The Democrats and the Middle East

The Economist notes a surprising development in the Democratic primaries (link requires subscription):

The primary season is a time for unqualified pandering. So what is Joe Lieberman up to? He still gushes a bit, of course, and he engages in routine Bush bashing. But he also tells anti-war activists that their posturing is out of place in an age of terrorism: Americans will never elect anybody who sounds "an uncertain trumpet". He warns protectionists that their blather about "fair trade" could turn a recession into a depression. And he berates big-government liberals for wanting to raise taxes on the middle classes. The more the Democrats move to the left, the more he chastises them for their infantile disorders.

This is wonderful to watch....

Well, if not exactly a wonder, it's certainly a relief. The populism that has afflicted the Democrats' recent campaigns is the speediest way to ensure this party of minorities remains a minority party, and deservedly so. Howard Dean demonstrated his unfitness to be President several months ago with his judgement on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein:

"We've gotten rid of him. I suppose that's a good thing."

But I understate. A man who so grudgingly weighs the question of Saddam's departure is devoid of imagination, public-spiritedness and internationalist principle. He is not a reliable compass for humane sentiment let alone the highest office of state. Being a leftist myself, I am painfully aware that candidates of the Left do not get elected to executive office if they're perceived as untrustworthy on issues of security: McGovern, Foot, Lafontaine, Rau and the serial election loser Shimon Peres are all testament to the rule. Never mind what else he believes: if Dean is unmoved by the ousting of a tyrant who modelled his rule on Stalin and Hitler, he is untrustworthy to exercise authority in the public interest.

But there's one issue between Lieberman and Dean that The Economist didn’t mention and is worth raising. Lieberman has sharply criticised Dean for asserting that the United States should not take sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. According to Associated Press:

"It's hard to say if this is a well thought out position," Lieberman said. "If it is, it is a major break in a half a century of American foreign policy. If it's not (well thought out), as a candidate for president, you've really got to think before you talk."

Judging by the frightened rabbit-in-the-headlights response of his spokesmen (note that both of them reduce Dean's clear statement of neutrality to the banality that both sides in the conflict have legitimate claims) Dean didn't realise the import of the subject. That is again a reason for not trusting him as a Presidential candidate.

There is a moral case for the United States to ally with Israel, in that Israel is a vigorous if not especially genteel constitutional democracy, surrounded by a sea of autocracies – some relatively benign, some dangerous. And this is an important consideration, for diplomacy shorn of values is a betrayal of America’s civic religion of promoting liberty. But if a nominally even-handed stance helped secure a lasting peace settlement, with a safe Israel alongside a pacific Palestinian state, there would still be a strong pragmatic case for adopting it.

No such pragmatic case holds. 'Even-handedness' merely fuels the conflict rather than resolves it, because it assumes the parties to it are symmetrical. Even if we disregard the moral and democratic grounds for supporting Israel, an even-handed posture mistakes the character of the conflict by supposing that both sides have similar motivations and objectives. That this is not so became evident at the tripartite negotiations at Camp David and Taba among Arafat, Barak and Clinton.

At that stage, an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital was on offer. Arafat countered with a demand so extreme that it amounted to the dissolution of the Jewish state. He then walked away from the negotiations and tolerated – if not actively incited – a campaign of violence.

Regarding this lamentable abdication of leadership, the head of Clinton’s negotiators, Ambassador Dennis Ross, reflected:

It is not, as Abba Eban said, that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It is that in always feeling victimized they fall back on blaming everyone else for their predicament. It is never their fault. History may not have been kind or fair to the Palestinians. They have suffered and been betrayed by others. They are, surely, the weakest player with the fewest cards to play. But by always blaming others, they never have to focus on their own mistakes. And that perpetuates the avoidance of responsibility, not its assumption.

Once again leave aside, if you can, questions of political principle and solidarity with an embattled democracy. Simple game theory suggests that if one side is desperate to settle and the other believes it can secure maximal advantage by holding out and exerting further intimidation, then a compromise settlement will not be reached. Only if the Palestinian Authority knows that it cannot achieve more than was offered at Camp David will it have any incentive to settle.

Two policy conclusions arise. First, those with influence in the region, and specifically the United States, must make clear that Israel will be supported without reservation. Secondly, in failing to discharge its obligations under treaty to crack down on terrorism, the Palestinian Authority must bear costs. The PA must also understand that it will suffer further costs the longer it prevaricates. Violent uprising will only persist if it is seen to be a route to political gain.

Israel's speculation about expelling or even assassinating Arafat is thus, while grossly inept and offensive, not obviously morally impermissible given his record. It's the right analysis and the wrong remedy. The United States was right to wield its veto last night in the Security Council against a one-sided resolution that would have set back the cause of a peaceful resolution, and the Bush administration should be commended on it.

Senator Lieberman likewise is doing more than state a traditional liberal principle of allying with Israeli democracy, right though that principle be. He is also expounding a pragmatic role for the United States in resolving an intractable and bloody conflict. It is fortunate that some Democrats understand the principles of liberal internationalism, given that their likely presidential nominee manifestly does not.

Comments

[Dave J]

Dick Morris is right on this: of all the serious Democratic contenders, only Dean CANNOT, under any circumstances, beat Bush. Yet the same reasons why this is true are the reasons he will be the nominee. The Democratic Party is sending itself into the wilderness for decades, and even as a GOP supporter, I can't think such catastrophic collapse of the two-party system can be a good thing.

[dr.dna]

I was under the impression that Arafat didn't even make a counter-offer, just walked out? That the Palestinian negiotating team made some concessions, but Arafat didn't approve them.

[Gene]

Well said, Oliver. Although with the entry of General Clark into the contest, I don't think Dean's nomination is a foregone conclusion by any means.

Also, Israel has no constitution and so cannot be called a constitutional democracy.

[Dave J]

Well, Gene, then I guess the UK wouldn't count as a constitutional democracy either. Simply because you can't point at one particular document labeled "constitution" does not necessarily imply a lack of constitutionalism (or vice-versa, see, e.g., the worthless constitution of the dictatorship of your choice, past or present).

[james]

Oliver,

As a leftist shouldn't your support be for the Israeli (and Palestinian) left campaigning against the occupation and for self-determination, not with Sharon/Likud and the settler/religious parties in the Israeli government?

[Gene]

As a leftist shouldn't your support be for the Israeli (and Palestinian) left campaigning against the occupation and for self-determination, not with Sharon/Likud and the settler/religious parties in the Israeli government?

James, if there were a Palestinian equivalent of Peace Now-- which was as willing to challenge the Palestinian Authority as the Israeli peace movement is willing to challenge the Israeli government-- I think you'd have an excellent point.

[Oliver Kamm]

I endorse Gene's point. It ought to be a liberal principle that we side with a constitutional democracy (i.e. a polity characterised by such things as parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and an independent judiciary, even where a written constitution does not exist) when it faces a threat to its security and the safety of its citizens from terrorism. Twenty years ago, when it was founded, I was a sympathiser with the Peace Now organisation; but it eventually became clear to me that 'Peace Now' is a misleading slogan, for it implies that it's open to Israel to create peace unilaterally, presumably by withdrawing from those territories occupied after 1967 that it has not already given back. I see no evidence to support that premise; after all, unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon has not prevented further terrorist attacks. I favour the approach of successive Israeli governments over the past decade of trying to establish a basis of negotiation with the PLO/PA such that Israel's security is guaranteed while a Palestinian state is established in something approximating to, but not identical with, the pre-1967 borders. That requires a negotiated settlement based on compromise. Tragically the Palestinian leadership has not negotiated seriously and has not fulfilled its obligations under Oslo; I see see nothing left-wing about allowing it to renege on those commitments.

[Former Belgian]

I loved your comments on Dean and on Shimon Peres, the only man who could run in an election against himself and lose ;-)
I assume that your definition of "constitutional democracy" does not require a written constitution. One only has to flick on the TV and watch the Knesset Live Channel (33) when parliament is in session to see vigorous democracy in action, but Israel does not (yet) have a written constitution, just a set of Basic Laws (many of them "Bill of Rights" type) that is still being added to.
Then again, British democracy has done just fine without a written constitution...

As for Israeli hard "peace"niks: I know enough of them to know exactly what Tammy Bruce meant when she used the term "malignant narcissist" in a different context.

[Dave J]

"Constitutional democracy" requires a parliamentary system of government, Oliver? Then I guess the US is out, along with most of the population (although not most of the countries) of the Western hemisphere.

Apologies for a lawyer's habit of pedantry.

[james]

Gene,

I find it hard to believe that there is no body of Palestinian opinion that opposes the suicide bombings and the failure/unwillingness of the PA to stop them, though not as strong as the Israeli equivalent - which is hardly surprising given the conditions existing in Palestinian society. Shouldn't it be supported?

Oliver,

If the maintenance of the occupation is out of fear that the Palestinian war against Israel would continue and perhaps even intensify if the Palestinians were given a state on the West Bank and Gaza, and that the PA would do nothing to stop it then Israel should call the Palestinians bluff. If this situation panned out they would be entitled to re-occupy the terrirories (on the same grounds that the US was entitled to invade Afganistan).

You could argue that such a withdrawal and reinvasion would be strategically damaging to Israel. Maybe, maybe not. But given the possibility of peace and the manifest strength of Israel compared to the Palestinians this would surely be worthwhile. Also Israel could make its withdrawal contingent on the institution of an interim international security force in the territories to replace the IDF in providing its security.

And such a move by Israel would greatly bolster its stock of moral capital - which is provided by the democratic features of Israeli society which you cite. Incidentally doesn't the damage the occupation does to Israeli democracy also mean that to support it we should oppose the occupation.

But I think there is more to the maintainence of the occupation than this consideration, though it is undoubtedly significant. There are also those who harbour dreams of a Greater Israel and the lack of desire to start an Israeli civil war - the same considerations that seem to prevent the PA from taking on the suicide bombers.

[Ryan]

Oliver,
You argue that there is a moral case for the United States to ally with Israel, and you describe America as possessing a ‘civic religion’ of promoting liberty. But what about the moral case for the US to ally with the Palestinians: the promotion of *their* liberty? Similarly, there is a democratic case for opposing the murder or expulsion of Yasser Arafat – his status as the democratically elected and popular leader of the Palestinians. You write about ‘solidarity for an embattled democracy’ but omit to mention solidarity for an occupied people. You consistently emphasise one case and omit the other, and so it is not surprising that you come out in favour of siding with Israel.

Plus, it is disappointing, though not surprising, to hear you repeat that old line that Barak made an unprecedented offer at “Camp David and Taba” and Arafat rejected it. This is a gross and inaccurate over-simplification of history; it ignores Barak’s disastrous and misfiring ‘take it or leave it’ negotiating stance, his presentation of early positions as ‘bottom lines’, his refusal to let Arafat see his final proposals (and Arafat’s refusal to budge until he’d seen the final proposals), the lack of a concrete offer at Camp David, ... well, it ignores pretty much everything. (A manageable but more comprehensive version events can be found, for example, here).

The statement made at Taba just ten days before the talks collapsed read "The two sides declare they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following Israeli elections." But, of course, then Sharon and Bush were elected, and time ran out. Or, according to your version, Arafat ‘walked away’. It strikes me that the quote “by always blaming others, they never have to focus on their own mistakes” cuts both ways.

[Oliver Kamm]

The account that Ryan links to, by a member of the US peace team and by a Palestinian politician, has been battered ruthlessly by Ambassador Dennis Ross - follow the link in my post to see his treatment of this type of special pleading.

[Squander Two]

Ryan,

>> "what about the moral case for the US to ally with the Palestinians: the promotion of *their* liberty?"

You're getting confused between the Palestinians and the PA. If you support the cause of liberty for Palestinians, you should support Israel. Arafat and the PA are fighting for Palestine, not Palestinians, just as Stalin fought for Hungary, not Hungarians.

>> "his status as the democratically elected and popular leader of the Palestinians."

If Blair tried to do in a UK election what Arafat did in his "election", the result would be invalid.

>> "You write about ‘solidarity for an embattled democracy’ but omit to mention solidarity for an occupied people."

Expressing solidarity with the Palestinians by supporting Arafat is like expressing solidarity with Russians by supporting Stalin.