2006-03-22-Harvard

By Ira Sharkansky

JERUSALEM—Israel has distorted American foreign policy. The Christian Science Monitor headlines a report about the paper and responses to it: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0321/dailyUpdate.html

The CSM is not one of Israel's great friends, but the article is fair in showing that critics see the paper is yet another version of "the Jews are ruling the world," or "the Jewish lobby has too much influence on American policy." We also see in the CSM article that Americans and Israelis— Jews and non-Jews—argue among themselves about what is good for Israel, and that one American Jew who went too far in his enthusiasm for Israel (Jonathan Pollard) is still trying to extract himself from a federal prison after serving more than 20 years for spying.

It is also apparent that "American national interest" is a broad and fuzzy concept, not so readily monopolized by any one set of advocates. American support for Israel sits alongside American support for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, South Korea, Pakistan, and other far flung spots that get help from the United States without doing everything desired by the American White House, Congress, prominent American interest groups, or commentators.

The pursuit of multiple goals comes with the territory of being the world's greatest power. Students should learn in an Introduction to Political Science that the definition of "national interest" is an evasive and frustrating task. The US government does things that bother lots of Americans while they delight other Americans, like agreeing to a policy of free trade and the import of consumer goods from low-wage countries that cost many Americans their jobs; and the opposition to policies to deal with global warming and the preservation of gas prices low enough to power all those SUVs.

The influence network between any one country and the United States is not likely to be a simple case of one-directional flow. Jews are among those who have influenced American policy, and Americans are among those who have influenced Israel. Israeli officials have bent to American demands with respect to Palestinians. It is impossible to determine just how much of Israel's concern for Palestinian civilians comes from Israelis' own morality, and how much comes from pressures originating with American officials, those of other governments, and international organizations. Just yesterday Israel agreed to the American ambassador's pressure to open a border crossing with Gaza for the movement of foodstuffs (Gaza had run out of flour) despite a concern for Palestinian violence targeted at the border crossing. The movement of trucks passed without incident, but at the same time a Palestinian intent on suicide was seized with a 12 pound explosive on the road between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. This is a tough neighborhood. Israeli intelligence has developed to a high degree of sophistication, but it does not always know for sure who will do what, where.

Jews were among those who promoted the American war in Iraq, but they were not alone in their advocacy, and they did not control the key positions that made the decisions. Israelis were prominent among the publics that supported the American initiative. But neither American Jews nor Israeli Jews were united in their support for the war. A substantial and growing view in Israel is that the United States has lost its way in the morass of Iraq, and that bringing democracy to the Muslims of the Middle East is not a useful guide for foreign policy.

Should we worry that a couple of Harvard intellectuals have signed on to the substantial number of European and American intellectuals who look to Israel with something other than admiration or moderation? Bad question. It is inevitable that we will worry. Shit happens. Some of it comes from Harvard. And it is inevitable that the lively and divided Israeli polity will take advantage of the Harvard article. Some will bash the Harvard professors. Others will praise them. Today's lead editorial in Ha'aretz reflects the closeness between that newspaper and the Christian Science Monitor. It urges the Israeli government about to be elected to pay heed to the paper out of Harvard, and to begin early the process of a major withdrawal from Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Politics continues. There is no end game. The Messiah of the left or the right will not come today or tomorrow. Neither Hamas' election, nor the results of Israel's election will settle the Middle East. Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis will leave, or cease causing problems for the other. If anyone out there is disappointed by the news, you have my sympathy.

Sharkansky is an emeritus member of the political science department at Hebrew University in Jerusalem