People in the so-called
“West” tend to accept certain basic principles.
One is that the West is intellectually superior to the rest of the world. Another is that “long-term thinking” is
superior to “short-term thinking.” These
days, however, these principles can’t both be true.
The deal between the
United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran is but the latest example of how
those who are fighting the West are digging in for the long haul, whereas
America and her allies are thinking about little else than the present. Perhaps that is a by-product of the fact that
Western regimes are democracies, which tend to live from one election cycle to
the next. But whatever the cause,
Westerners seem not only to lack crystal balls but any interest in finding
them, whereas those who struggle with America are planning patiently for the
future.
Before we consider what
is frequently being hailed by the American media as the Obama Administration’s “victory”
in reaching a deal with the Iranians, let’s turn back to the one nation who may
suffer most from that “victory” – the state of Israel. It is in Israel where you see the short-term/long-term
dichotomy in the starkest possible terms.
Israel, in its first
few decades, was a proud nation whose very existence was hailed among much of
the world as miraculous. Surrounded by
hostile neighbors, many of whom weren’t afraid to attack at a moment’s notice, that
small country defeated the odds time and time again, with the help of one of
the world’s most modern and fierce militaries.
Israel had her enemies, to be sure, many of whom got together in the
United Nations and proclaimed that “Zionism is racism.” But whether you loved or hated her, you
couldn’t help but view Israel as a force to be reckoned with. As a result, her enemies abandoned the
prospect of large scale military attacks against Israel and turned instead to
isolated terrorist strikes of the type that only strengthened Israel’s resolve
and undermined international support for her adversaries.
Some may still view
Israel in that way, but increasingly, another reality is setting in. For starters, most of her adversaries have
abandoned terrorism as a strategy and are turning instead to what they call “non-violent
resistance.” That really is just a euphemism
for waiting it out and allowing Israel to implode from within. Maybe this anticipated implosion will take ten
years, maybe fifty, but according to her adversaries, sooner or later Israel’s
implosion is inevitable. Allegedly, the
destruction of the “Jewish State” as such is being led by her incessant drive
to occupy more and more Palestinian land, which is contrary to the very essence
of the obsession with justice that is at the heart of the Jewish religion. Even
as her leaders proclaim their support for peace and a “two-state solution,” the
Palestinian narrative continues, Israel’s government is permitting the
construction of additional West Bank settlements on the very land that the
Palestinians would need if they were ever to have a viable state. Whether this settlement construction stems
from imperialist urges or simply the inability of the Israeli mainstream to
stand up to the political power of the right-wing settler lobby, the fact is that
for decades, no Israeli government – not even the ones on the political left –
has been willing to “Just Say No” to the Occupation. Consequently, Israeli’s adversaries argue,
they can simply sit back, gather international support for their struggle
against imperialism, watch Israel lose any sympathy whatsoever outside of its
tiny borders, and ultimately fracture from within.
Even here in America,
you hear more and more older Jews talking about how the younger generation of
Jewish adults is abandoning not only their support of the Israeli government
but the very principle of Zionism. Who
is going to defend Israel in 20 or 40 years, they wonder? Evangelical Christians who think that Jews
are heading for Hell? Black-hatted
Ultra-Orthodox Jews who refuse to fight in the military? The Palestinians are betting that such a
coalition will not be able to stand, and that soon enough, the isolated and fractured
“Jewish State” will give up its claim to the West Bank and allow Palestinians
and Jews to live together in a single bi-national state. Call it the United States of Palestine – a melting
pot for the 21st century. Palestinians
see it as a much more modern concept than that of Zionism, which is
increasingly associated with occupation, discrimination, and xenophobia. Or so goes the narrative.
Therein lays the
Palestinian strategy for how they will someday regain power in their
homeland. On the Israeli side, the
approach is more like a shrug than a strategy.
“We have the land, they don’t, and we’re not giving it up,” aptly
summarizes the attitude. The Israelis
recognize that the Orthodox, the settlers and the other hard-liners comprise a
powerful political force, and they see legitimate security issues in trying to
accede to the demands of the peaceniks on the left. So the easiest thing to do is simply pay lip
service to “two states for two peoples,” while not proposing any dramatic concessions,
and assume that the combination of the Wall, the Israeli Defense Forces, and
the robust Israeli economy will continue to keep Israeli citizens secure and
prosperous. As for what to do with the
Palestinians, the answer seems to be to ignore them, and as for what to do with
Israel’s isolation and unpopularity in capitals throughout the world, the
answer seems to be to ignore those problems as well. In short, Israel has no plan for regaining
international support, which you would think a tiny country would desperately
need, and merely shrugs off the topic, as if the problem is the world’s and not
Israel’s.
Truth
be told, those Israelis who are primarily responsible for the Occupation aren’t
so much worried about the Palestinian threat. What scares those Israelis is Iran, and in
particular, the prospect that Iran will come to acquire nuclear weapons and
then furnish them to terrorists. If that
happens, Israelis will soon be an extinct sub-species.
The
Israeli fear of Iran is legitimate, if you ask me. Iranian leaders have for
years expressed the vilest anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli sentiments imaginable,
and have accumulated various allies in states that neighbor Israel who haven’t
thought twice about using violence to take Jewish lives. As someone who loves Israel, I am deeply
depressed by the idea that the current regime in Iran could acquire nuclear
weapons. Yet as far as I am concerned,
that is exactly what the present deal with the Obama Administration points to –
at least if we think long-term, like they do in Nablus, Hebron and, apparently,
Tehran.
Try
to put aside all the pro-Administration propaganda that inevitably is spewed by
the American media, no matter what Administration is in power. Our recent deal with Iran is as interesting
for what it doesn’t say as for what is does.
For example, as chronicled quite powerfully in yesterday’s Washington
Post lead editorial, the deal (a) will “involve a mutually defined enrichment
program with mutually agreed parameters” and no mention is made that Iran must
close all its enrichment facilities (meaning that the oil-rich nation of Iran,
which hardly seems to need nuclear power for non-military purposes, will also
be able to enrich uranium for the indefinite future), and (b) the final deal
will “have a specified long-term duration to be agreed upon” and that once that
period is over, “the Iranian nuclear program will be treated in the same manner
as that of any non-nuclear weapon state party” to the treaty on
non-proliferation (meaning that at some time in the not-so-distant future, the
sanctions would be over and the uranium-enriching Iranian government would
presumably be able to continue with its nuclear ambitions free from any special
restrictions. According to the
Washington Post, Obama Administration officials claim that reference to a “long-term”
sunset clause could last for 15-20 years, but the Iranians are proposing that
it be more like 3-5 years, and the final number will surely be the product of
negotiation. In the meantime, economic
sanctions will be lessened.
Put
all that together and the upshot is that even though vicious anti-Israel
rhetoric continues to flow from the Iranian government, there seems to be
nothing stopping a more economically powerful Iran from emerging. What’s more,
at some point between 2018 and 2028, that strengthened Iran will be given a virtual
green light to realize its obvious ambition of being a nuclear power in the military
sense of that word. I’m willing to
assume that the Iranians, like the Palestinians, are patient enough not to
worry about whether that happens in five years or fifteen years. Either way, the Iranians – and their
aspirations for power -- are here to stay.
But can the same thing be said about Israel?
Those
folks in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or Brooklyn who have been ignoring the Jews’
obligations to the Palestinians have kept hope alive that Israel could persuade
the international community to stand up to Iran on the issue of weapons. But the Jewish State cannot have it both
ways. It can’t continue to build out
settlements and thumb its noses at the rest of the world on the topic of the Palestinians,
and then expect that the international community will give a damn about what it
has to say about Iran. Quite frankly,
fewer and fewer people outside of Israel give a damn about what Netanyahu has
to say about ANYTHING; as a “pro-peace,” pro-Settlement leader, he has lost his
credibility. So when he cries wolf
about the dangers inherent in the peace deal with the Iranians, nobody seems to
notice that this time he might actually be right.
If
you are looking for a bright side about the Iranian deal, two quickly come to
mind. First, feel good for the people of Iran who truly are not to blame for
the noxious comments of their nation’s leaders, and who should be at least
marginally more prosperous based on the deal’s lessening of economic sanctions
against Iran. Even those of us who
support the continuation of sanctions as a means of fighting the Iranian leadership
should not be at war with the Iranian people, who have as much of a right to “life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as the residents of any other
country. Second, it is certainly
plausible that the increased prosperity resulting from the lessening of the
sanctions could lead to progressive changes within the Iranian regime itself –
potentially including less of a willingness to support international terrorists
who threaten the existence of Israel.
Yes, hope springs eternal. But I remain cynical nonetheless about the
regime in Iran. Given all they have said
over the decades to denigrate the Jewish people and the Jewish homeland, they
have earned the cynicism of anyone who truly cares about Israel.
From the standpoint of
the Obama Administration, maybe the deal struck in Geneva was the best of a bad
set of options. Maybe the die was
already cast, given how war weary the world is and how much the Iranians seem
determined to build up their nuclear capabilities. My frustration, though, is that not enough
is being said here in Washington about the long-term/short-term dichotomy. In a world where robust democracies are
clashing with non-democracies, the latter have a hidden strategic
advantage. They are equipped to be
patient, whereas we democracies seem to strategize with ants in our pants. As a result, if we look ahead to, say, 2030,
I am afraid that Tehran will have even more nukes, the West will have even more
fears, and the Palestinians will have even more stories to tell about how Israel
is splitting apart at her seams. Can
that trajectory be changed? Perhaps, but
only if the West figures out that sometimes, even power-rich democracies need
to think about the future and not simply concern themselves with the
power-dynamics of the present.
No comments:
Post a Comment