Yesterday, before the Republican Jewish Coalition, GOP
candidates
lambasted President Barack Obama’s policies toward Israel,
accusing him of mollycoddling Iran, spoiling terror groups, and
fussing over Palestinians at the expense of Israelis.
Policy prescriptions ranged from “regime change” in Iran in
Syria to the relocation of the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv
to Jerusalem. Newt Gingrich promised to reappoint ultrahawk John
Bolton to his UN ambassadorship, which drew applause from the
packed house. Not to be outdone, former Massachusetts governor Mitt
Romney threatened Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with
indictment “for the crime of incitement to genocide.” However
loathsome the Iranian president, it is not immediately clear [under
the auspices of which international criminal court the United
States does NOT recognize] where Ahmedinejad would be tried.
I think we all would like to see the emergence of friendlier
regimes in Iran and Syria. But frankly, we have very little say in
the matter. John Bolton certainly wouldn’t be my first choice to
represent American interests at the UN, but at least that’s an
attainable policy aspiration. Likewise, the repositioning of the
U.S. embassy is something an American president could arrange —
however, that’s a very touchy subject in peace talks between the
Israelis and Palestinians.
Aside from Newt’s encouragement of the daily shadow
war we’re already fighting against Iran, most of this does
little, if anything, to actually help Israel. If these candidates
want to demonstrate a real commitment to assist our friend and
ally, they first need to recognize Israel’s weaknesses and how we
can help address them.
In May 2009, shortly before assuming office as Israeli
ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren identified “seven
existential threats” facing Israel for Commentary.
They are as follows (summary notes within parentheses are mine,
unless in “quotes” in which case they’re taken directly)…
1. The loss of Jerusalem (political and spiritual state
capital, critical to realization of Eretz Israel)
2. The Arab demographic threat (“a binational state…would
spell the end of the Zionist project”)
3. Delegitimization (international isolation at the global
stage)
4. Terrorism (lack of success dealing with low-intensity
conflicts launched by Hamas, Hizbullah)
5. A nuclear armed Iran (unstable nuclear
neighborhood)
6. Hemorrhaging of sovereignty (illegal Arab workers,
Israeli Haredim, etc.)
7. Corruption (breakdown of public morality…”greatest
single existential threat to Israel”)
Upon consideration of Oren’s “existential” threats… there’s
not a whole lot America can do for Israel that it’s not already
doing. Would moving our embassy shore up Jewish resolve to protect
and defend Jerusalem? Doubtful. I figure they already feel pretty
committed to the city after three millennia. But it could
demonstrate our support, even as the Jewish state faces increasing
hostility at the world stage.
Israel is on its own when it comes to demography, sovereignty
and corruption. We’re already doing everything we can to prevent
Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, short of strategic bombing
— which I believe
would like only cement support for a broadly unpopular theocracy
and commit the nation as a whole to the task of nuclear armament —
which would merely impede, not destroy, their weapons program.
Thus, we stand with Israel against policide…even if there’s
little we can do to prevent the absolute evil of terrorism within
the Israeli state. Panetta’s policy speech was ridiculous,
and Guttman’s “gutlessness”
shocking. However, both instances demonstrate that our
support for Israel — or lack thereof — is often nominal.
Ah, but what about the $3 billion we spend every year in
military aid? Well, I think there are some real
questions we can ask about how these funds support or undermine the
Israeli military and economy. To be perfectly clear, I am
not advocating a blanket erasure of support -- however, a
recent report by the
free market think-tank, the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies,
suggests that American aid comes with hidden costs.
For instance, under the terms established, Israel is obliged to
buy weaponry from America that is priced considerably above market
value, at the expense of a robust domestic arms industry. Likewise,
American military sustenance of more dubious partners across
ensures that Israel must direct more resources toward countering
potential threats - but we feel a need to maintain leverage in the
Arab world as well. In 2010, former PM Ehud Olmert advised a
decrease in Israeli defense budgeting to buttress fiscal policy.
However, when a great proportion of that budget comes from a
foreign ally, efficiency succumbs to moral hazard. For
free-marketing Republican candidates, this shouldn’t come as a
complete surprise. Finally, as opposed to endless billions in
military aid that comes with hidden terms and conditions, our
support for Israel should allow full exercise of diplomatic
self-determination. For instance, America has demonstrated a
heavy-hand when it comes to
squelching Sino-Israeli strategic partnerships. This is
inappropriate, and unhealthy for both sides.
Believe me, I’m not trying to go all “Ron Paul” on you here, but
I’m wonkish and academic by nature. Effective foreign policy
demands that we read between the lines. If we’re going to have a
frank discussion about how America can support Israel, we need to
consider the reality of our relationship, not shout platitudes at
the echo chamber. That’s called being a false friend, and it
does nobody any good. Least of all the Israelis.
