I’m feeling something akin to parental pride. One of my Columbia students, Seth Anziska, has published an excellent opinion article at Foreign Policy’s new Middle East Channel:
Reactions to the recent diplomatic squabble between the U.S. and Israel over building in East Jerusalem display a startling lack of historical memory. More than 30 years ago, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin insisted on building beyond the green line, and President Jimmy Carter proved unable to stop him. President Barack Obama risks a repeat performance. With the Netanyahu government’s announcement to build 1,600 more housing units in Ramat Shlomo, the consequences of U.S. inaction will prove even more damaging than in Carter’s time. Given a shift in American priorities, Obama can’t afford to stand down.
Back in 1977, Carter recognized that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was central to broader regional peace. He got to work immediately upon taking office. Yet two days after his initial meeting with Begin, Carter was astonished to hear that the Israeli prime minister had returned home and legalized three West Bank settlements, declaring them “permanent.” …
Ultimately, Carter failed to prevent Begin’s expansionist excesses… Since Carter’s clash with Begin, settlements have only grown in number and size, undermining the very possibility of a two-state solution to end the conflict.
Today, a number of Israel’s supporters on Capitol Hill are voicing dismay at an increasingly vocal confrontation between two close allies over the issue. Sen. Joseph Lieberman called Obama’s angry reaction to the East Jerusalem plans “unnecessary” and “destructive of our shared national interest.”
But these objections seem anachronistic at best. Lieberman may not recognize a new reality on the ground, but President Obama certainly does. …
Today, a number of Israel’s supporters on Capitol Hill are voicing dismay at an increasingly vocal confrontation between two close allies over the issue. Sen. Joseph Lieberman called Obama’s angry reaction to the East Jerusalem plans “unnecessary” and “destructive of our shared national interest.”
But these objections seem anachronistic at best. Lieberman may not recognize a new reality on the ground, but President Obama certainly does. …
Read the rest here, while I go back to shepping nachas.
Boy, do I disagree. The piece seems written by someone with the narrow perspective of a very young person.
Where do I begin? Firstly, the success of the Israeli-Egyptian accord was because of Sadat’s unprecedented initiative. Carter really added little of substance. In fact beyond the one achievement of Camp David (again, Sadat’s achievement), Carter is considered a foreign policy disaster. So, let’s not use Carter’s shocked disappointment at Begin as a benchmark; Carter as a president was very naive and a foreign policy failure.
2. What’s new about Obama is that his people are directly linking the I/P conflict to how people in Afghanistan et al feel about the US. I find that a stretch at best. Just because Obama says it, doesn’t make it true. So, no points there either for Seth.
3. The 1600 housing units in question are in an area of ‘greater Jerusalem’ that will certainly remain part of Israel no matter what deal is signed. When people act as if Israel just broke ground in the middle of downtown Ramallah, you have to wonder how much they actually know about the area.
4. By describing the building at Ramat Shlomo (in greater Jm) as the single greatest impediment to peace, Obama is inadvertently licensing the Palestinians to continue doing nothing. If Israel and the world owe them a state, as the comments imply, then the world had better get its checkbook out. Creating a Palestine out of nothing, a reasonably happy Palestine at that, is going to cost a lot more than rebuilding Iraq.
5. Assuming Obama is more intelligent than he is naive, he’s decided he can’t work with Netanyahu or this govt and is doing what he can to help precipitate Israel into electing a new government. If he’s naive enough to really believe, as Seth does, that somehow forcing Israel to stop building in an area of E. Jerusalem it will certainly keep, is the logical battle to fight for the future of the two state solution, then Obama is certainly more naive than I give him credit for, and it means he is probably taking advice from Samantha Power, which would be tragic.
The real issue here is Bibi’s awful coalition govt. None of this would have happened if not for them. Imagining an inexperienced, but popular president is going to be the straw that magically transforms the elixir of the Middle East is the province of the young.
Unsurprisingly, I disagree with dave.
1. Let’s overlook for a moment the fact that the point of the article (did you actually read it?) was clearly that Obama should avoid imitating Carter’s mistakes, not to praise Carter’s accomplishments. Your comment’s a little bit like saying LBJ’s foreign policy was a great success, except for that Vietnam War thing. Of course, Carter is only “considered a foreign policy disaster” by his ideological opponents; liberals tend to regard SALT II and the promotion of human rights in Latin America as great successes. As with all recent presidents, his legacy is still largely politicized.
2. As Robert Kagan (no dovish squish he) recently noted, the “linkage” between Arab public opinion and U.S. support for Israel is nothing new; in fact, it’s been a commonplace in commentary about the Middle East since at least the 70’s. Moreover, AFAIK, Obama hasn’t explicitly made this argument. A reporter for Yediot Ahronot seems to have thought Biden put this argument forward, but he or she was apparently wrong. In fact, the only U.S. government figure to even hint at linkage recently was David Petraeus, who made and then later dialed back some vague statements about the “impact” the conflict had on the Arab world.
3. Gershom has written about the incoherence of the “consensus settlement” line previously, but the main issue here is obviously the timing and context of the announcement. And yes, everyone realizes Ramat Shlomo is in Jerusalem, but it’s hypocritical for Israel to build in Ramat Shlomo based on its (assumed) final status while simultaneously refusing to dismantle settlements in, say, Hebron, given that “everyone knows” that it’ll be part of a Palestinian state in the event of a peace settlement. And speaking of strawmen…
4. Obama, as far as I know, has never described the building in Ramat Shlomo as the greatest impediment to peace. (Please do correct me if I’m wrong on this.) Read what Biden and Clinton actually had to say: the harshest accusation they advanced was that Israel risked “expos[ing] daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region hope to exploit,” which I hope you’ll agree is rather weak tea.
And yes, everyone realizes that a peace settlement will cost money. The U.S. has provided billions of dollars in aid annually to Israel and Egypt since the Camp David Accords, and the peace agreement is generally considered cheap at twice that. Do you realize how much the U.S. already spends on this? Just counting direct donations to the Palestinians, the U.S. contributed $267 million to UNRWA last fiscal year. No doubt it would be willing to cough up many times more if the prospect of the holy grail of American foreign policy could actually be achieved.
Maybe if what the administration actually says wasn’t continually misrepresented, Israeli public opinion of him wouldn’t be so negative. Just a thought.
Two more points. The first is that if this recent string of foreign policy embarrassments is really a result of Netanyahu being unable to control his coalition partners, we should be very worried about Israel’s ability to make decisions about sensitive matters, as Shmuel Rosner notes. The second is that I really can’t write when I’m tired — that last comment was a mess.