South Jerusalem

Gershom Gorenberg

My new column is up at the American Prospect. Here’s part of it:

… Speaking to AIPAC, Netanyahu virtually waved his finger in Obama’s face. “Diplomacy … hasn’t worked,” he said; neither have sanctions, nor will deterrence. Netanyahu cited the proliferation risk, but his bottom line was that Iran works for Israel’s “destruction—each day, every day, relentlessly.”

The last thing I’d suggest is to dismiss Iran’s animus toward Israel. But it’s clear that Netanyahu’s evaluation of what Iran will and won’t do is based on more than intelligence reports. He’d say it’s based on history, but it’s a mythic reading of history, an understanding in which Jews are threatened by a single implacable enemy, unchanging in its essence, shifting only in its shape.

Read more

Gershom Gorenberg

Until I received a note from Michael Keating, editor of The VVA Veteran, it never occurred to me that I might write for the journal of the Vietnam Veterans of America. But at Michael’s invitation, I have an article in the latest issue:

“You will certainly note,” Hal Saunders said, “that we had another problem on the other side of the world.”

Saunders spoke in the quiet voice of a lifetime diplomat.He was explaining why the Johnson administration let the Arab-Israeli conflict fester after the Six-Day War of 1967. Back then, he said, the “top levels of theU. S. government” were distracted and exhausted by that other “problem”—Saunder’s immensely understated term for the VietnamWar.

During that critical period of history, Saunders served as the National Security Council’s staffer responsible for theMiddle East.His description of a hamstrung superpower points to a kind of rarely noticed collateral damage from the Vietnam War: When the United States was tied down militarily in Southeast Asia, whenwar there dominated America’s diplomatic agenda abroad and its political debate at home, it was less able to cope with challenges elsewhere on the globe. The after-effects are still being felt.

The Middle East provides the prime example.Vietnam hobbled President Lyndon Johnson’s efforts to keepwar from breaking out between Israel and its Arab neighbors in the spring of 1967. What’s more, the war also sapped the administration’s determination to reach a full peace afterward. The neglect continued under Richard Nixon. Only after the Paris Agreement of 1973—and after another disastrous Middle Eastwar led to a face-off with the Soviet Union—did the United States make a serious push for Arab-Israeli agreements.

Read more

And reports of Israeli panic are believable only from a distance

Gershom Gorenberg

My new column is up at The American Prospect:

Scrolling through news, especially news posted in America, I could think that it’s time for me to stock up on canned food and check that my family’s Israeli government-issue gas masks are working. The news suggests that Israel’s air force is sure to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities this year, perhaps this spring, possibly sparking a rain of retaliatory missiles from Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah. Syria, despite or because of its current turmoil, might join in.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned earlier this month that Iran would soon reach an “immunity zone” in which its nuclear program would be impregnable—implying that Israel must strike first. The news site Ha’aretz’s military commentator Amir Oren has bitterly expressed concern that the always-cocky ex-general Barak and his “assistant for prime ministerial affairs, Benjamin Netanyahu,” might give the orders on their own, even though the law requires approval of the full cabinet to go to war.

The Washington Post‘s David Ignatius reported that U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta thinks that Israel is likely to attack in April, May, or June. President Barack Obama, typecast as the last responsible adult in the room, has stated publicly that “I don’t think that Israel has made a decision,” a comment that could arguably be read as, “We told Israel not to make a decision.” But according to Newsweek, the head of Israel’s Mossad espionage agency visited Washington to check whether this meant “uh, no, maybe” or “NO!” A New York Times Magazine article said, “A kind of panic has begun to overtake Israeli society,” adding that “gas masks have been distributed to the population.”

Read more

Gershom Gorenberg

My new column is up at The American Prospect:

Bashar al-Assad has not yet fallen. I note this only because of the tone of inevitability in some news reports on Syria’s civil war. The downfall of Tunisia’s Ben Ali, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, and Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi may be no more predictive than a roulette ball falling on red in the last three spins. Arguably, the popular convulsion in the Middle East began not in Tunisia in late 2010 but in Teheran in mid-2009, when the Iranian regime—Assad’s patron—crushed a popular revolution and erased the immense hopes it had raised.

Still, it would be foolish to bet heavily on Assad’s long-term survival as Syria’s leader. His forces may have retaken rebel-held suburbs of Damascus this week, but armed rebels holding suburbs of a capital even for a few days is the political equivalent of a tubercular cough.

Wagering on when the regime will crumble or what will replace it is equally risky. Assad has already defied Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s December prediction that the Syrian regime had only “weeks” left. Assad and the Alawite minority’s rule could last into 2013 or beyond but are “doomed in the long run,” writes Joshua Landis, an American expert and editor of the Syria Comment blog— an evaluation made more damning by Landis’s pro-Assad reputation. Then again, a Lebanese expert suggested to me this week that the Alawite-led army might try to follow the Egyptian example, sacrificing the dictator so that it can remain the real power. A Sunni takeover, perhaps by the Muslim Brotherhood, is also possible—or a sectarian war of all against all.

But this is certain: When a tubercular cough racks Syria, the Middle East shakes. The country’s location and its entanglement in other people’s politics guarantee that. The war inside Syria is already having an impact outside. Its outcome will have stronger effects, which in turn will force America to adjust its policies in the region. Here’s a brief and partial rundown on where things stand in the region:

Read more

Gershom Gorenberg

In my latest American Prospect column, I show that the Republican candidates for president are either incompetent or delusional in their grasp of world affairs. But which is it: Are they D students, or do they live in an alternate universe? And which one’s delusions put him the most parsecs from Earth? You, the readers, can decide!

If there’s anything that can produce more anxiety than watching the Republicans pick a presidential candidate, it’s watching the process from Israel.

Yes, I know that the Republican candidates—well, except for Ron Paul—all love Israel. Newt Gingrich is still in the race because of the cash his super PAC got from casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, whose other political investments include financing an Israeli newspaper that exists to promote Benjamin Netanyahu. Rick Santorum has just been endorsed by the high council of theocons, who are sure they understand Israel’s importance better than the Jews do. Mitt Romney’s foreign-policy platform restates—in more polite but equally counterfactual terms—his accusation of last year that “President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus.”

This is exactly what makes me nervous. These candidates would love Israel to death. What’s scary is not just that any Republican from the class of ’12 is likely to replace Barack Obama’s uneven support for Israeli-Palestinian peace with the George W. Bush-style malignant neglect. It’s not just that the Middle East as a whole is downstream from America: Our region gets swamped by the mistakes made in Washington. What’s really scary is that the way that Republicans—including Ron Paul—talk and act about Israel shows that their grasp of world affairs ranges between incompetent and delusional.

Let’s start with Santorum’s statement—video-recorded at an Iowa campaign event—that “all the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. They’re not Palestinians. There is no Palestinian.” It’s worth watching how Santorum reaches this remarkable conclusion. The West Bank, he says, is part of Israel, just as New Mexico is part of the United States. “It was ground that was gained during war,” he says. Challenged that it might make a difference that the “annexation” was recent, the candidate insists, “No, it doesn’t matter. … It is legitimately Israeli country.” And since the land is Israel’s, he infers, everyone living on it is an Israeli. Presto, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict evaporates.

Read more

The contradiction at the heart of Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch’s ruling on occupation

Gershom Gorenberg

My new column is up at The American Prospect:

I’d really like to be angry at Dorit Beinisch, the chief justice of the Israeli Supreme Court. On the eve of her retirement, Beinisch abandoned her role of pushing the Israeli government to honor legal restraints in the occupied territories. Instead, in what could be her last major ruling on Israeli actions in the West Bank, she has given a stamp of approval to colonial economic exploitation.

But let’s put petulance aside. One message of Beinisch’s judgment is that judicial resistance can stretch only so far. Even the highest tribunal in the land cannot reverse a national policy as basic as continuing to rule the West Bank. Another message—whether or not Beinisch intended it—is that treating a situation that has lasted 44 years as “temporary” is absurd. The occupation is not an acute disease; it is a chronic one.

Beinisch’s ruling came in a suit filed three years ago by the Israeli human-rights group Yesh Din, based on the work of land-use researcher and activist Dror Etkes. The suit asked for an order stopping ten Israeli companies from operating quarries in Area C, the portion of the West Bank under full Israeli control. (The autonomous Palestinian Authority administers the land designated Areas A and B.) Most of the rock taken from those quarries is trucked into Israel for use in construction.

Yesh Din argued that the quarries’ operations violated the 1907 Hague Convention on the laws of war.

Read more