Love of the Land: Israel's 'paranoia'

Israel's 'paranoia'

Petra Marquardt-Bigman
The Warped Mirror/JPost
07 March '10

The British Sunday paper The Observer devoted one of its recent editorials to an ostensibly well-meaning lecture about what really, truly was in Israel's best interest. The title counseled that "Israel can accelerate peace by exercising restraint," and the sub-header elaborated: "The diplomatic challenge is to help Israel grasp how its failure even to engage with international opinion risks an isolation which will make the country much less secure."

The piece was open for comments by readers for just 12 hours, but attracted more than 300 responses in this time, and if the thrust of these comments reflected "international opinion", they provided a good example of the futility of any Israeli efforts to "engage" with this kind of utterly misinformed and deeply hostile audience.

The analysis offered in the editorial suggested that:

Israeli policy is driven by two fears. The first, quite justified, is that the country is mostly surrounded by hostile states, some of which host terrorist attacks against its civilians. The second, unjustified, is that criticism from any quarter includes an implicit question of the legitimacy of the Jewish state. That paranoia leads to constant reliance on isolationist militarism which, as well as creating terrible injustice for the Palestinians, has consistently failed to provide the security that Israelis crave."

The assessment that efforts to provide Israelis the security they "crave" have " consistently failed" is most peculiar given that the relevant Israeli authorities reported at the end of last year that in 2009, there was "a marked decrease in the volume of terrorist attacks compared to previous years."

Any editorial writers who would like to dispense free advice on how best to achieve the "security that Israelis crave" could also benefit from contemplating the graphic that accompanies the quoted report, because it vividly illustrates that Israeli efforts to achieve peace in Camp David and Taba from summer 2000 to January 2001 were followed by the violence of the so-called "Al Aqsa intifada."

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Israel's 'paranoia'

RubinReports: THE TWO MOST-ASKED QUESTIONS: WILL OBAMA ATTACK ISRAEL, WILL ISRAEL ATTACK IRAN?

THE TWO MOST-ASKED QUESTIONS: WILL OBAMA ATTACK ISRAEL, WILL ISRAEL ATTACK IRAN?

please subscribe for original analysis of Middle East and international affairs

By Barry Rubin

Of all the questions readers ask, there’s no question about which are the two most frequent. First, is Israel about to attack Iran or when will this happen? Second, do President Barack Obama and his entourage hate Israel and will there be a major confrontation or some kind of sell-out.

The first two questions are pretty easy to answer, the third less so.

Israel and an attack on Iran: Israeli policy is quite clear. Its current emphasis is on supporting strong sanctions. There is, of course, skepticism as to whether strong sanctions will be applied and whether such a step would work, but that’s not the determining factor. It is recognized that the West must thoroughly try diplomatic means to satisfy itself that everything short of an armed attack has failed.

Only when the sanctions have been seen to be ineffective at stopping Iran’s march to nuclear weapons would Israel even begin to go into an attack phase but even then there are two major considerations.

One is that Israel will only attack when Iran is on the verge of getting weapons. Not only would that situation make the decision about responding an immediate task but also because that would be when Tehran has the maximum equipment installed and the most damage can be done. There is no sense bombing half-empty buildings.

The disadvantage is that this would give the regime more time to disperse the facilities. And that introduces the other problem. An Israeli cabinet meeting would be held to determine whether an attack could be carried out, whether the political and security costs would be acceptable, and whether an attack would succeed in setting back the Iranian program by a big margin.

Is Israel capable of launching an effective attack? Without going into all the complex details, the basic answer is “yes.”

If destroying Iran’s nuclear capability is an existential imperative could Israel weather the diplomatic criticism and terrorist or other attacks? Again, yes. Hamas and Hizballah would escalate and launch rockets but they could be deterred or defeated.

It is the last point, however, that is critical: Would an attack achieve considerable success in putting back Iran’s nuclear program by years? That cannot be taken for granted. In military action lots can go wrong. Planes can crash; mechanical breakdowns or bad weather may cause failure. The distances involved are huge; the margin of error very fine.

What if the bombs miss and hit civilians? (Yes, Israel cares a lot about this despite all the slander and lies regarding its behavior.) Will dispersion of facilities mean that only a small portion of Iran’s facilities will be damaged or destroyed?

In short, is it worth launching an attack that only inflames the situation further, costs lots of diplomatic capital, and doesn’t do any good?

This is a question that can only be raised and decided in a cabinet meeting at the proper time. There is no determined choice already made and that is as it should be.

The second question relates to Obama and Israel. In my opinion, Obama has absolutely no warm feelings toward Israel at all and, if anything, his instincts are hostile. But previous American presidents—notably Richard Nixon—have followed pro-Israel policies despite being personally unfriendly. What is important is that Obama and his entourage have learned two things.

One of them is that bashing Israel is politically costly. American public opinion is very strongly pro-Israel. Congress is as friendly to Israel as ever. For an administration that is more conscious of its future reelection campaign than any previous one, holding onto Jewish voters and ensuring Jewish donations is very important. There will almost certainly not be a visit of Obama to Israel in 2010, he’ll wait until it will do him some good at the polls (which is a good thing since the less attention he pays to this issue the less harm he’ll do.)

The other point is that they have seen that bashing Israel doesn’t get them anywhere. For one thing, the current Israeli government won’t give in easily and is very adept at protecting its country’s interests. This administration has a great deal of trouble being tough with anyone.

If in fact the Palestinians and Arabs were eager to make a deal and energetic about supporting other U.S. policies, the administration might well be tempted to press for an arrangement that largely ignored Israeli interests. But this is not in fact the case. It is the Palestinians who refuse even to come to the negotiating table—and that is unlikely to change quickly or easily. Arab states won’t lift a finger to help the United States on Iran, Iraq, or Arab-Israeli issues. So why bother?

Moreover, no matter how much noise the administration makes about being engaged on the Israel-Palestinian front, it knows that not much is going to happen. Its envoy, Senator Mitchell, will run around and make plans but the top brass in Washington isn’t going to devote all that much time to this issue.

The hostility to Israel of the administration’s overall personnel can also be exaggerated. A couple of names come to mind of officials who are hostile, but there are also many—arguably more in number--who are reasonably friendly, including the secretaries of state and defense.

The idea that David Axelrod and Ram Emanuel constitute some anti-Israel cabal is misleading, too. If there were a serious peace process, they’d certainly push Israel harder to make more concessions than others would do but they are focused on domestic affairs and also know that this issue is a non-winner for them in terms of success, glory, or political advantage.

These two factors form the basic framework for understanding the Middle East in 2010. Putting down a smokescreen of diplomatic activity and proposals, the U.S. government is likely to place the “peace process,” whose non-existence is too real to ignore, on the back burner. Meanwhile, Israel is doing the same thing with an attack on Iran. The next year’s events in the region will come from other crises and issues.

RubinReports: THE TWO MOST-ASKED QUESTIONS: WILL OBAMA ATTACK ISRAEL, WILL ISRAEL ATTACK IRAN?

RubinReports: The US-Israel Construction Freeze Deal and What it Means

The US-Israel Construction Freeze Deal and What it Means

[Please subscribe]

By Barry Rubin

Finally, we know the long-awaited terms of the U.S.-Israel agreement on freezing construction on settlements. It is a good plan and represents a considerable, but well-crafted albeit unilateral concession by Israel. No licenses will be granted or apartments started on the West Bank for the next ten months. And Israel doesn’t consider east Jerusalem to be part of the West Bank.

The U.S. government praised the decision, after all it was pretty much what President Barack Obama has been trying to obtain for nine months and has worked hard to negotiate. "We believe the steps announced by the prime minister are significant and could have substantial impact on the ground," said George Mitchell, Obama’s special mediator.

But, of course, it will have no impact whatsoever. On the contrary, the Palestinians and Arab states will complain that it isn’t enough, that it doesn’t mean anything, and that they have more demands. Their openly stated demand is that Israel just hand over all the West Bank and east Jerusalem in exchange for nothing.

In giving something in exchange for no material gain or even a gesture from the other side, Israel can only hope that the president appreciates this gesture and remembers that he did not deliver on his promise to get some concession from the Arab side to match it.

But will it be appreciated and even kept by the Obama Administration? Will the world, or even Europe, give Israel any credit for taking one more effort to show that it wants peace? Is it going to be widely understood as demonstrating—unfortunately—that the other side doesn’t? Is this going to affect the knee-jerk media view of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “hardline”?

Well, probably “no” but it’s worth a try. Obama will be president another three to seven years and he should be shown that Israel wants peace and is willing to cooperate with his efforts to a reasonable extent.

But that’s also why there’s a time limit. It’s not a high price to pay or keeping the United States happy and showing President Barack Obama that Israel wants peace, is cooperative, and is willing to make him look good.

Certainly, it won’t please the Palestinians, for reasons different from what you might think, Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas is not so happy. He’s complained in an interview that Obama is "doing nothing right now" regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.



"I hope he'll take a more important role in the future," Abbas said. The Palestinians "are waiting for the United States to put pressure on Israel so it respects international law, so it takes up the road map….It can do two things: put pressure on the Israelis so they reject settlements, and put pressure so they accept withdrawing to the 1967 borders."



Can you see the humor in this? Here’s Obama who campaigned and continues to say that his predecessor was “doing nothing” on the issue and that’s why it hadn’t been solved. Could Obama have possibly tried harder? He made it his most outspoken issue, talked about it constantly, met with leaders, put forward plans, pressured Israel, reached a deal with Israel that involved considerable Israeli concessions, and asked for—but didn’t receive—Arab help.



Could the lesson be more obvious? The problem isn’t Obama or Netanyahu; it’s Abbas. He is the one refusing to negotiate with Israel and is making a president who promised talks within two months look bad. He betrayed his promises to Obama not to try to turn the Goldstone report into a mob to lynch Israel.

Why is Abbas behaving this way, because he’s frustrated that progress isn’t being made? This claim is rather ironic since he’s the one blocking progress. The real reason is that he wants Obama to get him everything he wants without him making any compromises or concessions.



It isn’t going to happen. And the Palestinians, Arabs in general, and lots of Muslims will blame Obama. This must be a shock to him since he tried so hard and leaned over backwards to make them happy. And this disrespect is coming from Abbas, leader of the group which Obama has tried hardest to help in the whole world.

Ironically, too, this is the first real foreign policy success for the Obama Administration after ten months in office. Yet the White House isn’t eager—or not likely to be successful—in so claiming since so many people never want to credit Israel’s compromises. Once Arab sources criticized Hillary Clinton’s enthusiasm, the administration backed down in its praise and looked for still new, albeit small, ways to show that it is tough on Israel.

Objectively, though, bilateral relations are good, due in no small part to this step.

If the Palestinian side was sincere about negotiating seriously and making peace, it would respond rationally. Ok, they could say, it is only for ten months but we can use that period to make so much progress that it will be extended. Even better, they could understand that if they made a peace treaty and got a state there wouldn’t be any more settlements in the territory they would be ruling (though there would be on land swapped with Israel).

But, of course, Abbas and the PA don’t intend to do anything serious diplomatically in the next ten months, or twenty, or thirty. All he wants is that the United States force Israel to “accept withdrawing to the 1967 borders" and give up demands for settling Palestinians only in Palestine, not Israel; ending the conflict forever; having an unmilitarized Palestine; and insisting that it recognize Israel as a Jewish state rather than an impending victim.

Let’s all watch, see, and draw appropriate conclusion about what actually happens. And for those who didn’t learn this lesson the last half-dozen times—most importantly from the fate of the 1990s’ peace process, Israel’s withdrawal from south Lebanon, Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip—this can be a less costly way of understanding that it is the Palestinian side that is blocking peace and that support for Israel is the proper response to this situation.

PS: Read Netanyahu's statement which has a number of interesting points.

RubinReports: The US-Israel Construction Freeze Deal and What it Means