The Daily Clarity

Codependence and dysfunction in the US-Israel relationship

There is something  dysfunctional at the heart of the US-Israel geopolitical world picture of the Middle East. There is a mirage in their vision on policies of engagement in the region. There is an equally mystifying  confusion how to rectify this policy set on Capital Hill. It seems as though there is a marked blind spot in Washington  when it comes to any clarity on the Israel-Palestine issue.  Israel has become  mired in Zeev Jabotinsky’s’ ‘Iron Wall’ view of the world, and the mindset has also been adopted in Washington. The author of an article in today’s Guardian newspaper, Carlo Strenger, summarizes the Iron Wall philosophy thus, “…Jabotinsky argued that Arabs will never accept Israel as long as they see a chance to defeat it, and that Israel needs to convince the Arab world that it is there to stay through its military might. He called this the “Iron Wall” conception.” The Jabotinsky Iron Wall credo, still in fashion in the Knesset, is a world picture that  sees Israel’s right to exist validated not by moral right, but rather by military dominance and strength.  Strenger’s op ed, by the way,  should be required reading for the politicians in Washington, DC and Tel Aviv both.

You see an echo and a tribal memory of this Iron Wall mindset in DC rhetoric on the Israel-Palestine issue,  with some politician or other often  quoted reciting the old chestnut  ‘Israel must be able to defend itself’.  This is a self-evident truth, as it is for every functional sovereign state.  However,  for Israel,  it is positioned as if the massed hordes would still to this day descend on the lands of Israel if they laid down their weapons for one second,  or ceased to be the preeminent offensive (not only defensive) military force in region. The supposed existential threat to Israel presented by its neighbors (and especially from Iran) is  presented in terms of biblical dimensions. While in the past, this world view may have had some credence, the countries that neighbor Israel have long, even if albeit grudgingly,  accepted its existence. They are are now struggling with how best  build relations with Israel, and by extension, the US. Iran, as an example,  is more concerned with the maintenance of its own regime than Israel’s fortunes. Iran is hemmed in by US bases and military presence, sees nuclear deterrent as the only way to guard against forced regime change, and while it has broad regional objectives, are move focused towards Afghanistan and Pakistan than they are towards Israel.

The US policy in the Middle East seems to be based on the same world picture, as if it too must continue its own  ‘Iron Wall’ policy, much as it did under the Bush regime in the Iraq War redux. This mentality saw the US pursue isolationist strategies in relation to Iran and Syria, and continues to this day with a refusal to talk to either Hamas or Hezbollah. The Bush regime even refused to engage in any dialog with Syria and Iran, which was the ultimate hegemony in regional foreign policy. The US apparently fails to realize that the Iron Wall philosophy is detrimental to its regional objectives. Without engagement with Hezbollah, as Britain has just realized, the ability to  meaningfully influence Lebanon (or be seen to atone for perceived old sins there) is null and void. It is as if the US sees the Iron Wall as a physical barrier to engagement with those that are perceived as potentially a threat to Israel. This is a strategic error that is costing the US dear in terms of both reputation and security. An old maxim of wisdom is to keep your friends close but your enemies closer still. The US remains at threat, as does Israel though it appears to fail to realize this, primarily because the Iron Wall philosophy of non-engagement in the Middle East is a failed model, and  urgently needs reinvention.

Unfortunately, it appears as if  George Mitchell and Hillary Clinton will continue  to echo past, and empirically-evidenced as  flawed  policies, in refusing to enter into any dialog  with Hamas. Without Hamas, there is no realistic prospect of a solution to the Israel-Palestine conundrum. The US insistence to only engage with a perceived Israel-complicit Fatah will not allow the US to make meaningful progress on the issue.  Israel and the US often cite  the Hamas Charter of non-recognition of Israel as the barrier.  This is in essence a straw man argument.   The Hamas charter was drawn up by a single individual and never ratified by Hamas leadership. It  did not  form any part of the platform that Hamas ran for office on, nor was it an underpinning of its electoral victory in the Gaza. Hamas has offered Israel limited terms for  recognition as a start in this process of engagement. These terms are lengthy, in the region of  10 – 20 years in certain iterations. This term recognition, particularly if of these sorts of lengths, would almost certainly see a more formal relationship cemented over time. The Iron Wall filter is inhibiting progress in relations.

The likely configuration of the newly elected Knesset will be incapable of reinventing the policy paradigm. The US will need to help, but the relationship between the two is part of the problem.  It is as if the US and Israel are in a dysfunctional and co-dependent relationship,  each reassuring the other that the way they interpret the world  is  correct.  However, their world picture is contrary to the evidence on the ground.  The opinion set in the region, and internationally has moved on.  This in a new world where recent surveys show the only nations to support the current Israel paradigm are the US and Israel, with some pockets of support in the old Former Soviet Union. After the 2006 Lebanon War and the recent violence in the Gaza, world opinion moved further and further away from the current Israeli policy direction, especially in Europe. This Iron Wall world view is also impacting the Israeli people’s psyche. The electorate there  is lurching further and further to the right,  with a rise to power of Lieberman and Netanyahu further cementing the Iron Wall in place. This philosophy has a vice like grip on the Israelis,  and it refuses to moderate despite the changes that surround them.  Israel’s policies are becoming anachronistic, and as it distances itself further from the mainstream opinions,  it actually put its security further at risk, contrary to its plans or desires.

The US is acting as an enabler of his dysfunctional policy direction. US arms, financing, and  policies are supportive of the Israeli Iron Wall mindset. The US has, in fact, created  its own isolationist agenda by the selection of partners in region. Its supporters – Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain as examples  – are all Sunni autocratic regimes.  At the same time, the US refuses to engage with highly flawed but nascent democracies in the region like Lebanon, with its Hezbollah government members,  and Iran. It is highly impractical for the US to engage with only  part of the Lebanese government, and ignore the Hezbollah members who wield considerable political power. The US currently has no dialog with Iran. The US  will deal openly with Fatah, but refuse to even speak to the duly elected representatives in the Gaza, in a mindset sadly reminiscent of a High School clique.  These  policies are blatantly non-sensical  in such a complex and shifting geopolitical landscape. This dysfunctional world view  inhibits both  the efficiency of US foreign policy and the pursuit of its economic agendas in region. Much like it was for the Berlin Wall, it is time for the  Iron Wall  to come down. If Israel cannot do this of its own volition,  then it needs the sage advice and prodding  of its long time partner, the US. When the Iron Wall is gone, then Israel  has a chance for peace and safety. Israel is its own worst enemy at this moment,  and for the US to be enabling this is is the saddest part of this long-term, but now codependent and dysfunctional,  relationship.