Debating Israel

Nicholas Kristof's NY Times Op-Ed today raises two valuable points: 1) there is too little debate in the U.S. about Israel's policies and American policy toward Israel; 2) Washington does Israel as a nation no favor by blindly supporting the policies of the Israeli government of the day.

There are many reasons for this, some legitimate, some not so much. American governments and politicians are hesitant to criticize a close strategic and political ally--in part, not to give succor to Israel's real enemies. America's elites--in politics and culture--are rightfully attentive to the suffering of the Jewish people through history and especially to the Holocaust of the not-so-distant past. The refusal of Arab and Islamic states for many decades to deal with Israel--and the indiscriminate terrorism unleashed against Israelis--strengthened the support of many Americans for Israel. There has been a perhaps instinctive, understandable tendency to equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism or even sympathy with terrorism (and a desire not to be labeled as such).

But none of that gives Israel a free pass when it comes to Americans honestly debating Israel's policies or America's policies toward Israel; they would include, at the moment: Israel's willingness to negotiate with the new Palestinian unity government; attitude toward the 2002 Arab peace initiative; use of force against Palestinian civilians; illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank; undeclared nuclear weapons program. As Kristof suggests, there is far more discussion within Israel itself about all these issues than in the U.S.

There have been some signs that things are changing. Two American professors, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, stimulated a major discussion in the U.S. a year ago with their essay in the London Review of Books titled "The Israel Lobby" (view a debate held at New York's Cooper Union about it). Another more recent example is the debate former President Carter provoked with his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," which has been a New York Times bestseller for a couple months now (see Joseph Lelyveld's thoughtful review in the current New York Review of Books).

I think Kristof makes an important point by noting that many Israeli policies have been a disaster for Israel itself, and that America has been no great friend to Israel in supporting those policies instead of advising alternative courses. There are many cases worth discussing, not least because Israel's policies have directly and indirectly affected American national interests (and today, on the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war, we are reminded about the vital importance of thinking through complicated Middle East problems before making things worse):

Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982: it was meant to destroy the PLO; it didn't do so, but it did spur the creation of Hizballah.

Israel's refusal to deal with Yasser Arafat: it was done on the grounds that the PLO leader was not a partner for peace, despite his signature on the Oslo Accords and receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize; but after Arafat's death, it was Hamas with its policy of destroying Israel that rose in Palestinian politics.

Israel's spread of Jewish settlements in the West Bank: it was meant in part to strengthen Israel's security, but by slicing up the Palestinian territory it may have made an ultimate peace agreement with the Palestinians impossible to achieve.

Israel's development of nuclear weapons: again, it was meant to strengthen Israel's security, but it may have done the opposite by inspiring Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, which will in turn spark a nuclear arms race among Arab states.

-By Scott MacLeod/Cairo