[THS] John J. Mearsheimer: Israel - Sinking Ship

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25845.htm



Sinking Ship
The attack on the Gaza relief flotilla jeopardizes Israel itself.

By John J. Mearsheimer

June 30. 2010 " American Conservative" --  Israel’s botched raid against the Gaza-
bound humanitarian flotilla on May 31 is the latest sign that Israel is on a disastrous
course that it seems incapable of reversing. The attack also highlights the extent to
which Israel has become a strategic liability for the United States. This situation is
likely to get worse over time, which will cause major problems for Americans who
have a deep attachment to the Jewish state.

The bungled assault on the Mavi Marmara, the lead ship in the flotilla, shows once
again that Israel is addicted to using military force yet unable to do so effectively.
One would think that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would improve over time from
all the practice. Instead, it has become the gang that cannot shoot straight.

The IDF last scored a clear-cut victory in the Six Day War in 1967; the record since
then is a litany of unsuccessful campaigns. The War of Attrition (1969-70) was at best
a draw, and Israel fell victim to one of the great surprise attacks in military history in
the October War of 1973. In 1982, the IDF invaded Lebanon and ended up in a
protracted and bloody fight with Hezbollah. Eighteen years later, Israel conceded
defeat and pulled out of the Lebanese quagmire. Israel tried to quell the First
Intifada by force in the late 1980s, with Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin telling his
troops to break the bones of the Palestinian demonstrators. But that strategy failed
and Israel was forced to join the Oslo Peace Process instead, which was another
failed endeavor.

The IDF has not become more competent in recent years. By almost all
accounts—including the Israeli government’s own commission of inquiry—it
performed abysmally in the 2006 Lebanon war. The IDF then launched a new
campaign against the people of Gaza in December 2008, in part to “restore Israel’s
deterrence” but also to weaken or topple Hamas. Although the mighty IDF was free
to pummel Gaza at will, Hamas survived and Israel was widely condemned for the
destruction and killing it wrought on Gaza’s civilian population. Indeed, the Goldstone
Report, written under UN auspices, accused Israel of war crimes and possible crimes
against humanity. Earlier this year, the Mossad murdered a Hamas leader in Dubai,
but the assassins were seen on multiple security cameras and were found to have
used forged passports from Australia and a handful of European countries. The result
was an embarrassing diplomatic row, with Australia, Ireland, and Britain each
expelling an Israeli diplomat.

Given this history, it is not surprising that the IDF mishandled the operation against
the Gaza flotilla, despite having weeks to plan it. The assault forces that landed on
the Mavi Marmara were unprepared for serious resistance and responded by
shooting nine activists, some at point-blank range. None of the activists had their own
guns. The bloody operation was condemned around the world—except in the United
States, of course. Even within Israel, the IDF was roundly criticized for this latest
failure.

These ill-conceived operations have harmful consequences for Israel. Failures leave
adversaries intact and make Israeli leaders worry that their deterrent reputation is
being undermined. To rectify that, the IDF is turned loose again, but the result is
usually another misadventure, which gives Israel new incentives to do it again, and
so on. This spiral logic, coupled with Israel’s intoxication with military force, helps
explain why the Israeli press routinely carries articles predicting where Israel’s next
war will be.

Israel’s recent debacles have also damaged its international reputation. Respondents
to a 2010 worldwide opinion poll done for the BBC said that Israel, Iran, and Pakistan
had the most negative influence in the world; even North Korea ranked better. More
worrying for Israel is that its once close strategic relationship with Turkey has been
badly damaged by the 2008-09 Gaza war and especially by the assault on the Mavi
Marmara, a Turkish ship filled with Turkish nationals. But surely the most troubling
development for Israel is the growing chorus of voices in the United States who say
that Israel’s behavior is threatening American interests around the world, to include
endangering its soldiers. If that sentiment grows, it could seriously harm Israel’s
relationship with the United States.

Life as an Apartheid State

The flotilla tragedy highlights another way in which Israel is in deep trouble. Israel’s
response makes it obvious that its leaders are not interested in allowing the
Palestinians to have a viable state in Gaza and the West Bank, but instead are bent
on creating a “Greater Israel” in which the Palestinians are confined to a handful of
impoverished enclaves.

Israel insists that its blockade is solely intended to keep weapons out of Gaza. Hardly
anyone would criticize Israel if this were true, but it is not. The real aim of the
blockade is to punish the people of Gaza for supporting Hamas and resisting Israel’s
efforts to maintain Gaza as a giant open-air prison. Of course, there was much
evidence that this was the case before the debacle on the Mavi Marmara. When the
blockade began in 2006, Dov Weisglass, a close aide to Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon
and Ehud Olmert, said, “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make
them die of hunger.” And the Gaza onslaught 18 months ago was designed to punish
the Gazans, not enforce a weapons embargo. The ships in the flotilla were
transporting humanitarian aid, not weapons for Hamas, and Israel’s willingness to
use deadly force to prevent a humanitarian aid convoy from reaching Gaza makes it
abundantly clear that Israel wants to humiliate and subdue the Palestinians, not live
side-by-side with them in separate states.

Collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza is unlikely to end anytime soon.
Israel’s leaders have shown little interest in lifting the blockade or negotiating
sincerely. The sad truth is that Israel has been brutalizing the Palestinians for so long
that it is almost impossible to break the habit. It is hardly surprising that Jimmy Carter
said last year, “the citizens of Palestine are treated more like animals than human
beings.” They are, and they will be for the foreseeable future.

Consequently, there is not going to be a two-state solution. Instead, Gaza and the
West Bank will become part of a Greater Israel, which will be an apartheid state
bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa. Israelis and their
American supporters invariably bristle at this comparison, but that is their future if
they create a Greater Israel while denying full political rights to an Arab population
that will soon outnumber the Jewish population in the entirety of the land. In fact,
two former Israeli prime ministers—Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak—have made this
very point. Olmert went so far as to argue, “as soon as that happens, the state of
Israel is finished.”

He’s right, because Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state. Like
racist South Africa, it will eventually evolve into a democratic bi-national state whose
politics will be dominated by the more numerous Palestinians. But that process will
take many years, and during that time, Israel will continue to oppress the
Palestinians. Its actions will be seen and condemned by growing numbers of people
and more and more governments around the world. Israel is unwittingly destroying
its own future as a Jewish state, and doing so with tacit U.S. support.

America’s Albatross

The combination of Israel’s strategic incompetence and its gradual transformation
into an apartheid state creates significant problems for the United States. There is
growing recognition in both countries that their interests are diverging; indeed this
perspective is even garnering attention inside the American Jewish community.
Jewish Week, for example, recently published an article entitled “The Gaza Blockade:
What Do You Do When U.S. and Israeli Interests Aren’t in Synch?” Leaders in both
countries are now saying that Israeli policy toward the Palestinians is undermining
U.S. security. Vice President Biden and Gen. David Petraeus, the head of Central
Command, both made this point recently, and the head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan,
told the Knesset in June, “Israel is gradually turning from an asset to the United
States to a burden.”

It is easy to see why. Because the United States gives Israel so much support and
U.S. politicians routinely laud the “special relationship” in the most lavish terms,
people around the globe naturally associate the United States with Israel’s actions.
Unfortunately, this makes huge numbers of people in the Arab and Islamic world
furious with the United States for supporting Israel’s cruel treatment of the
Palestinians. That anger in turn helps fuel terrorism against America. Remember that
the 9/11 Commission Report, which describes Khalid Sheik Muhammad as the
“principal architect of the 9/11 attacks,” concludes that his “animus toward the
United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from
his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.” Osama bin Laden’s
hostility toward the United States was fuelled in part by this same concern.

Popular anger toward the United States also threatens the rulers of Egypt, Jordan,
and Saudi Arabia, key U.S. allies who are frequently seen as America’s lackeys. The
collapse of any of these regimes would be a big blow to the U.S. position in the
region; however, Washington’s unyielding support for Israel makes these
governments weaker, not stronger. More importantly, the rupture in Israel’s
relationship with Turkey will surely damage America’s otherwise close relationship
with Turkey, a NATO member and a key U.S. ally in Europe and the Middle East.

Finally, there is the danger that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, which
could have terrible consequences for the United States. The last thing America needs
is another war with an Islamic country, especially one that could easily interfere in its
ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is why the Pentagon opposes striking
Iran, whether with Israeli or U.S. forces. But Netanyahu might do it anyway if he
thinks it would be good for Israel, even if it were bad for the United States.

Dark Days Ahead for the Lobby

Israel’s troubled trajectory is also causing major headaches for its American
supporters. First, there is the matter of choosing between Israel and the United
States. This is sometimes referred to as the issue of dual loyalty, but that term is a
misnomer. Americans are allowed to have dual citizenship—and in effect, dual
loyalty—and this is no problem as long as the interests of the other country are in
synch with America’s interests. For decades, Israel’s supporters have striven to shape
public discourse in the United States so that most Americans believe the two
countries’ interests are identical. That situation is changing, however. Not only is
there now open talk about clashing interests, but knowledgeable people are openly
asking whether Israel’s actions are detrimental to U.S. security.

The lobby has been scrambling to discredit this new discourse, either by reasserting
the standard argument that Israel’s interests are synonymous with America’s or by
claiming that Israel—to quote a recent statement by Mortimer Zuckerman, a key
figure in the lobby—“has been an ally that has paid dividends exceeding its costs.” A
more sophisticated approach, which is reflected in an AIPAC-sponsored letter that
337 congresspersons sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March,
acknowledges that there will be differences between the two countries, but argues
that “such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence.” In other
words, keep the differences behind closed doors and away from the American public.
It is too late, however, to quell the public debate about whether Israel’s actions are
damaging U.S. interests. In fact, it is likely to grow louder and more contentious with
time.

This changing discourse creates a daunting problem for Israel’s supporters, because
they will have to side either with Israel or the United States when the two countries’
interests clash. Thus far, most of the key individuals and institutions in the lobby have
sided with Israel when there was a dispute. For example, President Obama and
Prime Minister Netanyahu have had two big public fights over settlements. Both times
the lobby sided with Netanyahu and helped him thwart Obama. It seems clear that
individuals like Abraham Foxman, who heads the Anti-Defamation League, and
organizations like AIPAC are primarily concerned about Israel’s interests, not
America’s.

This situation is very dangerous for the lobby. The real problem is not dual loyalty but
choosing between the two loyalties and ultimately putting the interests of Israel
ahead of those of America. The lobby’s unstinting commitment to defending Israel,
which sometimes means shortchanging U.S. interests, is likely to become more
apparent to more Americans in the future, and that could lead to a wicked backlash
against Israel’s supporters as well as Israel.

The lobby faces yet another challenge: defending an apartheid state in the liberal
West is not going to be easy. Once it is widely recognized that the two-state solution
is dead and Israel has become like white-ruled South Africa—and that day is not far
off—support for Israel inside the American Jewish community is likely to diminish
significantly. The main reason is that apartheid is a despicable political system that is
fundamentally at odds with basic American values as well as core Jewish values. For
sure there will be some Jews who will defend Israel no matter what kind of political
system it has. But their numbers will shrink over time, in large part because survey
data shows that younger American Jews feel less attachment to Israel than their
elders, which makes them less inclined to defend Israel blindly.

The bottom line is that Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state
over the long term because it will not be able to depend on the American Jewish
community to defend such a reprehensible political order.

Assisted Suicide

Israel is facing a bleak future, yet there is no reason to think that it will change
course anytime soon. The political center of gravity in Israel has shifted sharply to the
right and there is no sizable pro-peace political party or movement. Moreover, it
remains firmly committed to the belief that what cannot be solved by force can be
solved with greater force, and many Israelis view the Palestinians with contempt if
not hatred. Neither the Palestinians nor any of Israel’s immediate neighbors are
powerful enough to deter it, and the lobby will remain influential enough over the
next decade to protect Israel from meaningful U.S. pressure.

Remarkably, the lobby is helping Israel commit national suicide while also doing
serious damage to American security interests. Voices challenging this tragic situation
have grown slightly more numerous in recent years, but the majority of political
commentators and virtually all U.S. politicians seem blissfully ignorant of where this is
headed, or unwilling to risk their careers by speaking out.

John J. Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago
and coauthor of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

Copyright © 2010 The American Conservative