A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Cut ’em loose!

That’s what the U.S. should do to the Israelis and Palestinians, says Michael Young in a sensible article at Reason.

I’ve long wondered why, of all the many territorial conflicts in the world, it makes sense that the U.S. should expend so many resources trying to resolve this one, much less actively take sides. It seems to me that Israel is quite capable of defending itself, and there’s a marginally better chance of creating a lasting solution without America in there tipping the scales one way or the other. Not to mention the resentment in the Arab and Muslim worlds that comes from the U.S. being perceived as uncritically pro-Israel (whether that’s a fair description of U.S. policy or not).

But, really, why is it America’s job to solve everyone else’s problems?

4 responses to “Cut ’em loose!”

  1. CPA

    You need to read Martin Kramer’s rebuttal of this sort of thinking here.

    As he points out, before the US alliance with Israel, there was a major conventional war in the Levant every ten years or so, like clock work. Since then, not a single one. Within Israel’s power projection sphere, sine the US alliance, there has been relative stability and no need for US intervention, and formerly hostile countries have become friendly (Egypt). Outside of Israel’s power projection sphere, in the Persian Gulf, Iran, Afghanistan, etc., massive instability and regular US intervention has become the rule, precisely because the US has no reliable ally in the region.

    And finally, just as in Iraq, the supposed victims of the US’s local allies (Palestinians, Sunni Arabs) would get a much worse deal if our local allies were forced to go it alone or find a different patron.

    The benefits of the US-Israeli alliance for us are substantial. The cost? feeling uncomfortable when headlines come up like “Israel shells picnicker on Gaza beach” (despite the fact that half the time or more, it turns out it wasn’t that way). Compared to the cost we’re paying in the Gulf and Afghanistan, that’s one any policy maker would be willing to pay.

    Reply
  2. Lee

    Thanks for the link – Kramer makes some good points, but much of it seems to be in the context of Cold War needs to counterbalance Soviet influence in the Middle East. Whatever was the case then, it’s not as clear to me that the pros balance out the cons now. Leon Hadar makes the point in his recent book Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East that our “Middle East Paradigm” is still being guided by Cold War assumptions and that needs to change.

    Also, Kramer seems to see a “Pax Americana” throughout the Middle East (and elsewhere?) as desirable in itself, something I’m less enthusiastic about. He assumes that we need strong allies in the region so we don’t “have to” intervene directly. But I’m not willing to sign on to the “have to,” at least not without serious reservations.

    That said, I wouldn’t be in favor of cutting Israel loose as an ally. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the U.S. to come to Israel’s aid if it were, say, attacked by one of its regional rivals. What’s less clear to me is that the U.S. should be giving Israel such large military subsidies and/or trying to micromanage the conflict with the Palestinians. What other ally receives that kind of treatment?

    Reply
  3. Joshie

    Cold War or no, the reality of power politics remains. Iran isn’t the Soviet Union, but it does pose a threat to U.S. interests in the region and sees the ouster of Saddam as an opportunity to have its own “place in the sun” like the Kaiser wanted in 1914.

    I think a pro-Iranian policy might actaully have been a good way to go, but any opportunity to make nice with Iran flew out the window with the “Axis of Evil” speech and for now, as much as it pains me to say it, a pro-Israel, pro-Saudi policy seems like the best way to counter-balance Iranian ambitions in the middle and near east. Israel is the only country with enough internal cohesion, money and military might to stand up to Iran, which dwarfs all the Arab states in the region in size. Until we and Iran reconcile or there is regime change, Israel is the best bet for stability and for keeping the oil flowing, imo.

    Reply
  4. Lee

    Ok – now I’m to the left of Joshie on something. Maybe I’d better rethink my position. 😉

    Reply

Leave a comment