On 2010-08-12, at 8:05 PM, Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>>> (By the Pawn Theory I mean the view that Israel and its actions are simply emanations and entailments of American imperial necessity; vulgar Chomskyism, you might call it.)
>>
>> How about this: both countries use each other for their own purposes. Ours is bigger, richer, and more heavily armed than theirs, which provides certain advantages in the relationship.
>
> That's a good start. But the main problem with that formulation is that (a) the current policy seems to be to the ultimate detriment of both countries; and (b) if you look only at immediate goals, it seems more to the detriment of those of the US.
================================
What is the "current policy", Michael? I'm serious. That is not clear in each case because all of the parties - Israelis, Americans, Palestinians, and Iranians - are manuvering and are internally riven by factions with different objectives.
For example, is the current policy of the right-wing Israeli government one of creeping annexation of the West Bank, or a severely truncated Palestinian state under its suzerainty? Is Hamas' policy that a Palestinian state is out of the question given how the Israelis define it, or is its leadership prepared to enter into negotiations if it is satisfied the US and Europeans will be able to pressure the Israelis to make concessions? How much is the bipartisan US defence and foreign policy establishment and Congress prepared to squeeze Israel? Is the US working towards regime change in Iran or an accomodation with it to stabilize the region? Are the Iranians prepared to slow down their nuclear program under the pressure of sanctions and the threat of war, or is their policy to ignore these in favour of an overriding interest to urgently develop a nuclear counterweight against these pressures?
In the final analysis, policy is determined less by what the parties want than by the relationship of forces, and is subject to change in accordance with often unpredictable changes in the military, economic, and political environment. When the parties say "all options are on the table", it is not only for negotiating purposes, but because they can't really know in advance what the other side or their side might be forced to concede in light of changing circumstances. They can either miscalculate with disasterous results, or their policy might be based on a correct assessment of the relationship of forces - in which case, this would not be "detrimental" to their long-term interests but in accordance with them. Unfortunately, they (and we) can only know this in retrospect.
For example, if the Israelis want to indefinitely expand their settlement and control of the West Bank, why wouldn't they for as long as they have the power to do so. I expect most of the Greater Israel crowd have concluded ultimately they'll have to concede a small and controllable Palestinian statelet if it is accompanied by the tacit agreement of Hamas and the neutralization of Iran. These are admittedly big "ifs", but neither of these outcomes could be considered "detrimental" to the Israeli (or US interest) and would be an indicative that there has been no real shift in the prevailing balance of power in the Middle East.
That's why I think it is misleading for Mearsheimer-Walt and their supporters to presuppose and to argue, as you do, that the American and Israeli governments are acting against the national interest of both countries. Not only do we not know that for the reasons I've mentioned above, but there is no such thing, IMO, as a "national" interest. That's a fallacy, shared by liberals and social democrats. Call me an unrepentant historical materialist, but I still view the past and present in terms of "class" interests (acknowledging that classes are internally divided, BTW, to head off anticipated criticism), which can sometimes be congruent but are mostly subtly or sharply antagonistic.
>From this perspective, I would say that the policies being pursued by the US and Israeli governments may or may not be "detrimental" to the interests of their corporations and other elements of the ruling class - history will judge - although they are clearly detrimental to the mass of the working populations of these countries who have always been called on to pay their cost in blood and treasure. That is what we should be more precisely saying, when the subject presents itself, to our friends, relatives, neighbours, and workmates who have mostly been conditioned to support their governments' policies in the "national interest".