BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 219,
November 10, 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: US Secretary of State John Kerry warned of a
return to Palestinian violence and Israel’s isolation should peace talks fail.
This is yet another reflection of the Obama administration’s inability to
properly understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has strong
international backing and will not be isolated as Kerry indicates. The
Palestinians know that a return to violence will only be met by a strong
Israeli response.
US Secretary of State John Kerry warned of a return to Palestinian violence
and Israel’s isolation if the faltering peace talks between Israel and the
Palestinians ultimately fail. This is a typical leftist Pavlovian response to the
impasse in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that is now over a decade old. Such
thinking primarily reflects the frustration that the optimistic evaluations that
the conflict can be ended quickly remain unfulfilled. Unfortunately, Kerry’s
remarks tell the Palestinians to hold on to their maximalist positions. This
reflects an inability to grasp the intricacies of protracted intractable ethnic
conflict and a misguided American policy.
There is definitely a possibility that the Palestinians, in particular the radical
forces, will recur to violence. In reality these forces try to kill Israelis all the
time, and a dearth of terrorist attacks in recent years can only be attributed to
the work of the Israeli security forces. Yet the likelihood of massive organized
violence by the Palestinian Authority (PA) is small. Rocking the boat
endangers too many vested interests of the Palestinian ruling class. The PA
leadership has probably registered the heavy price paid by the Palestinians
during their terrorist campaign at the beginning of the twenty-first century, as
a result of Israeli countermeasures.
Moreover, even if the Palestinians miscalculate once again and go for a “third
Intifada,” Israel’s capability to contain terrorism and other modes of civilian
struggle is high. The Israeli army can be trusted to meet all challenges
successfully. Most important, a large majority of Israelis believe that the
Palestinian demands, such as Jerusalem and the “Right of Return,” are the
real obstacles to peace. This large consensus about Palestinian intransigence
allows for significant social mobilization and resilience in protracted conflict.
Israelis will go once more to war with a feeling of “Ein Breira” (no choice) and
are likely to win that engagement as well.
Large parts of the hypocritical world may indeed see Israel as the culprit for
the failure of the negotiations and for a new round of Israeli-Palestinian
violence. But such negative attitudes do not necessarily lead to international
isolation. Public statements and the voting record of states at the UN – an
ineffective, morally bankrupt organization – are not indicative of the true
nature of interstate relations.
National interests dictate state actions, and in most cases bilateral relations
with Israel are hardly affected by the ups and downs in the peace talks with
the Palestinians. For example, the rising powers India and China have
expanded their bilateral ties with Jerusalem because it is in their interest to
engage a successful state such as Israel. Nowadays, when the Iranian threat
dominates the region, Arab Sunni states such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi
Arabia, who are exasperated with American behavior, are in the same
strategic boat as Israel. Generally, the Middle East – especially today, while in
the throes of a colossal political, social, and economic crisis – is hardly paying
attention to the Palestinian issue. In the Caucasus and in Central Asia, Muslim
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan are friendly to Israel.
Moreover, isolation of Israel is unlikely because of the large existing
reservoirs of support for Israel in many quarters. Canada and Australia are
ruled by governments most responsive to Israeli concerns. Even in Western
Europe, concerns about Muslim immigration and foreign aid place the
Palestinians in a problematic spot. Above all, two-thirds of Americans have
consistently favored Israel over the past two decades, which translates into
Congressional support. The US is Israel’s most important ally and even the
Obama administration has maintained the strong support and cooperation in
the military sphere.
But the prism of the Obama administration on the Middle East and global
affairs is fundamentally flawed. An American foreign policy that supports the
Muslim Brotherhood, estranges its traditional Arab allies such as Egypt and
Saudi Arabia, allows Iran to get closer to the bomb, sees in Turkey’s Erdoğan
a great friend of the West, and insists that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can
be ended in nine months is dangerous and does more damage that good.
Similar complaints about poor US political judgment are abundantly voiced
by America’s friends in Asian and Eastern European capitals.
It is the enemies of the US who rejoice in President Barack Obama’s foreign
policy, and who relish in America’s perceived decline in world affairs.
Ironically, at this historic juncture, even an isolationist America would be a
better alternative for those that want the good guys to win. Therefore, dear
President Obama, please do us a favor: save some money and keep Kerry at
home.
Prof. Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is a
professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East
Forum.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity
of the Greg Rosshandler Family
source
more recent posts on John Kerry
Palestinians: We Do Not Trust The Americans
--------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment