Radical BDS Movement Targets Israel for Destruction

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement is about a decade old.  It couches its appeals to Western sensibilities in a language of righteous indignation that never gets old.  The Palestinian nationalists behind the BDS movement use it as another strategy to achieve their goal of destroying Israel.  It is fair to identify the BDS movement's supporters and their own goals.

NGO Monitor has done excellent work tracking the funders of the BDS movement and its allied causes.  The New Israel Fund aligned with BDS is particularly noteworthy for its history of supporting Israeli NGOs that make false or misleading claims about Israel's justice system and military operations.  Even the BDS symbol is an adaptation of the Palestinian "Handala" cartoon encouraging perpetual victimhood.  Handala figures prominently in the imagery of the Palestinian right of return principle.  It is obvious that Israelis and others who adhere to the right of return principle have not considered the effects of forced immigration on Israeli citizens.

Israelis and Jewish-Americans who sign on to the BDS movement are, in the phraseology attributed to the Comintern describing their international collaborators, useful idiots.  Jewish Voice for Peace claims the BDS positions are going mainstream.  That claim is unverifiable, and is certainly untrue within mainstream Judaism after Jewish organizations have repeatedly identified JVP representatives as unwelcome.  The Anti-Defamation League has an excellent backgrounder on how JVP covers for the anti-Israel agenda of other entities.

I had a very unenlightening experience in recent weeks when a JVP activist spoke to a foreign policy study group I frequently attend at one of San Francisco's most renowned civic affairs clubs.  She sounded very naive, as if they could all sing Kumbaya to give the Palestinians their own state.  This woman claimed that JVP's social network audience exceeds AIPAC's audience.  I just did my own checking today on Twitter, Facebook, and Alexa.

JVP Twitter followers:  41,500
AIPAC Twitter Followers:  46,000
JVP Facebook fans:  206,756
AIPAC Facebook fans:  102,417
JVP website Alexa rank:  Global rank 536,838; US rank 123,682
AIPAC website Alexa rank:  Global rank 214,495; US rank 36,527

The numbers show AIPAC leading JVP in two of those three metrics.  The JVP woman was either lying or stupid to make her claim of social reach.  Radical activists are not above lying to move their agenda.  Soviet dupes in the West did it all the time.

BDS activists often draw false parallels between their movement and the US civil rights movement of the 1950s-60s, the anti-apartheid movement of the 1980s, or the Northern Ireland peace process.  The red herrings fly fast and furious with these people.  The US civil rights movement never lobbied for a separate homeland for African Americans, but for justice within a single-state solution.  The anti-apartheid movement was a similar recognition of a single state's legitimacy.  The Northern Ireland peace process ended with recognition of British sovereignty, another single state solution.  The BDS objective of weakening Israel's ability to defend itself through a military boycott, with no requirement for the Palestinian territories to likewise disarm, is not the moral equivalent of earlier movements for peace and justice.

It is glaringly obvious that JVP and other BDS supporters in the Anglo-West have not conducted any serious thinking about what happens after their boycott succeeds and a Palestinian state crowds out a greatly weakened Israel.  Where would Palestinian returnees settle?  Would they go to Israel to evict Israelis or to a Palestine that may not be able to absorb them?  Will the GDP of a Palestinian state support both its existing citizens and new returnees?  Will Hamas abandon its charter's pledge to destroy Israel and evict all Jews from the Middle East?  Is a comprehensive Israel-Palestine peace even possible while a Sunni-Shia conflict exists within Islam?  Serious diplomats across the Middle East and the Anglo-West have wrestled with these questions for decades.  The only firm answer has always come in the form of Israel's ability to defend itself from existential threats.

Radical elements within the Palestinian nationalist movement have never surrendered their goal of destroying Israel.  The methods change to make the goal seem palatable to sympathetic Westerners.  The BDS movement is another strategy to de-legitimize Israel.  It does not yet pose an existential threat to Israel by itself, but it is clearly a form of asymmetric warfare.

Domestic Politics Drive US-Israel-Iran Strategic Monologues

Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to the US Congress this month stirred up the usual posturing from American politicians.  Their equivalents in Israel and Iran, the other two audiences for Mr. Netanyahu's speech, will eventually be heard.  Third Eye OSINT judges that recent noises from leaders of the US, Israel, and Iran have more to do with moving public opinion in those countries than with reaching any diplomatic agreements.

All perspectives on US/Iran/Israel relations are of interest.  CFR's description of Iran's nuclear program raises enough concerns about the program's intent to warrant continuing IAEA monitoring and verification in Iran.  There is no reason for any of the P5+1 parties to pursue side deals with Iran outside this negotiating framework given its legitimacy in the eyes of the UN.  The US's own estimate is that Iran is years away from weaponizing its nuclear program.  The CFR's description of a 2007 NIE describes the difficulty Iran has in producing sufficient weapons-grade material.  The Stuxnet virus' attack on Iran's facilities pushed the weaponization date even further into the future.  Talk of crossing red lines is premature.

All of the recent public actions by both Israel's and Iran's leaders are fodder for internal audiences.  Mr. Netanyahu gains politically by frightening his people with an external threat.  His Likud party still polls strongly but he cannot ignore the growing chorus of former Israeli national security figures who have come out publicly against Israeli policies.  Anti-Iran rhetoric shores up his electoral base.

Iran's mullahs want their people to think the Iranian nuclear program is more dangerous than it is to keep the reformers sidelined.  Strategic feints are an old practice in history.  Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq went to great lengths to convince its own battlefield commanders that WMDs were an option, believing that mention of such programs would deter Iran or even the US from striking the regime.  Iran's hardened facilities and uranium enrichment technology obviously have military potential.  Whether Israel is the eventual target of an Iranian nuclear strike is open to debate.  Tehran has little to gain from a strike on Israel that would almost certainly bring US retaliation.  It has more to gain by rattling a nuclear saber against nearby rivals, specifically Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Even US politicians feel the impulse to contribute rhetoric fit for their domestic base.  Republican Congresspeople sent a letter to Iran with vague warnings about the validity of US-Iran diplomatic agreements.  Once again, domestic audiences matter, and positioning for the 2016 election cycle means putting tough rhetoric on the record.  Iran responded with an understanding of legal precedents that surpassed that of the GOP letter's authors.  An American legal scholar from the George W. Bush administration took the GOP to task on the Lawfare blog for their lack of understanding.  Israeli and Iranian leaders have yet to reveal whether their understanding of their own legal systems needs remedial attention.  They may surprise us yet.

Both Israel and Iran also have something to gain externally by going through these motions in public.  Iran wants a bigger bargaining chip to terminate sanctions, so making its nuclear program seem dangerous is a diplomatic gamble.  Israel has obviously won a major diplomatic breakthrough with Saudi Arabia if the Saudis quietly approve of Israel's stance against Iran.  American diplomacy is always at work and could probably have forged a P5+1 agreement sooner if not for some clumsiness.  Media exposure of President Obama's Nov. 2014 letter to Tehran about ISIS was an embarrassment.  Predictably, Iran's response was noncommittal once the entire US negotiating position was laid bare.  Trading nuclear concessions for acquiescence to a more active Iranian ground campaign is a deal best done in back channels.  US fumbling invites Israel and Iran to air their frustrations in public rather than behind closed doors.

The most explosive conflict in the Middle East isn't even Israel vs. Iran.  The intensifying Sunni vs. Shia civil war within Islam is the main threat to regional stability.  The leading Sunni states (Saudi Arabia first, Turkey second) are unwilling to directly confront Iran for leadership of the Islamic world, so they cynically allow Israel to do their heavy lifting for them.  They won't be able to postpone the open civil war for long; ISIS is just the latest explosion of Sunni anger against Shiite proxies (Syria first, rump Iraq second).

Public speeches on geopolitics are always the tips of icebergs.  They are monologues intended for multiple audiences.  The primary audience is usually domestic.  Hidden diplomatic initiatives rarely take their cues from public statements, except in states like North Korea where a megalomaniac leader personifies the state.  The US has yet to demonstrate its ability to competently navigate both the public diplomacy and back channel communication that can set the framework for a successful P5+1 agreement.  Rhetoric about leading from behind and "strategic patience" are no substitute for competence.  Dialogue suffers and the world is left with monologues.

Iraq Liberation Ten Year Anniversary Scorecard

Ten years ago today, the United States led a coalition of the willing to liberate Iraq from the Saddam Hussein regime.  Let's run through the neighborhood and examine the strategic results.

Iraq.  The liberated Iraqi people suffered anywhere from 109,000 to over 1,000,000 deaths, depending on who does the counting and whether it includes sectarian violence and deaths from disease or malnutrition.  Iraq is no longer governed by an autocrat but its democratic institutions are still weak.  The country is still periodically beset by sectarian violence and instability.  The good news is that Iraq has functioning democratic institutions and is producing oil for export, although energy supermajors are beginning to sour on Iraq's business climate and poor infrastructure.  The bad news is that the Sunni and Kurd minorities are not full partners in Iraq's governance.  Iraq is a winner, just barely.

Iran.  The Islamic Republic of Iran has been ascendant since the overthrow of the Saddam regime.  Its remaining regional rivals, Saudi Arabia and Israel, are unwilling to officially cooperate to restrain potential Iranian hegemony.  A continued U.S. military presence in the Middle East deters Iran's overt ambitions.  This does not deter Iran from using asymmetric methods to influence the Syrian insurrection (Quds Force support to the Assad regime) or the Iraqi government (support to Shiite sect leaders).  Iran is probably the biggest winner of the war.

Saudi Arabia.  American assurances sustain the kingdom against external threats.  Oil revenue sustains it against internal unrest.  The House of Saud bribed its citizens to ignore the Arab Spring and the gamble paid off.  The Gulf Cooperation Council Peninsula Shield Force stopped Bahrain's unrest from spreading.  It's business as usual in Riyadh as if nothing changed in Baghdad.  Saudi Arabia is a big winner.

Kuwait.  The Saddam regime posed an existential threat to Kuwait as long as it existed.  Kuwait now has a much freer hand in dealing with its neighbors.  A large U.S. military presence in the Emirate ensures its security.  Kuwait is a big winner.

Israel.  The oldest democracy in the Middle East is no longer faced with the threat of land invasion or ballistic missile attack from Iraq.  The Palestinian insurgency is still a problem but it has one less Arab sponsor.  Israel is a big winner.

United States.  America's years in Iraq cost over 4400 combat-related casualties and have afflicted thousands more veterans with combinations of mild ailments and severe wounds.  The best estimates of the financial costs exceed US$2T including direct appropriations, interest on debt, supplementary expenses in related budget lines (State Department aid), and deferred costs of veterans' care.  The opportunity costs of careers unfulfilled and businesses interrupted by repeated mobilizations of the military reserve components are incalculable.  The U.S. gained no permanent military basing rights other than the right to continue a large advisory mission under the supervision of its embassy in Baghdad.   Concessions for U.S.-based energy producers were mostly limited to support services and a U.S.-Iraq trade framework has taken eight years to implement.  The U.S. strategic position as guarantor of the balance of power in the Middle East is unchanged; this came at an enormous cost in lives, prestige, material, and treasure.  The United States cannot lose as long as it remains engaged in the Middle East with all elements of its national power, but the price of truly winning is now higher than ever.

The Impossibility of a Two-State Israel-Palestine Solution

The Internet is full of well-intentioned ideas for peace in the Middle East, specifically a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Most of these ideas are garbage.  This conflict is as old as the earliest settlements in the Levant.  It will continue until one party is no longer able or willing to continue the conflict and the remaining party is a viable nation-state.  

The most promising chance for peace in the modern era was the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919.  The end of WWI allowed a window of opportunity for wise Arab leaders to acquiesce to a Jewish state in Palestine, in exchange for Jewish help in developing their economies.  The borders of the proposed Jewish homeland were contiguous with all of what are today called "occupied" Palestinian territories.  The entirety of this territory gives a single state strategic depth and is defensible.  The meddling of Great Powers's Sykes-Picot Agreement ruined what would have been a comprehensive peace.  Meddling continued with the UN Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947, with borders so ludicrous that no one in their right mind could accept them.  Palestine's borders are just as ludicrous today, with the Gaza Strip and West Bank obviously indefensible and impossible to sustain economically.  

Palestinians have never been fully accepted by other Arabs, who view them with disdain as interlopers with little legitimate claim to territory.  Their inability to assimilate into Israeli civilization is not Israel's fault; indeed, many Arabs have succeeded as Israeli citizens and have been elected to the Israeli Knesset.  Arab Israelis retain their Muslim religious affiliation and have served honorably in the Israeli military.  Their kinship with Palestinians has not prevented them assimilating into Israeli society.  They have found peace in their own way.  Many other Arabs and Israelis work for peace in their own ways, despite radical Muslims who reject Israel's right to exist.

The international narrative advocating some kind of two-state solution is a curiosity.  Its persistence attests to the deep pockets of its sponsors, specifically the petroleum-producing Arab states, and the ready audience among naive advocates in the NGO and diplomatic communities.  I would like a two-state advocate to explain who will defend the Golan Heights from a corps-strength Arab armored assault.  

I am not aware of any instance in recorded history where two different civilizations simultaneously occupied the same piece of real estate without one eventually driving out the other.  A humane solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would begin with recognition of Israel's de facto strategic supremacy in the contested territories.  This provides the policy basis for eventual acceptance of Israel's de jure sovereignty over all of Palestine.  Assimilation of Palestinians into Israeli society will not be easy but Israeli Arabs are a living model of success.  The alternative to assimilation is expulsion and resettlement, an eventuality that Transjordan (now the Kingdom of Jordan) was expected to accept.  Under international law, a conquering state can resettle unassimilated foreigners.  This was done peacefully after WWII in numerous instances.  Italy yielded some of its Trieste territory to Yugoslavia after WWII (finalized by the Treaty of Osimo) and many Italians in Istria were forced to migrate to Italy proper.  

The state of Israel and the Palestinian diaspora are two incompatible civilizations.  The untenable status quo puts a non-viable proto-state of Palestinians in the midst of a viable Israeli democracy.  This subjects the Palestinian people to the endless manipulation of outside powers, specifically radical Islamic governments and movements that view them as permanent dependents.  This is a tragedy for the Palestinian people that a two-state solution will perpetuate.  The stronger civilization at this moment in history is clearly Israel.  It is a democratic, multi-ethnic, technologically advanced society that has been a bulwark of American security interests in the Middle East for most of its modern history.  The United States would do well to align its interests with those of Israel, the ultimate guarantor of its own Arab citizens' security.  

Analysis of Joel Brinkley, "Israel And The Arab Spring"

I attended a lecture today at the Commonwealth Club of California by Joel Brinkley, Pulitzer Prize winner and experienced journalist.  His lecture "Israel And The Arab Spring" spent remarkably little time on the Arab Spring's causes and its effects on Israel.  Audience questions drove him to frame everything in terms of the stalled Middle East peace process, which showed the audience's pro-Palestinian bias and covered little new ground.

Mr. Brinkley's opening contention that Israel's foreign policy is the most self-destructive ever was a shocker, depending on your interpretation.  From the perspective of Bay Area idealists who wish Jews and Arabs could lock arms and sign "kumbayah" after forgetting 3000 or so years of tribal conflict, I suppose Israel's heavy-handed approach to cracking down on threats can appear self-destructive.  Mr. Brinkley argued that the Arab Spring's emphasis on nonviolent protest opens a window of opportunity for Israel to engage in dialogue with whomever in the Arab community is leading such protests.  If only life were so simple. 

The Arab Spring has little to do with the Anglo-West's projection of its own pluralistic and humanistic values onto Middle Easterners.  Underemployed Arab youths expressed their anger at largely secular regimes over high food prices and few job opportunities.  There will be precious little diplomatic opportunity for Israel to open dialogue with radical Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood should they come to power in Egypt.  Some in Israel's political establishment should know this already, as Hamas was created from the Muslim Brotherhood and has never wavered from its goal of destroying Israel.  Mr. Brinkley acknowledged Hamas' intransigence later in his lecture.  We could all use some deep background on the larger story of the Muslim Brotherhood's role in the Arab Spring.

Some of Mr. Brinkley's other observations point to further intractability in the Israeli vs. Palestinian conflict.  He noted that Palestinians evicted from their historic homes in Israel proper don't seem to want to return no matter they're offered.  Perhaps the victim mentality of living in occupied camps is so ingrained now that they can't imagine life outside of a ghetto.  He mentioned that Israel, for its part, won't surrender its fortifications on the Jordanian border to allow for a more secure Palestinian homeland.  This is actually pretty reasonable IMHO.  Israel has been repeatedly invaded by its Arab neighbors and its lack of strategic depth means it must position an early-warning tripwire as far forward as possible. 

The whole Israel/Palestine mess won't be resolved the way our tolerant Bay Area audience at the Commonwealth Club would like.  The ultimate solution is really rather simple and won't look anything like the results of a negotiation.  In all of human history, no two tribes or civilizations have ever been able to simultaneously occupy the same piece of real estate.  The stronger civilization always emerges victorious; it can absorb the weaker civilization demographically; it can forcibly relocate the weaker party; or it can pursue a strategy of annihilation a la Genghis Khan.  The stronger tribe at the moment is Israel, but that advantage may not last longer than another generation given the Palestinians' accelerating birthrate.  The water tables upon which both nations must subsist are declining.  That in itself will force a conflict over who gets to live where.  Mr. Brinkley dismissed the final audience question over demographics as no big deal; he may wish to revisit that stance in the years ahead.