Thursday, June 15, 2017

Israel's Gaza Power Cut Is A Humanitarian Travesty

At a time when the US has signaled less interest in human rights policy, there are a number of egregious actions being taken in the Middle East against people living there. Among these is Israel's decision to cut power to the Gaza Strip, allowing only 2-4 hours per day for nearly 2 million people during the month of Ramadan.

Facing rising political pressure from Hamas, the Palestinian Authority decided it would no longer pay the bill for Gaza's electricity which is provided by Israel. The PA then asked Israel to reduce Gaza's electricity supply. Energy Minister and Likud party member Yuval Steinetz strongly opposed the action on the grounds that the PA already owes Israel money, that Israel should not take orders from the PA, and the cutting electricity might give Hamas an excuse to start another conflict with Israel. Steinetz also emphasized the humanitarian consequences such a move could have on Gaza's residents. At the time, some supporters of Israel rightly praised the government for this hesitation. Now that the decision has been taken, however, the narrative has morphed into a diffusion of responsibility onto the Palestinian Authority and an attempt to downplay the government's moral culpability. 

This diffusion indicates two things. First, Israel's government knows it has liability for electricity provision in Gaza. Defense Minister Lieberman's comments to that end today doth protest too much the idea that Israel is simply the executioner and not the judge. Second, it indicates that Israel's government anticipates blowback from the decision and is pre-framing that blowback as the result of international bias against Israel rather than an otherwise legitimate concern. Yet the concern is in fact legitimate for a two reasons.

First, regime change in Gaza will not occur through siege tactics. Hamas is a violent organization that uses terrorism to maintain an authoritarian grip on power and constrains Palestinian society from reaching its full potential. But expecting a power cut to spark the popular overthrow of Hamas is like expecting a power cut in Mosul to spark the popular overthrow of ISIS. Nonetheless, Israel's leadership have pursued this failing policy since 2007 and seem to only have doubled down on it now. Power cuts and inadequate supply of food, medicine, and building materials into Gaza have bred popular anger against Hamas, but also against Israel and with little positive effect from Israel's point of view. Electricity cuts may pressure Hamas, but pressure without clear positive effects for Israel's government is useless when the security of Israel's people - particularly those along the Gaza border - is at stake.

More importantly, Israel has struggled against a rising tide of invective charging that it is no longer a liberal democracy. A spate of UN resolutions, the BDS movement, and even criticism of actress Gal Gadot are unreasonable and unwarranted. But Israel's government does itself no favors by cutting electricity to just hours per day to an area whose humanitarian situation has been dire for years. Electricity cuts affect hospital patients, school children, the elderly, and society's most vulnerable. And since it is currently Ramadan, many Gazans are observing a daylight fast during the longest days of the year.

Gaza's humanitarian situation is not only Israel's fault. But Israel has a responsibility as a liberal democracy to take seriously its complicity in the current humanitarian situation, which this decision to cut back power exacerbates severely. The Start-Up Nation has the creativity and expertise to find a better way to achieve its political aims than to take out its animosity toward Hamas on 2 million people with little power to change the status quo.

Monday, March 27, 2017

It's Not Friedman. Pro-Israel Advocacy Has A "Kapo" Problem

AIPAC's 2017 conference is focused on the theme "Many voices, one mission." The slogan reflects well-placed concern over the increasingly partisan nature of the US-Israel relationship. Actors on both sides are contributing to this problem, including at the conference itself. If Not Now's protests/antics outside the Washington Convention Center yesterday make a polarized conversation more polarized and do little to legitimize serious conversations about the future of Israel's presence in the West Bank. Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer's comments about there being no daylight between the US and Israel for the first time in years were a petty swipe at an Obama administration which is no longer in office. It needlessly alienated liberals who constitute a majority of the US Jewish population and voted overwhelmingly Democrat in both 2012 and 2016.

Politics in the US are polarized in general and we shouldn't expect the tide to ebb any time soon. The best approach in the meantime, therefore, is to build and re-enforce sandbag walls that mitigate further slippage of the discourse into further nastiness. A change in administration - and a new US ambassador - offers this opportunity.

During his confirmation hearing, Ambassador-designate David Friedman's comments about J Street being "worse" than "Kapos" proved divisive. It is astonishing they were not disqualifying on face. The use of Holocaust terminology in this context should be an obvious red line to liberals (who have been guilty of similar statement in the past) and conservatives alike. 

But Ambassador Friedman did not confirm himself. Ultimately, a majority of US Senators decided their careers would not be at stake if they overlooked a blatant invocation of Holocaust rhetoric against a Jewish pro-Israel organization. As it pertains to the Ambassador, this issue has been analyzed to death. But the Senate vote is indicative of a deeper problem in the American pro-Israel community itself.  

This problem is not that Ambassador-designate Friedman used (and later apologized for) a certain turn of phrase. It's that many pro-Israel Americans agree with him. And while they may disagree with the specific terminology, they truly believe J Street is a nefarious organization with the intent of destroying Israel. This belief is, to put it plainly, an alternative fact with piles of evidence to the contrary. 

Disagreeing with J Street and its policies is fair game (see earlier posts on this blog). But pro-Israel apathy toward an American official invoking the word "Kapos" toward other Jews is unacceptable. Rebuttals to J Street are (sometimes) based in fact. Deploying or ignoring Holocaust terminology against J Street is based in tribalist paranoid demagoguery that cheapens the memory of the Six Million. It is a blight on our community that a basic respect for our history and for each other has blinded us to the goodness of brothers sitting together.

It would be a mistake to instrumentalize Ambassador-designate Friedman's comments as a tool for bleeding political capital in a US relationship with a critical ally. Instead, pro-Israel Americans must see his comments as a mirror that reflects an ugly truth about the standards we accept tacitly or otherwise in the pro-Israel community. It is incumbent that each of us - working in our own ideological camps - do the hard work of self-reflection about how we represent our passion for Israel and its security. Perhaps AIPAC's admirable commitment to unity of mission could be built upon establishing these grounds for common decency.



Thursday, March 23, 2017

David Friedman Is The Next US Ambassador To Israel

The confirmation of David Friedman as US Ambassador to Israel is an opportunity for a fresh start that neither the US nor Israel can afford to squander. 

Both the United States and Israel face serious long-term challenges that only cooperation can solve. These include remedying the violence of Syria's brutal civil war, strengthening economic ties between the US and Israel, and achieving a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Critical to these challenges will be the creation of broad coalitions within and between peoples. To this end, Ambassador-Designate Friedman should focus immediately on building ties between the US and Israeli administrations. He should seek to engage not only with Israel's government but also with its diverse and ambitious people. He should work to support Israeli and Palestinian pragmatists with innovative ideas for a final status agreement based on the concept of two states for two peoples - a position consistent with decades of US foreign policy.

Most importantly, the Ambassador-Designate should reaffirm his commitment to pluralism in the American pro-Israel community. The framing of Israel as a partisan issue is one of the greatest dangers facing the State of Israel in the next decade. Furthermore, the polarization and lack of respect for pluralism within the American pro-Israel community is a serious threat to Israel's ability to ensure support in an increasingly volatile Middle East. The apologies Ambassador-Designate Friedman offered during his confirmation hearing should be the first in an ongoing series of reconciliatory measures which indicate that supporters of Israel in America have a place at the table.  

Diversity of opinion - and the ability to tolerate it - is the single greatest asset that the US and Israel share. The new Ambassador should work hard to ensure that it remains a major element of American and Israeli politics. Nothing could be more foundational to the long-term vitality of the US-Israel relationship than affirming the love of liberal democracy Americans share with the People of Israel.

Monday, February 6, 2017

Israel's Regulation Bill Will Draw Backlash

The Knesset has passed a controversial "Regulation Bill" that legalizes settler outposts in the West Bank and halts their evacuations and demolition. These outposts are different from the major settlement blocs like Gilo, Maale Adumim, and Ariel. They are also different from settlements which some in the international community say are illegal, but which Israel claims are not. The outposts affected by tonight's bill were not authorized by the Government of Israel, which means many are on privately-owned Palestinian land and place settlers in particularly dangerous situations where they are a liability to the Israeli government. 

The bill was approved by the Knesset Ministerial Committee for Legislation back in November in the wake of controversy surrounding the illegal settlement of Amona which was evacuated last week. Emboldened by outcry from settlers over the evacuation and the lack of a strong position on the issue from the new US administration, the bill could impact 4,000 settlements throughout the West Bank. While this is not the first time Israel has retroactively legalized such outposts, it is the first blanket legalization. Furthermore, it is likely to have some negative effects for Israel.

First, the blanket legalization of illegal outposts sets a precedent whereby settlers and not the government drive settlement policy. This is dangerous because settlers who live in outposts often have little respect for foreign policy nuance, international law, or quid pro quo agreements between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. In the short-term the bill will likely destabilize the relationship between both parties. In the long-term, it will likely incentivize further illegal activity by settlers who have now been rewarded for acting outside the law. 

Second, the law confirms the weakness of Israel's current governing coalition. Prime Minister Netanyahu, who took steps to delay or defer the bill, ultimately could not or did not prevent it from becoming law. Israel's far-right, for its part, has an immediate victory but in the process has demonstrated its lack of long-term vision. Rather than pursue a final status agreement, or even annexation as MK Bennett has flirted with doing, the bill perpetuates the broken status quo. In so doing, it demonstrates that the far-right's vision for Israel is "more of the same" rather than a change that has a positive impact on Israelis. With the lack of a viable alternative to the current governing coalition, Israelis are stuck with a government that is unwilling to commit to meaningful progress.

Finally, the bill opens Israel up to more "lawfare" since the international community perceives the bill as an escalation in response to UN 2334. Israelis already believe that the country is unfairly targeted under international humanitarian law - a sentiment which is well-founded. But this bill makes the problem even worse. While the main message the bill sent was directed at settlers, the message it intended to send to the international community, was an assertion of legitimate control of the West Bank. The way the bill will actually come across, however, is as a provocation that confirms Israel's "rogue" status among liberal states. This is one reason Israel's Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit has expressed concerns the bill could violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. While the Trump administration in general and Ambassador Haley in particular is likely to provide diplomatic cover for Israel at the UN, the US has less influence over other international legal bodies. Furthermore, reports suggest the US asked for a delay in passing the bill until after Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to Washington next Wednesday. The bill may create frustrations in the new US administration that Israel is forcing its hand on Middle East policy.

Ultimately, the bill will likely generate blowback to a unilateral move by the Knesset rewarding behavior directed against the legal authority of the state. This conceding of power ties the Israeli government's hands in future interactions with settlers and exposes all Israelis to increased danger. Most importantly, today's action demonstrates an unprecedented level of cynicism about Israel's future. It is a surrender to a small group of extremists rather than a workable and sustainable solution to their legitimate concerns. Israel did not singlehandedly create the dispute over the West Bank. But it did single handedly make it worse by passing this bill. When hand-wringing erupts over the inevitable backlash this bill will generate, supporters of this bill will have to live with the knowledge that their actions created this self-inflicted wound that further delays the prospects for a strong, sustainable Jewish State.

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Why 67% of Israelis Support a Murderer

Israeli society was rocked by a military court's decision yesterday to convict IDF soldier Elor Azaria of manslaughter after he shot an incapacitated Palestinian terrorist in the head. Several parliament ministers are now calling for Azaria to receive clemency, a move supported by over 60% of the Israeli public. 

As others have pointed out, Azaria's actions are reprehensible. He shot to death a Palestinian who incontrovertibly posed no threat. This excessive use of force is a violation of Israel's rules of engagement, those of any liberal democracy, and  Article 12 of the First Geneva Convention. Support for a soldier who violated the chain of command and Israel's rules of engagement is an affront to hundreds of thousands of IDF soldiers who, in much tougher conditions, placed the good of the state over their own personal emotion. Azaria's actions impugn their professionalism, dignity, and commitment to the security of the State of Israel. 

At the same time, it is crucial to understand what motivates this support. Israelis more than most other people understand the depth and complexity of moral dilemmas involved in fighting terrorism and insurgency. Making sense of their support for Azaria does not justify it, but rather contextualizes it for non-Israeli audiences who may not be able to grasp the context in which Israelis are giving their support. 

First, Israelis feel that the military bureaucracy places blame on low-level soldiers for strategic mistakes made at the higher levels. In fact, 60% of Israelis think Israel's Chief of Staff, Gadi Eisenkot, and the top IDF brass influenced the court's verdict. While Azaria bears responsibility for his actions, there are institutional and systemic factors that placed someone with his lack of discipline in a situation like that which exists in Hebron. Furthermore, the fact that the multiple videos of the incident were publicized by the Israeli Human Rights group B'Tselem placed additional pressure on the IDF bureaucracy to make an example. Azaria is guilty, but he is not the only guilty party.

Second, Israelis point to the fact that the victim of the shooting was a terrorist. Terrorists are understood in different terms in Israel than they are in the US. In Israel, they are not foreign evildoers who sneak into the country and kill a few people every couple years. Rather, terrorists are responsible for the pervasive sense of fear and worry that Israelis internalize every day. They are the reason Israelis think twice before riding public busses, sitting near the front of a restaurant, waiting at an un-fortified bus stop, or letting their kids go to a concert, club, or downtown. Terrorism is not a theoretical construct of political and legal discussions in Israel. It is visceral and scary, and has a deeply harmful effect on the Israeli national psyche. Israelis are hard pressed to understand how any rational human could want them to feel this visceral fear every day. Understanding terrorists as monsters or fundamentally un-human is one way to make some sense of the phenomenon. The 51% of Americans who supported the not-guilty verdict for George Zimmerman after he shot Trayvon Martin reasoned along similar lines, though with much less justification than Israelis have. Shooting a terrorist - one responsible for fear and anxiety through his violent actions and threats that give Israelis no moment of peace - is justified in terms of the emotional havoc terrorism wreaks on Israelis. One less terrorist is one step closer to psychological peace. 

Finally, Israelis' response to Azaria's conviction is shaped an erosion of faith in human rights norms. Israelis are proud of the IDF's respect for human rights, but the past decade has seen human rights norms weaponized against Israel and its actions in Gaza and the West Bank. In the wake of the American Abu Ghraib prison scandal, one of the major American concerns was that it degraded US credibility as a proponent of human rights. Israel, on the other hand, is condemned by the international community time and time again despite its unprecedented efforts to protect human rights in combat. It has been given little credibility to begin with despite serious efforts to act in humane ways during war. The overall effect of this condemnation - some justified and some not - is the erosion of the Israeli public's faith in international liberal human rights norms. This erosion - combined with the rise of illiberal parties in Israel's Knesset - shapes perceptions that the rights of combatants under international law are irrelevant because Israel will be condemned whether or not it respects them.


These justifications, of course, fail to speak to the overwhelming persuasiveness of arguments in favor of a chain of command, rules of engagement, and respect for wounded combatants. They also fail to speak the myriad of ways in which Israel's government perpetuates a systematic lack of respect for basic Palestinian human rights. Nonetheless, they speak to the need for all concerned with human rights to take seriously the complexity of the unique dilemmas Israelis face. They also suggest that deeper engagement with Israel's public, rather than disengagement and boycotts, are a productive way to restore strong faith in the fundamental values that are part and parcel of both liberal democracies and Israel's founding principles.