Some Thoughts on the Middle East

Disclosure: I realize this is a hot button issue for many who are emotionally invested in the Middle East. It's a topic that requires nuance, a constant balancing act, and verbal gymnastics to avoid being labeled as a supporter of terror or anti-Semitic; however, the Middle East's centrality in the political debate makes it fair game and requires some perspective.

THE US AND ISRAEL
1. Israel is an ally of the United States and we have every right to defend it with all our military might; however, Israel is not (or at least should not be) an extension of the United States. Our policies should not be conflated even if they do overlap. It seems to me that the lines, in this election have become quite blurred.
2. Support of Israel does not mean blind, uncritical support; it is important that the United States be committed to justice on behalf of the Palestinian people. The US can only continue to be a moral authority in the region if it is seen as a fair abritator. Not only can this be done without comprising Israel's security but, I believe it will eventually lead to greater security for Israel. George H. Bush, unlike his son, was much more cognizant of this.
3. I recognize that Israel is continually faced with an existential threat and that threat is one that few nations can understand--she is surrounded by adversaries; the Jewish people have been traumatized by centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe, America, and the Middle East; the Jewish people have experienced the unspeakable terror of the Holocaust; and are attacked constantly by by Hamas and Hezbollah rockets. That awareness must, however, be balanced with an awareness of the Palestinian people's incesant suffering.
4. Israel, without doubt, has the strongest Army in the Middle East and is the Middle East's only nuclear power. She has the capability to respond with overwhelming force if need be. That strength must tempered by justice.

THE US AND HAMAS
1. Hamas is a stated and unquestionable enemy of Israel; however, it is not a declared enemy of the United States--it has never directly attacked the United States or stated an intent to do so.
2. Hamas came into being as fallout from Israeli occupation and the First Intifidah. Military action might solve an immediate problem but it creates other problems.
3. Hamas came into political power in Gaza strip because of a democratic election pushed by the United States, as well as the inadequacy of Fatah as a political entity. That strengthening, in my opinion, came also due to a strategic weakening of an already flawed Yasir Arafat by Ariel Sharon. Anyone remember the methodical reduction of Arafat's headquarters to rubble?
5. It is necessary for politicians to be intellectually honest by not conflating Hamas with Al-Queda. They are not the same organization even if analogies can be made.
6. Hamas is a reality on the ground that will have to be dealt with eventually. I do, however, respect Israel's desire not to negotiate with Hamas until certain conditions are met.

THE US AND IRAN
1. Amedinajad is not the state of Iran just as Bush is not the United States. Let's stop conflating leaders and their nations. If Saddam Hussein was Iraq, then our troops would be home.
2. Iran's army is at best a second rate military. We spend (several times over) the defense budget of all the nations of the world combined. We are not negotiating from a position of fear. Iran, on the other hand, is facing a country with an army on two of its borders--Afghanistan and Iraq, a country that has declared Iran is part of an axis of evil, and that has (accidentally) shot down one of its passenger airlines killing 290 of its citizens.
3. I say all this simply to echo what Robert S. McNamara said, you must empathize with your enemy in order understand what motivates him/her.
4. This is not to, in anyway minimize the existential threat faced by Israel by a nuclear armed Iran. But lest we forget, Israel is the Middle East's only nuclear power, The United States has over 6,000 nuclear weapons and we are the only nation ever to have used nuclear weapons.

GEORGE BUSH AND THE MIDDLE EAST
1. Upon assuming power, George Bush COMPLETELY ignored the Middle East conflict. He was making an attempt to distance himself from Bill Clinton's foreign policy.
2. George Bush suggested, on the eve of invading Iraq, that somehow that invasion was going to magically bring peace to the Middle East. A delusion if there ever was one.
3. The destabilization of Iraq has significantly strengthened Iran in the Middle East and thrown the region off-balance.
4. The war in Iraq has severely reduced our effectiveness in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden is likely to outlast Bush's term in office.

Now the question is "what is the best way to bring peace to the Middle East?" The first is by being intellectually honest with ourselves. The second is by being fair yet firm in securing peace for all. Justice looks the same regardless of what side of the fence one is born on; all human life is, after all, valuable.

Update I: Senator Obama had a useful interview here with Jeffrey Goldberg about his stand on the State of Israel. Here are some excerpts.

I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience.

That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it’s a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don’t always act with justice uppermost on our minds. But the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.

I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we’re going to be stuck in the same status quo that we’ve been stuck in for decades now, and that won’t lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article.

Update II: Thomas Friedman about the US's role in the Middle East has a useful article here from which I quote the following:

Personally, as an American Jew, I don’t vote for president on the basis of who will be the strongest supporter of Israel. I vote for who will make America strongest. It’s not only because this is my country, first and always, but because the single greatest source of support and protection for Israel is an America that is financially and militarily strong, and globally respected. Nothing would imperil Israel more than an enfeebled, isolated America.

But what matters a lot more is that under Mr. Bush, America today is neither feared nor respected nor liked in the Middle East, and that his lack of an energy policy for seven years has left Israel’s enemies and America’s enemies — the petro-dictators and the terrorists they support — stronger than ever. The rise of Iran as a threat to Israel today is directly related to Mr. Bush’s failure to succeed in Iraq and to develop alternatives to oil.

Update III: Jeffrey Goldberg has a useful op-ed in the Sunday NY Times based on the above mentioned interview. Here's an excerpt.

There are some Jews who would be made anxious by Mr. Obama even if he changed his first name to Baruch and had his bar mitzvah on Masada. But after speaking with him it struck me that, by the standards of rhetorical correctness maintained by such groups as the Conference of Presidents and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, Mr. Obama is actually more pro-Israel than either Ehud Olmert or Ehud Barak. (To say nothing of John McCain and President George W. Bush, who spoke to the Knesset last week about external threats to Israel’s safety but made no mention of the country’s missteps.)

This is an existentially unhealthy state of affairs. I am not wishing that the next president be hostile to Israel, God forbid. But what Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it to come to grips with the existential threat from within.

Update IV: For some thoughts on dealing with Hamas, see Joe Klein's Time column here.