation states (one of them occupied by the US Army) I'm not sure what threat the Iranian military poses to Israel.
Again, Israel is using aerial bombardment against terrorists/urban guerillas; no other power in the West does that. The conflict in the Balkans was between nation states, the US and NATO vs. the rump Yugoslavia. I don't think anyone would argue that Hamas is a nation state.
Finally, the question remains - what does the US get out of the IDF's use of aerial bombardment against urban areas where a local anti-Israeli faction operates? And why should Americans pay for it?
I'm asking for the realpolitik answer, obviously. Is there some secret ECHELON type operation that Israel participates in? Is Israel the sole source of unobtanium or handwavium? Are there IDF troops on the ground in Korea or the Balkans? An extra vote in the General Assembly? Really, where's the quid-pro-quo for the US in this relationship?
I won't be going to Washington any time soon, but here's a thought - if Israel forswore all US financial and military support, and returned what they have received from the US over the past 40-odd years, then Americans would not be in the position of having to ask what they (Americans, that is) been getting for their money over the last four decades...how's that for a policy position?
Respectfully,
Les Baitzer -
1/12/2009
Mr. Smith:
And I appreciate your thoughtful response. Thank you. I did not address the second component of your original question --- that of continued US support of Israel. With your consent, I will do that at a later time.
I have no idea why you introduced a comparison between Hamas and "the possibility of a multi-front war." I never made that comparison and I'm at a loss to understand why you would. On two occasions when Arab armies attacked Israel in a "combined arms warfare at the theater level" the Arab armies were defeated in a matter of days and retreated in humiliation. I recognize that the nature of the conflict there has changed. I believe that I addressed a comparison between Hamas and the groups that you suggested were comparable in tactics, and concluded that both the nature of the groups were entirely different and the response tactics, out of necessity for the reasons I suggested, also entirely different. I would urge you to reread my reply.
I also did not suggest that the location of the threat to Israel has any bearing or that this is the crux of the problem. Again, I'm confused as to how you can possibly infer that from what I wrote. But yes, it's a dangerous neighborhood; so is Detroit.
And I agree, some things have changed since 1973, but what has not changed is a fundamental belief among Arab nations that denies Israel's right to exist. And in the case of Iran, its ideology, theology, and political goals are manifested by an active campaign, by proxy, to eradicate the State of Israel.
I have a bit of experience with Israel and over 25 years of knowledge gained by studying their government and military, so, please take my word for this: Israel is not in fear of being "marginalized." Israel is not a support group for obese women. They are a nation that has been continuously attacked by neighboring nations since the very dawn of their existence. What troubles them is that the majority of the world cannot seem to recognize their plight, the truth of the threat against them, and their right to defend themselves when attacked. And, a feckless UN that established their nation in the first place and now refuses to enforce or defend its own plan, similarly troubles them. I would submit that Israel probably understands "geo-political realities" better than any nation on earth.
Forgive me, but I failed to make much sense of your third to last paragraph. I might ask this though. Does former President Clinton’s decision to unilaterally and without any Congressional permission or support send US Bombers into the former Yugoslavia in 1999 fall "within the realm of current Western practice?" Clinton also put in place an occupational force of US soldiers that remains to this day. Is that also an example of this same "current Western practice" as you view it?
And while I admire your knowledge of the pieds noir in my view, nothing in their history seems germane to Israel. But, your introduction of "white South Africans" actually, and perhaps unknowingly, provides an excellent example that supports my view.
The "international community" essentially said this to white South Africans: "You white boys need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th Century. You can no longer maintain a fundamental belief in a system of Apartheid in your country. You must not continue to attack your native African countrymen. You must integrate both your government and society. Oh, and by the way, you must give up your nuclear weapons."
So, although it was a struggle, if white south Africans are anything, they are good businessmen. Faced with isolation and a colossal loss of business, they begrudgingly accepted the will of the international community. They integrated their nation and dismantled their nuclear weapons program in 18 months, under IAEA supervision. The IAEA is pretty effective if the host nation actually desires to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. In dealings with Saddam Hussein before he was downsized and with Iran, they were and are, totally and completely useless. The Amsterdam STD inspectors could do a far better job.
Thus, that same "international community" needs to similarly say to Iran: "You Hamito-Semetic speaking boys and you Arab speaking boys need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, although we’d settle for the early 16th Century after the defeat of the Moors. You must accept the existence of Israel as a State and you can no longer maintain a fundamental belief in the destruction of Israel. You cannot attack Israel. You must adopt a society and a system of government that believes in the rule of law and respect for its neighbors. Oh, and by the way, you must dismantle your nuclear weapons that you are not building. You folks need to import and manufacture nuclear materials for electrical utility power needs about as much as you need to import and manufacture dirt."
From a citizen's point of view, I sense we've arrived at a solution, Mr. Smith. Perhaps you should go to Washington.
Respectfully,
Robert KC Johnson -
1/11/2009
As I said before, I suppose the question remains how to define an "act of Israeli aggression."
The two Israeli military campaigns since I've been blogging were (1) the Lebanon war; and (2) the current Gaza operation. I freely admit that in both instances I supported the Israeli government's basic approach (as, in both cases, the best of an array of not-terribly-good options), but don't consider either campaign to constitute "acts of aggression," at least as the phrase is understood in international law.
In general, apart from one or two word choices, I agree with the position articulated in today's Post by Tom Segev, and expect it will pretty much mirror Obama's policy toward the area.
T F Smith -
1/11/2009
Mr. Baitzer -
Thank you for the civil response; I appreciate it.
I agree that Israel has a long and bloody history with its neighbors, mostly unwarranted, although I would suggest that history has obviously changed since the 1973 war - whatever the depth of the threat that Hamas' tactics pose to Israelis, that threat pales in comparison to the possibility of a multi-front war involving multiple professional militaries, equipped and trained by a superpower. Hamas, whatever else it may be, amounts to a fairly small number of combatants engaged in an urban guerrilla/terror campaign, not combined arms warfare at the theater level.
Having said that, it appears that your answer amounts to the fact that Israelis live in Southwest Asia, not Europe or the the Western Hemisphere, so the rules regarduing ROE in urban areas in response to such a threat that apply to Israel are different...is that the crux of it, that the Israelis live in a dangerous neighborhood?
If so, fine, but if Israelis do not wish to be counted as part of the West, then they should face the reality they will end up being as marginalized as similar societies have been in recent decades, after the geo-political realities that created those societies have changed...the pieds noir and white South Africans come to mind.
If the Israeli government wants the West's support, they must realize that they need to act within the realm of current Western practice, not that of the 19th or 20th centuries. If not, they should not be surprised by the consequences.
Finally, the argument that Israelis live in an dangerous part of the world and so need to use (for example) aerial bombardment of urban areas as their preferred tactic in an counter-guerilla campaign does not offer any reasons as to why the American taxpayer's money should assist Israel in doing so.
Nations, after all, do not have friends - they have interests; and it is arguable whether the interests of Israel and the United States have been congruent since the end of the Cold War, if then...
Respectfully,
Les Baitzer -
1/11/2009
"The question as to why Israel operates outside the realm of proportional response - and why American tax dollars are given to Israel to do so - is worth considering, from the point of view of a scholar and a citizen."
That was an excellent reply, TF Smith. I particularly admire how you have framed the question, which I copied above. Accordingly, I'll offer this point of view as a citizen, since I am not a scholar.
I'll not discuss the disputed events of the USS Liberty incident either, but it is important to remember that the Liberty was an intelligence-gathering platform, not unlike the USS Pueblo seized six months later in January 1968, and not unlike the ubiquitous "Russian Trawlers" that always seem to be "fishing" near areas of conflict in the world.
I agree with your analysis of the West's treatment of urban counterinsurgencies in its own territories. The examples you cited of such groups are also sound.
However, to compare Israel's response to Hamas with the Western governments' response to Bader Meinhof, Red Brigade, and the IRA strikes me as faulty because Hamas differs from those groups in very significant ways. If anything, the relationship of those groups to the Western governments they opposed is more akin to the relationship between Hamas and Fatah.
With respect to Israel, Hamas has a stated and written goal of the elimination of Israel. It refuses to recognize Israel as a State and indeed, has actively campaigned to eradicate the State of Israel. This is both a strategic and religious goal that they share with their theocratic sponsor, Iran.
It is not a complex exercise to connect the dots between Iran and their proxies, Hezbullah, and Hamas. No symbiotic relationship of that nature and scope ever existed between any sovereign country and the groups you offer as examples, not to mention the religious connection.
The government response to the groups you cite was essentially a law enforcement effort for these reasons: (1) it was possible; (2) it was appropriate to the threat; and (3) it succeeded at that level. I recognize that those governments used military forces and state police (Italy) in their efforts, but notwithstanding that, the nature of the response for the reasons I cited, did not need to go beyond a law enforcement action.
In Israel, the situation is markedly different and requires both a tactical and strategic military response for these reasons: (1) over 60 years of diplomatic efforts have failed to bring an end to armed attacks from these Arab territories against the sovereign territory of Israel and its citizens; (2) it is not possible, feasible or legal for Israel to station law enforcement personnel in the entire territory where these displaced Arabs live; and (3) the threat is much larger in number of insurgents and, because they are actively supported by Iran, they are better equipped, armed, financed and supplied, by far, than any of the groups you cited.
Apart from Israel, I cannot think of another country on earth that has spent the past 60 years defending itself against nearby countries and territories that deny its right to exist, openly and notoriously demand its annihilation, and continuously attack it. For any other country, those objectives and activities would constitute acts of war and that country’s right to defend itself would be universally recognized --- but not Israel.
In an earlier reply, KC Johnson stated that he supported Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and from the West Bank. I do as well. It is interesting to note that when Israel occupied Gaza, they were able to apply law enforcement measures to partially protect Israeli citizens from attacks. Israel had long argued that the reason they continued to occupy Gaza was for their own protection. And, in the three years since they departed, the area has been taken over by force by Hamas, a terrorist organization recognized as such by many countries. So much for the opportunity for a "proportional response."
And what has Hamas done? From 2000 to 2004, Hamas was responsible for killing nearly 400 Israelis and wounding more than 2,000 in 425 attacks, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From 2001 through May 2008, Hamas launched more than 3,000 Qassam rockets and 2,500 mortar attacks against Israeli targets. Those are acts of war.
Where was the outrage for these attacks from those who now cry for a "proportional response" from Israel? What was the action of the UN?
Given that history, just how does a country stay inside "the realm of proportional response?" I’ve honesty never seen a good scholarly easy on "proportional response." I wonder, just what is the standard? Perhaps someone can point me to such a study.
I
am however, reminded of a news show I saw just prior to the "First Gulf War" where US forces drove Iraqi invaders from Kuwait. A US Army General involved in the planning was asked this question: "Given the size of Iraq and its Army, the US seems to have an overwhelming force in place in the Persian Gulf --- why is that?" The General replied, "We’re not interested in a fair fight."
T F Smith -
1/10/2009
Without getting into disputed territory over whether the IDF chain of command made the decision to attack USS Liberty knowing she was a USN ship, it is very clear that the Johnson administration did everything it could to downplay the incident - awarding Capt. McGonagle his MOH elsewhere than at the White House is just one of many decisions that makes that obvious.
Again, absent the truly off-the-wall hypotheticals (Israel defeated by the Arab alliance in 1967, or Canada attacking the US today), it is clear that Israel operates in a strategic decision-making space that is outside the mainstream of the postwar West, certainly in comparison to the historical limits that Western powers have used in regard to urban counterinsurgencies in their own or adjacent territories.
Obviously, the British consciously adapted restrictive ROE during the conflict between the British government and the IRA over the future of Ulster - the RAF did not, for example, use aerial bombardment against neighborhoods in Belfast that were supportive of the IRA.
Neither did the Germans chyose to use aerial bombardment in the conflict with Baader-Meinhoff, the the Italians against the Red Brigades, or even the Argentines against the ERP...when the Argentine military junta of the 1970s demonstrates more restraint than the IDF today, one has to be impressed....
The question as to why Israel operates outside the realm of proportional response - and why American tax dollars are given to Israel to do so - is worth considering, from the point of view of a scholar and a citizen.
It is hardly obsessive to question the wisdom of the policies of the Israeli government in response to US interests.
Jonathan Dresner -
1/10/2009
Thanks, it's nice to get an answer from an expert!
Reading it, it looks to me like Johnson was prepared to be diplomatically supportive of Israel, and moving into a more direct relationship, but they were a long way from being militarily supportive (aside from two arms deals, neither of which had gone easily). Had the war gone badly for Israel, instead of being a clear success, it's not at all clear that the US had the resources or desire to be more involved than they were.
vis-a-vis TF Smith's comment, I don't see anything in your piece about the Liberty incident, but I imagine that it might have cut into Johnson's credibility had he urged a direct intervention into the conflict on Israel's side.
Ralph E. Luker -
1/10/2009
With all due respect, KC, there's no indication there that you've ever condemned any act of Israeli aggression. Indeed, you seem to have always supported the official position of the state of Israel, even when, in retrospect, you think it was a mistake. How is that not obsessive?
Robert KC Johnson -
1/10/2009
To answer Jon's hypothetical, my sense is that LBJ might have responded more forcefully. I have a (long) piece on this topic, which uses the recently released LBJ tapes from 1966-early 1968 to argue that LBJ's presidency was a critical turning point in the US-Israel relationship, and that on several occasions, when forced to make a choice, he adopted a pro-Israel position, even if doing so required overruling the State Department.
Robert KC Johnson -
1/10/2009
I suppose the question here would be how to define an "act of aggression." I'm not sure I would define as "an act of aggression" a nation responding to rockets deliberately targeted at civilian areas having been launched over a several-year period.
As to Israeli policy, I supported the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 (although subsequent events have suggested maybe that wasn't a good decision), support a withdrawal from most of the West Bank settlements today, and favor a two-state solution with a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.
Ralph E. Luker -
1/10/2009
1) My colleague, KC Johnson, is fully capable of replying for himself. Your intervention isn't required.
2) I inadvertently failed to edit out the word "act" in your second citation.
3) I doubt that a discussion of definitions is useful here. At its extremity, your position argues: "You stepped on my toe. I am therefore entitled to drop a nuclear bomb on you."
Les Baitzer -
1/10/2009
Before KC replies, and just out of curiosity, Ralph, how do you define "an act of aggression by the state of Israel?" (I'd concede that Operation Opera is debatable in this regard.)
And further, how is that term different from "an aggressive act by the state of Israel?"
Those are both your terms and I am very curious how you would define them; examples would be helpful.
It seems to me that nations have a universally recognized right to defend themselves from, say, rocket attacks on its sovereign territory initiated by its neighbors.
I don't know about you, Ralph, but if a Canadian religious group that had as its charter a mandate to destroy the US, and decided to launch rocket attacks into the State of New York from Toronto, I would hope that the US Air Force would defend our nation rather "aggressively" and put the rocket launchers out of commission.
But then again, I'm sort of old-fashioned in that regard.
I'd further be curious to know if the State of Israel has ever attacked any Mideast Country with which it has signed a non-aggression treaty.
T F Smith -
1/9/2009
Given the Johnson Administration's reactions to the attack by the IDF on USS Liberty and the deaths of more than 50 American sailors and personnel, I think the answer to Dr. Dresner's question regarding LBJ is obvious.
Jonathan Dresner -
1/8/2009
I don't think the failure of exact parallelism invalidates the hypothetical as much as the fact that Walt clearly knows what the answer is, and assumes that the answer is also self-evident to his readers. It's not a thought experiment: it's an allegorical sermon and charge of rank hypocrisy.
The problem, as I see it, is that he's pretty clearly wrong in his assumptions. He asks, "would the United States have even allowed such a situation to arise and persist in the first place?" Yes. In 1967, the US didn't see the existence of Israel as a vital national interest: had Israel been overrun at that point, the US might have helped with refugees, but I've never seen anything to suggest that LBJ would have lifted a finger or shed a tear. KC, you're the LBJ expert here: what do you think?
Walt also asks "would the United States be denouncing those Jews in Gaza as "terrorists" and encouraging the Palestinian state to use overwhelming force against them?" If Jews in the US and overseas had conspired against the US, inflicting serious damage on the people and economy thereof, were connected to anti-American insurgencies elsewhere, and had powerful allies with WMD programs, I think it's entirely plausible that the US might be encouraging an extremely vigorous and punitive approach towards these hypothetical Jews, yes.
Walt's problem is that he's not thinking these things through, as a historian or a political scientist.
T F Smith -
1/8/2009
Does Dr. Johnston agree or disagree with the statement "Nations do not have friends; they have interests"?
Ralph E. Luker -
1/8/2009
Just out of curiosity, KC, has there ever been a time when you have not defended an act of aggression by the state of Israel? Have you ever criticized an aggressive act by the state of Israel? If you have been consistent in that regard, why would it be incorrect to call your attitude "obsessive"?
T F Smith -
1/8/2009
Here's one:
Imagine that - oh, I dunno, sometime in the early 1970s - there was an on-going and often-bloody terror/counter-terror conflict going on between a nuclear-armed US ally and a revolutionary movement in a region governed by that same US ally.
Imagine that same US ally's government reached a decision that standard policing methods were insufficient to address the situation.
Then imagine that the US ally decided to impose an economic blockade on the enclave where the revolutionary movement operated, and then to use aerial bombardment in urban areas, rather than special forces, intelligence operations, local proxies, or any other more limited means - essentially jumping straight from the "man with a knife" stage of counter-insurgency to unleashing the might of its air force.
Now imagine the ally was the UK, the air force was the Royal Air Force, and the urban areas being blockaded and bombed were parts of Belfast.
Oh, and that the RAF was mounting the bombardment with Phantom jets built in St. Louis, Missouri dropping ordnance made in the US, and paid for with US FMS funds.
Does anything think that the US would have had a reason to question this particular use of force? Much less the world in general?
Would anyone agree that the national interests of the UK and the US in such a situation were the same?
The national interests of the US and Israel are not the same today, if they ever were - and pointing that out is not an obsession; it is common sense.
Richard McAlexander -
1/8/2009
I've never heard a scholar deride another scholar's research interests as an "obsession."
