Editor’s Note: This piece is based on remarks delivered on May 22, when the Center for the National Interest hosted a symposium on Jacob Heilbrunn’s “ Israel’s Fraying Image ” from the May/June issue of The National Interest . An additional response by Chas Freeman was published yesterday.
I thank Jacob Heilbrunn and Robert Merry for the lunch invitation. And I thank them for the opportunity to discuss Jacob’s article, “Israel’s Fraying Image,” with Jacob, Charles Freeman and you all.
The National Interest has acquired a well-earned reputation for thoughtful, incisive and provocative writing about foreign affairs and national security. My friend Jacob’s elegant essay is no exception.
If stated at a sufficient level of generality, I agree with Jacob’s central theses:
First, Israel’s reputation in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere has been damaged, and Israel must work to repair it.
Second, in an uncertain world with a rising China and a United States rethinking its international role in general and its role in the Middle East in particular, Israel must expand and diversify its friends and allies.
Third, Israel must summon the courage to take hard steps to ease the conflict with the Palestinians.
To these formulations—mine, not Jacob’s, but consistent with a fair part of what he writes—I say, yes, yes and yes.
However, stated as Jacob states his main theses, I find myself often in disagreement. Jacob implies that damage to Israel’s reputation comes primarily from Israel’s unjust conduct. Unfortunately, Jacob leaves out of his account Israel’s just conduct, and the concerted campaign of delegitimization directed against Israel by Arab states, the United Nations, and intellectuals in Europe and the United States. One could go back further than the infamous 1975 UN General Assembly Resolution declaring Zionism “a form of racism and racial discrimination” (which remained in force until its revocation by the General Assembly in 1991). More recently, the outrageous and indefensible accusations of the Goldstone report—about which I am happy to speak at length —continue to do enormous damage.
Furthermore, Jacob’s concern that Israel must diversify its friends and allies proceeds from the erroneous claim that support for Israel in the United States is declining. That’s incorrect. Support for Israel in the United States, according to Gallup, is “at a high water mark.”
And finally, Israel must indeed find a way to advance the peace process with the Palestinians, both because peace with the Palestinians is a vital national-security interest for Israel and because it is a matter of justice. However, no serious discussion of the peace process can take place without a proper understanding of what each side has done to advance the cause of peace and what each side has done to thwart peace. Much of Jacob’s analysis reads as if the only relevant actor were Israel, and as if Israel’s iniquities were the only real obstacle to peace. Such an approach feeds into the fevered accounts according to which Israel—the only fully functioning liberal democracy in Middle East, whose Arab citizens enjoy greater rights than any other Arabs in the Middle East because they enjoy all the political rights of Jewish citizens of Israel—is an arrogant, bullying, and bigoted regime that prefers the violent acquisition of territory and the despotic rule over others to peace.
It is a good rule of thumb to distrust accounts of long-standing international conflicts that assign all blame to a single side.
Unfortunately, Jacob’s essay ignores the recent upheavals in the Arab world. It also ignores decades of Palestinian resistance to living in peace with a Jewish and democratic state—resistance that since Israel’s founding has persisted, often taking the form of terrorism. Yet these factors are crucial to understanding Israel’s conduct.
In analyzing Israel, Jacob adopts a perspective typical of university professors and elite journalists. According to the standard account—let’s call it for short the progressive account, although it is adopted by some angry realists—the root of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is twofold: a weak or malevolent right-wing Israeli prime minister who can’t or won’t take the necessary steps for peace, and Israel’s settlement policy beyond the Green Line, which amounts, so the charge goes, to de facto annexation of the West Bank and the denial of Palestinian self-determination.
Jacob goes so far as to conclude his essay by asserting that
Obama has it right: the chance for peace will not come from Israel’s stubborn leaders, but from ordinary Israelis who force their leaders to recognize that peace must be chanced.
In Jacob’s rendering of President Obama’s view, there are only two relevant players: Israel’s stubborn leaders and ordinary Israelis. If I were inclined to use the language of progressive academic discourse against the progressive account, I would say that Obama and Heilbrunn have obliterated Palestinian agency. Since I’m not so inclined, I instead will emphasize again that if we wish to understand the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, we must pay attention not only to what the Israelis say and do but also to what the Palestinians say and do. Moreover, as I’ll suggest in a moment, Jacob misstates President Obama’s view about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as if it were sharply opposed to Netanyahu’s when in fact Obama’s view seems to be growing closer to that of Netanyahu.