JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

Israel and America, or Israel and the Palestinians?

What are we talking about when we're talking about America's special relationship with Israel?

To listen to the panelists at Tuesday night's Intelligence Squared debate arguing for the proposition that “The U.S. should step back from its special relationship with Israel,” we're talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The panelists, New York Times columnist Roger Cohen and Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, kept returning to the argument that U.S. support for Israel has made the two-state solution virtually impossible. The United States, they argued, needs to stop bankrolling the Israeli occupation and hold Israel accountable for its actions in the Palestinian-populated territories, including settlement expansion.

On the other side of the aisle, former Israeli ambassador to Washington Itamar Rabinovich and former White House official Stuart Eizenstat argued that the close relationship between Israel and America serves both countries' national interests, as well as the cause of peace. Without the security of a dependable, close ally in America, Israel could never make the concessions it has for peace, such as withdrawing from the Sinai in exchange for peace with Egypt. On the flip side, Israel provides America with real-time intelligence and helps counter nuclear proliferation.

There really wasn't much new in Tuesday night's debate.

Cohen argued that in order to bring Israelis and Palestinians closer together America should punish Israel for its actions in the West Bank. "Israel, if it thinks it can act with complete impunity, is not going to be responsive to U.S. desires," Cohen said. Eizenstat countered that punishing Israel has the opposite effect: When the Obama White House took a tough stance toward Israel on settlements in 2009, it had the consequence of increasing the demands of the Palestinians, who refused to return to the negotiating table. He blamed Israel's adversaries, not Israel, for the absence of a peace deal. "If there were a Martin Luther King leading the Palestinian movement, they would have had peace long ago," Eizenstat said.

Rabinovich, a former Israeli negotiator with Syria, argued that the special relationship between Israel and America increases the motivation for Arab nations to make peace with Israel. "Syria knows the road to the Golan leads through Washington, and not Tehran," Rabinovich said. Khalidi countered that the special relationship has fostered deep unease in the Arab world toward the United States.

At the heart of the disagreement between the two sides are differing paradigms of why the Middle East is such a problem. In Cohen and Khalidi's view, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the heart of the problem, and America perpetuates the conflict by failing to force Israel into taking the steps necessary for peace. Cohen said that terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed say U.S. policy toward the Palestinians motivated his actions toward the United States, and argued that downgrading the America-Israel relationship could increase U.S. security.

The other side believes the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the Arab world's inability to accept Israel, and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is used as a feint by Arab governments and others around the world to avoid addressing the real problems of the Middle East: undemocratic governments, terrorism, the U.S. occupation of Iraq, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. As Rabinovich pointed out, Osama bin Laden's gripe is with the United States and Saudi Arabia, not Israel.

While the debate was supposed to be about the America-Israel relationship, it kept coming back to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Is it the Palestinians' own fault that they're weak and divided, or Israel and America's fault? Are the Palestinians in the West Bank suffering horribly (they ride donkey carts while the Israelis zip around in sleek cars, Cohen said, somewhat untruthfully) because America bankrolls Israel's defense industry, or is life in the West Bank improving drastically due to U.S. investment and training of Palestinian security and Israel's partial withdrawal from West Bank cities?

It's all about how you frame the conversation.

  • Share Share
  • Share on Google+ Google+
  • Share on Facebook Facebook

Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments

02/10/10 07:03 PM

I’m afraid Roger Cohen is like too many other Jews. In his zeal to escape the charge of being biased toward Israel, he goes way too far in the other direction. It reminds me of 1960s progressive Jews who favored repressive Arab regimes over democratic Israel to keep from being accused of favoring capitalism over socialism. It didn’t matter that the only socialism in the Middle East at that time were Israeli kibbutzim. But, it was a case of “don’t confuse me with the facts.” When the West Bank and Gaza were territories of Jordan and Egypt, no one talked about occupation. Where were the Arab states, then, Mr. Cohen? When will Cohen finally realize that no matter what concessions Israel will be pressed to make the other side will find another issue to balk at.

02/11/10 03:52 AM

Uriel Heilman fails to mention that, according to the vote of the live NYC audience, Cohen and Khalidi won the debate.  Before the debate, 33% were in favor of the Cohen/Khalidi position.  After the debate 49% supported their position (compared with 42% for the Rabinovich/Eizenstat position before the debate and 47% after the debate).  This suggests that Cohen and Khalidi were pretty persuasive.

Leave a Comment

To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.

Already a JTA member?

I forgot my password

Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!