Would Arab-Israeli peace reduce terrorism?

[primavera]

I'm a graduate student in poli sci and one of my professors this semester made an interesting argument I thought I'd share with you all.

He basically said that Americans underestimate the extent to which uncritical US patronage of Israel radicalizes the Arab population. According to him, Arabs watch Israelis use American tanks and planes, which were sold to Israel on the express condition that they be used for defensive purposes only, to assault refugee camps while the US never utters so much as a word. They hear us lambast Iraq for violating half a dozen UN resolutions, while Israel has violated than sixty UN resolutions and yet we stand mute. Israel builds settlements illegally and we do nothing because our politicians fear the electoral impact of the Jewish lobby. My professor believes that the message we thus send to the Arab world is that we really don't care at all about the lofty ideals to which we pay lip service, that our unwillingess to pressure Israel to conform to the same standards we expect of the Palestinians demonstrates that we're nothing more than hypocrites.

My professor goes on to assert that the widespread perception that international law and democratic institutions are doing nothing to protect the interests of Arabs provides the crucial foundation for public tolerance of nondemocratic regimes throughout the Middle East: authoritarian governments in the region - which are generally not otherwise terribly popular - derive much of their legitimacy by promising to protect the people from the arbitrary practices of Israel and the US. Without democratic governments and free and open market economies, standards of living are low and the prospects for change are bleak. When a citizen of such a country has no job, no way to provide for his family, and no public venues in which to express his dissatisfaction, what should be more natural than that he should turn to God as his court of last recourse? Fundamentalism, fueled by resentment, thrives and terrorism is the natural and predictable result.

Now, my professor argues that all of this could be avoided if the US were to use its considerable influence over Israel to demand a fair and equitable settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He believes that US influence is strong enough that it could achieve such an end if it really wanted to, although it would undoubtedly compromise an administration's position with American Jewish voters. But once a stable peace was achieved, he argues, the rug would be pulled out from under the nondemocratic regimes in the Middle East, democracies could take their places, free markets and the benefits of trade would follow, Arab commitment to the rule of law and resolution of conflicts through democratic institutions would grow, and terrorist organizations would consequently be denied a pool of potential new members that at present is ever-widening, as well as the credibility of their most powerful recruiting message.

Anyway, I'm not sure I agree with 100% of his theory, but I thought it was interesting so decided to pass it along to see what people here think of it. Anyone have any thoughts?

[drdon326]

1. This thread will self destruct in 5 seconds....

Good luck, Kevin.

[madrchsod]

2. it would be a start

but it would depend on whether the Islamic and Jewish fundamentalists would go along with such a plan, which i doubt..nothing will be accomplished until the moderates take back power in their respective religions.

[bemildred]

3. Ridiculous idea, of course not.

Completely unrelated. This man needs to be watched.

[JohnLocke]

12. Sarcasm, I hope? (nt)

[bemildred]

16. Surely you know me well enough by now? nt

[Darranar]

4. Probably. n/t

[JohnLocke]

5. I'm not sure I agree with this.

Authoritarian governments in the region - which are generally not otherwise terribly popular - derive much of their legitimacy by promising to protect the people from the arbitrary practices of Israel and the US.

That's not the full story. Perhaps part of it, but not the full thing.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. So what's the full story?

n/t

[JohnLocke]

7. The blame is not entirely on the U.S. for oppressive Arab leaders.

Part of it is, but much of this is the fault of the Arab leaders and the Islamic religious establishment themselves.

[primavera]

8. Yeah, I thought this was the weak part of the theory too

I'm not sure you can say that democracies would suddenly start cropping up all over the Middle East if the region's nondemocratic rulers were suddenly denied an anti-American pitch. But I do think that people can be very readily mobilized around an "us-them" message, just look at the success we've had in this country getting normal Americans to go along with unconstitutional violations of civil liberties, suspensions of basic legal protections, and the mass murder of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. Our own government is moving aggressively in increasingly nondemocratic diretions, and we're still willing to support it because we're convinced that we're at war with some invisible enemy. Pinochet did much the same thing in Chile, promising to protect Chileans from the exaggerated threat of being overrun by Cuban Communists, and it kept him in power for twenty years. I don't know, but I think we have become a powerful boogeyman image for nondemocratic leaders and letting some of the air out of that image certainly couldn't hurt the cause of democracy. Conversely, pumping up and substantiating that negative image can only harm prospects for democracy.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. I don't think it's all that weak...

After all, the US installed the Shah in Iran, and props up undemocratic regimes. It's those sort of things that help foster fundamentalism and help the message the fundies send to citizens of those countries more palatable. Likewise, the US hands these regimes the distraction tool they use to focus anger on the lack of US concern over human rights violations and violation of international law by Israel in the Occupied Territories. Remove those causes and chances are that the people in those countries are going to turn their attention on their corrupt rulers, which is exactly what those rulers don't want to happen...

btw, from what I've read, Jordan is a democracy. Not an advanced Western-style democracy, but it's definately been undergoing democratic reform, which is a thing some people posting here will hotly debate. I think the problem isn't so much whether or not democracies will emerge, but whether or not those democracies will become pawns of the US in the region, or whether they'll actually reflect the views of the population...




Violet...

[newyorican]

18. Don't forget,

Before the Shah was installed, there was an elected President in Iran. So when the US comes to town talking democracy, there is quite a bit of baggage.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. It isn't in Israel's interest to have more democracy in the middle east

anyway.

[primavera]

19. Not so sure about that

Have Sharon's nondemocratic policies really helped Israel's interests? I guess it depends upon whether you believe peace is realistically attainable. If one takes a Hobbesian approach and believes that hostility between Israel and its neighbors is inescapable, then posturing itself on a war footing with an eye to enhancing tactical advantages probably is in Israel's interests. If, conversely, one takes a more Kantian approach and believes that peace can exist between Israel and its neighbors, then it follows that the more one works against peace and in support of continued violence on both sides, the more one is operating against not just Palestinian interests, but against the interests of Israel as well, and indeed against those of everyone in the region and the US to boot.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. When you talk about Israel's interests...

Yr talking about the interests of the govt and not the population, aren't you? The interests of the two aren't the same as far as I'm concerned, any more than the interests of the US govt are really the interests of the US population. So if it's the former, then the hostility isn't just seen as inescapable, but essential to the interests of Israel. Israeli leaders haven't been particularly interested in peace, and have in the past rejected overtures of peace from neighbouring states. Without the nonstop conflict, Israel would have become just another small state that would have sat on the bottom rungs of international politics, and Israel's (both currently and pre-state) obsession with getting a powerful protector, first the British and then when they weren't suitably unwavering, the US, wouldn't have had much success. And claiming to be the only democracy and wanting things to remain that way is part of the tactics to ensure continued support from the US. Democracy = Good and Pure. Not a democracy = Bad and Evil. Hell, if there were other democracies in the Middle East, there goes one of Israel's claims to fame. Besides, a good dose of invasion anxiety and fear of The Other is a great way to distract a population's attention away from domestic problems and unite them in fear that will ensure the re-election of leaders who thrive on hostility....

Violet...

[primavera]

21. Oooh, toughie!

You're right, the whole question depends upon how one defines interests and who's doing the defining. Personally, I can't think of a single instance in recent history in which war didn't cost more - and a great deal more at that - than it gained. But again, that too depends upon how you're estimating costs and benefits. No doubt about it, the war on Iraq has been highly profitable for Halliburton and MacDonald/Douglas, but since their profit is coming at our expense, the overall cost to the country is a vast net loss, so I have a hard time imagining anyone perceiving the war as being profitable to US interests. Oh, I can imagine it being pitched that way nonetheless, but I tend to see that as an indication of a nondemocratic backslide, in which a small handful of corporate interests have managed to gain sufficient voice in government to cause the government to work against the nation's overall interests. In other words, it's a case of something having gone wrong, not an example of democracy at its best.

So yeah, Sharon plainly perceives that at least his interests are best served through warmongering, and, assuming he's not psychotic, I must assume he's figured out some way in his own mind to rationalize that into reflecting the best interests of the Israeli people as well. But I think he's wrong. I think the interests of the Israeli people would be better served by not having suicide bombers taking out their busses and cafes on a daily basis, by not having to expend the lion's share of their budget on military expenditures, and being able to engage in peaceful relations and profitable trade with their neighbors, even if the consequence was that they became "another small state on the bottom rungs of international politics."

Personally, I've never understood why that would be such a horrible fate. Is Denmark suffering because it's not a major player on the international scene? Or Sweden? Or Switzerland? I should suffer so! Please, if that's suffering, I'll take it any day of the week rather than have to worry about who's going to want to blow me up next.

[elsaamo]

24. Well, I suppose that is theoretically possible

but I read your comment two times, and I still am not sure why you assume the worst. Just to deal with some minor points to begin with, which peace overtures has Israel rejected? Also, the British were never Israel's protector- perhaps you are referring to the French pre-1973 war.

You say that without the nonstop conflict, Israel would have just been another small state. Well, yes, but I don't quite understand why you assume that is due to a grand plan by Israel. If you want to be technical about it, without World War One and World War Two, America would be a fairly minor country with a weak economy. I don'tbelieve, though, that that is reason to argue that the US planned out those wars. The war of 1948 was begun by Israel being attacked by other countries, and there was a significant amount of time in which it seemed that they would lose. Did they plan that? The 1967 war was also a defensive war. Did they plan that? 1956 and 1973 were more offensive, but those were not really wars of invasion (1956 was to give UK and France the Sinai, if I remember correctly, which considering it's 2:45 AM I might very well not, and they didn't keep any land from 1973 either). I suppose techincally it is possible that Israel planned all of this, but why would we assume that? Israel "claims" to be the only democracy and in fact is the only one in the region, and I suppose it is possible that they planned that, but why would we assume that? Even if they did plan that, how would they have implemented such a course of action? There is a good dose of invasion anxiety ans alot of it is overblown, but there is a legitimate reason for that considering they have been attacked a handful of times even though they are significantly smaller. It is possible that the entire point is just to elect hostile leaders, but why would we assume that?

[Classical_Liberal]

25. You don't get it. Israel(Likud) needs governments in other middle

eastern countries that don't answer to the people. Democratic governments would be more pro-active persuing the dismantlement of settlements than nondemocratic ones.

[Gimel]

27. OTOH

Israel has actively promoted and demanded Palestinian free elections, and a democratic government in the PA. How do you reconcile the facts with your theories?

[primavera]

28. Hmmm, interesting

I wasn't aware that was the case. What do you make of that? Do you think that Israel perceives that its interests as presently defined by its government would be furthered by democratically elected governments in Palestine? Not to be obtuse, but isn't Israel kind of unpopular with Palestinians? So what would make them think that governments elected by a population which is somewhat less than kindly disposed towards them would be an improvement? Mind you, I think that the interests of the Israeli people would be furthered by democratization in the region, but for it to work, it would require a significant shift away from the militarism that presently dominates Israeli policy, and the Sharon administration at least doesn't seem to be showing much enthusiasm for peaceful resolutions of conflicts.

[Gimel]

32. 100% behind that

Israel's government has advocated free elections since before Oslo. Much of the support for Arafat and Hamas is the product of propaganda and dolling out a meager living to the Palestinian people, as a means of control.

Free and open elections, a prohibition on incitement, and a free media are essential for democracy. Israel insists on this for the Palestinians.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. Israel has it's thumb on the Palestinians and governs them already

and is hoping for a more compiant leadership that will tolerate the settlements. Those calls are just as selfserving.

[Darranar]

10. True, it's not the full story...

they also get much of their legitimacy from deliberate US attempts to prop them up, helpfully keeping the population's radical beliefs that their nation's resources are their own in check...

[JohnLocke]

11. I actually think the US has more to do with it then Israel.

I don't give a rat's ass whether Arab leaders incite the masses to be angry at the Jewish people for living where it is their right to live (and exactly where that is would be many more threads. I'm speaking solely of Israel's right to exist).
The U.S. however, is a different story. On more occasions we have deliberately propped up tyrannical leaders. This inflames the Arab world much more unjustly than Israel ever could.

[Darranar]

13. Well, I certainly agree that the US has more to do with it...

than Israel. But it's a fact that Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories play a part in inflaming Arab attitudes towards both the US and Israel, providing a useful distraction from the Arab regimes' tyranny and misrule.

Frankly though, after "we" just slaughtered countless thousands of Iraqis, invaded their nation, tried to crush all dissent, destroyed their infrastructure, bombed their neighborhoods, and all in all committed more war crimes and terrorist acts in the past year then even the butcher Sharon has managed in the past three, there really shouldn't be much argument about which is causing more trouble, at least at this point in time...

[Classical_Liberal]

15. I don't think America can ever be evenhanded in the middle

east. The Palestinians ought to put pressure on Israel through the EU. It would reduce terrorism by 90% but it isn't going to happen through the US so forget about it. It will only end if the EU decides to take a stand, which they can only do, while Bush is desperate for help in Iraq. Or when the Israelis just get sick of the whole business, which maybe happening after this Gaza referendum.

[bemildred]

17. The US is not interested in being "evenhanded in the middle".

That is obvious. The US likes it fine the way it is.
Those Israelis that want a settlement and a peaceful future
need to get clear about that, if they are not already.
Mr. Sharon is not interested in peace either, strife is the
source of his power. A peaceful Middle East has no use for
Mr. Sharon or his like.

[Cusp]

22. Sharon's days are numbered.

He has done great things for Israel's security, but it has always been a "don't call us, we'll call you" situation. At the outset of this most recent Intifada, he was elected for his "big stick" reputation (The Roosevelt quote, sicko). War he can do, that's about it.

First post on DU, nice site ya'll got here.

[primavera]

23. Welcome to DU, Cusp!

Glad to meet you! :toast:

[bemildred]

26. "He (Sharon) has done great things for Israel's security".

That makes me want to laugh. Like Shrub has made the US
more "secure".

Nevertheless, Welcome to DU. :hi:

Edit: I should add, I agree about his short future, but given his
age and condition that is obvious in any case. The interesting
question is what will follow him? There is little on offer in
the way of leadership that makes me feel optimistic.

[Cusp]

29. Sharon's successor

"The interesting question is what will follow him? There is little on offer in the way of leadership that makes me feel optimistic."

I expect that Sharon will exit via no confidence or won't run again, and there may be a one term Labor PM; as in American politics, the pendulum swings. But within the end of the decade, I see Netanyahu regaining the premiership in Israel. He was too young the first time, but he's done well improving Israel's economy as the Finance Minister, even during the current Intifada, which obviously is rough on an economy (That comes off as inhumane, but it isn't meant so). If the unemployment rate comes back down, my money is on Bibi.

[bemildred]

30. A reasonable position, he was my first thought too.

He seems to be being groomed in any case with all the
"happy news" about the economy getting better on his watch.