Stephen Wertheim repeats a common sentiment today: the United States has forfeited world opinion by supporting Israel in its war against Hamas. His evidence is a UN vote a couple of weeks ago calling for a "humanitarian truce":
Washington is hemorrhaging influence around the world.... Displeasure is not confined to Arab states. In the U.N. General Assembly, 120 countries supported a resolution calling for a humanitarian truce. Just 12 countries joined the United States and Israel in voting no.
This is not precisely untrue, but it's woefully misleading. Among major allies, only three joined the US in voting against the resolution. However, there were 45 abstentions, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, South Korea, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Ukraine, and Great Britain. That's completely normal.
What's more, the UN General Assembly has long been massively pro-Palestinian. A 1979 resolution demanding Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories got 102 votes (67%). A 1988 resolution expressing sympathy for the first intifada received 130 votes (82%). A 2004 resolution calling again on Israel to withdraw from occupied territories drew 140 votes (73%). A 2012 resolution making Palestine a non-voting member garnered 138 votes (72%). A 2017 resolution opposing US policy on Jerusalem got 128 votes (66%).
By comparison, 120 votes (62%) is practically a show of support. At the very least, it demonstrates nothing except that everyone voted the same way they always vote.
I wish there were some plausible way forward on all this, but if there is I don't what it might be. Since 2000, when Palestinians rejected the two-state solution offered to them at Camp David, progress toward a Palestinian state has been zero. Not that there was much before then either. The UN partition initially set aside land for a Palestinian state, but Arabs lost much of it in their 1948 war, and the remainder was seized by Jordan (the West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza). Despite rhetoric to the contrary, nobody in the Arab world took Palestinian independence seriously after that—and following the 1967 war it became little more than a political weapon against Israel. Today it's an impossible dream because Israeli settlements have chopped up the West Bank and East Jerusalem so thoroughly that it's all but impossible to stitch them together into a state.
If, even after taking Israeli occupation into account, you believe Hamas is a ruthless, reactionary terrorist organization that Israel has the right to uproot—especially after the savage attacks of October 7—the only question left is how they're allowed to do it. Diplomacy only? That's unlikely to get anywhere. War? If so, it's going to be a brutal urban war because that's where Hamas is. Something else? What?
I don't know. I don't think anyone else does either.
The chaos is the evidence. As the hegemon weakens and can no longer do its hegemony thing, other actors especially those who have become stronger try out their ability to influence things to their benefit.
From the dictatorships in Africa to Russia, to China it's all because they have close the gap in power. Bush obviously accelerated the fall of the US Empire, but even with proper Democratic stewardship it would maybe have lasted 10 more years.
The neo liberal idea that making our enemies prosperous would lead to a peaceful was the biggest political disaster of the post coldwar era.
I was born shortly before Dewey defeated Truman (oh, wait…) and somehow I don’t remember this period of absolute American hegemony, when our power was so overwhelming that North Korea dared not invade the South; when Ho Chi Minh decided he couldn’t risk sending troops or weapons to aid the Viet Cong, whom we quickly dispatched; when Cuba sought close ties with its powerful near neighbor, and liberalized its economy instead of aligning with the socialist world.
If anything, the US is stronger today relative to the other would-be superpowers; we are overtly supporting Ukraine in a hot war against Russia; we had to watch the USSR crush East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968. And we have the support of almost the entire OECD for Ukraine.
But the world has always been multipolar; there were always limits to the control exercised by the Persians or Mongols or Romans or Ottomans or British.
You got a few years on me, but one related memory that stands out to me is the hand wringing about America's flailing economic strength, especially vis-a-vis Japan, in the 1970s. Our large firms were supposedly clumsy, increasingly problem-riddled dinosaurs compared to the likes of Sony or Toyota. Japan was going to leave us in the dust just as soon as they finished buying every last US trophy property.
America is now richer than any large economy. We're like Switzerland, but only with a third of a billion souls. US per capita GDP has surged to something like 40% above other major economies like Japan, Britain and France (yes, even adjusted for PPP). The country's tech behemoths are so utterly dominant, it would appear the Europeans are increasingly turning to thinly veiled protectionist policies to keep them at bay. The dollar remains more fundamental to global commerce than ever. And so on.
America's relative geopolitical position is perfectly fine. Most kvetching to the contrary comes from neocons who can't stomach the thought of not playing world policeman—or large holders of defense stocks.
"The dollar remains more fundamental to global commerce than ever." That's completely false.
1989-2009 bingus
That's what all the "world is better than ever" fools always point to.
The neo liberal idea that making our enemies prosperous would lead to a peaceful was the biggest political disaster of the post coldwar era.
The general idea that it's better to trade with adversaries than fight with them still seems pretty sound to me.
And the evidence suggests prosperous nations generally don't go to war. We're fighting a proxy war with Russia, for example. But is Russia prosperous? Not really. How about Iran? Not by any stretch. North Korea? Ditto. Venezuela? A basket case. Gaza? And so on.
The big "enemy" is China, of course. And yet, for all the tension between China and the West, we're not actually at war with them, are we? So maybe, just maybe, prosperity had indeed made China a more peaceful place. They have a lot more to lose from war, after all, than the last time they invaded another country (1979). Indeed, much of the analysis suggests China's growing economic problems make a Taiwan invasion more likely, not less: decreasing prosperity in that authoritarian state hardly seems an unambiguous good for the West.
Also, your statement betrays a common but nonetheless utterly wrongheaded fallacy: the idea that there's a limited supply of "prosperity" controlled by the United States or other Western countries, and we in the West get to decide whether to dole it out or not. But this is a hugely mistaken view. By far the most important determinants of whether or not a country is able to do a good job growing its economy are domestic policies and related factors like demographics. Does the country in question generate savings? Is hard work rewarded? Risk taking? Do it educate its women and girls? Does it provide sufficient public safety? Are its public finances in decent shape? What about its monetary policy? Infrastructure? Public health?
And so on.
Not if you hollow out your own power to strengthen theirs. You may say things arent zero-sum but in reality things are a lot closer to it than anything else. Millions of Americans were crushed so hundreds of millions of Chinese could rise. Economic growth has little relation to political reform thats the era.
Prosperous compared to where they started. They have more money to make more trouble and we have less to stop it. And your analysis is incomplete. It makes Taiwan more likely because Xi the Pooh does not think he can achieve it economically. Strengthening China's economy would make a non-violent conquest of Taiwan easier.
"You may say things arent zero-sum but in reality things are a lot closer to it than anything else." that's completely delusional. All one has to look at is the Marshall plan and post WW2 history to see that claim is utter rubbish.
"They have a lot more to lose from war, after all, than the last time they invaded another country (1979). " Don't recall the US being adverse to china's invasion of Vietnam in 1979.
The problem with what you call the neo liberal idea was not in thinking that if we made our enemies prosperous it would lead to peace. That worked wonderfully, look at Japan and Germany. The problem was that after USSR fell we made the mistake of thinking that forcing laissez-faire policies on our enemies would make them prosperous. That was the nonsense part.
Japan and Germany were ideologically altered. Economy doesn't lead to democracy. Without political reforms all economic development does is strengthen the autocracies.
Amen, bro! And that idea is one that Israel is sworn to never, ever repeat! Their enemies (the indigeneous peoples) must always be met with overwhelming, "disproportionate" force! Even when they don't act up! Bomb! Raid! Destroy property! In between actual "wars", arrest and detain ... indefinitely! And steal or destroy all their stuff!
This is why Israel has always been a beacon of peace and serenity, a stabilizing force in the Middle East.
Israelis ARE the indigenous people of the region that is now Israel. They have been a coherent ethnic group since about 700 BCE. They were subsequently "colonized" by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, various Arab tribes, and the Ottoman Turks. Did I leave anyone out?
"Israelis ARE the indigenous people of the region that is now Israel." You are as bigoted and morally indistinguishable from a supporter/believer of the protocols of the elders of Zion.
I think if we sent in enough cats so that all parties could hug one the problem would go away?
Not if they are Persian Cats.
Hmm. Good point. Maine Coon cats?
Maine coons are the best cats I’ve ever had. … And one Bombay (an all black Siamese - chatty and a master hunter).
I think that works. I suggest sending full grown lions and tigers to Hamas. Cats, right?
The UN resolution is zero evidence of US influence.
1. As if the US can actually tell Netanyahu what to do.
2. Just reading the Wikipedia entry on negotiations over the conflict the Palestinians ought to send the US a big holiday present every year. No other country has done anything for them at all. Repeat 1, I don't know why any informed person thinks the US controls Israel. The French gave them nuclear weapons.
3. Things keep this war going: (1) no other Arab country actually is willing to even accept any Palestinians, (2) in the long history, no Palestinian negotiator has ever been able to deliver peace, (3) as for Israel, see (2), without peace, the pressure needed to be put on Israel to "agree" to anything is enormous, (4) Palestinians are not about to agree to peace first, negotiate next, (5) the settlements aren't helping, but what really is not helping is the constant state of war for 70 years means both sides are unwilling to accept anything other than total sovreignity over land.
Google "longest human conflicts" if you really want to get depressed about human nature. The number of conflicts that run for hundreds of years is absolutely stunning.
Nice recap. Exceptionally depressing, but nice. As noted above, we need more cats.
"no other Arab country actually is willing to even accept any Palestinians," 1) That would actually be participating in genocide. and 2) most arab nations already have massive numbers of Palestinian refugees already in their countries. " in the long history, no Palestinian negotiator has ever been able to deliver peace," No one ever offered them a deal that didn;t guarantee perpetual poverty The clinton peace deal was a complete shit sandwich.
To reiterate, there are only three ways out:
1. There is war until Palestine is eliminated.
2. There is war until Israel is eliminated.
3. There are 2 states.
Point to me a sizable portion of any group of any side that thinks the best outcome is to go back to the status quo. I strongly believe 10/7 was a turning point of the rejection of the status quo.
For now that pre-10/7 status quo has been rejected in favor of pursuit of options 1 and 2. But, with time, I think it will return because none of the other options are even really possible. Are they?
You have the same attitude that almost everyone had about the seemingly endless conflict in Northern Ireland. I am from a large Irish Catholic family so I paid attention to that apparently hopeless situation. I accepted that judgment since people more knowledgeable than I am were constantly declaring there was no solution except the status quo with its ongoing hatred and violence from both sides. The conventional wisdom was wrong.
The list of reasons why this analogy is bad is so long, I'll just highlight a few:
• in Ireland, it's Christian vs Christian; in Gaza, it's Jewish vs Muslim;
• in Ireland, both sides speak English; in Gaza, it's Arabic vs Hebrew;
• in Ireland, Catholics and Protestants are indigenous; in Palestine, the Jews were immigrants in what was formerly Muslim-majority real estate.
Your comparison is completely ahistorical.
Sorry to have to clear this up, but Jews are the indigenous people of the area now known as Israel. They were there around 2700 years ago.
OMG you are so wrong, very wrong about Ireland. No the Protestants are NOT indigenous!!!! They were encouraged to steal Irish land in the reign of Charles II of England. While the Irish speak English that is only because the English very nearly wiped out the Gaelic language.
In the Middle east both sides have historical claims to the same land. Like Ireland they need to get to the point that they are too exhausted to fight anymore.
Netanyahoo is committed to 1.
The U.S. has been on a fast downward slide for 20 years. We had a ton of worldwide sympathy after 9/11 but blew all that capital when we - and the "coalition forces" - bombed the crap out of Afghanistan. Then we bombed the crap out of Iraq just for the hell of it. Not only did all this cause the death of about a million people (according to the Costs of War project) but we blew through about 8 Trillion Dollars of public money. Is the rest of the world impressed?
We didn't bomb the crap out of Afghanistan prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Get a grip.
The first air strikes against Afghanistan were on 7 Oct 2002
The first air strikes against Iraq were on 19 March 2003
"If, even after taking Israeli occupation into account, you believe Hamas is a ruthless, reactionary terrorist organization that Israel has the right to uproot—especially after the savage attacks of October 7—the only question left is how they're allowed to do it. ..."
If as has been alleged Israel helped Hamas to power (in order to divide the Palestinians) then they would appear to have a moral obligation to minimize (even at the expense of Israeli lives) collateral damage.
Well, it sure looks like the Israeli's are acting as if that moral obligation does not exist.
The "might makes right" philosophy has no room for moral obligation.
The "might makes right" philosophy is limited only by the maxim to "not get one's own ass shot off". And sometimes not even then.
"Well, it sure looks like the Israeli's are acting as if that moral obligation does not exist."
That's up to them. Whether we support them is up to us.
Any even halfway objective view of the situation is that the Biden White House has supported them, is supporting them, and will likely continue to support them.
This topic is always left off the table. Which is unfortunate, as it illustrates that the Israeli govt never had any desire for Palestinians to have a singular government and no role in a single secular Israel state. The bedrock of their negotiations is the removal of all Palestinians from land they control. The current Likud govt just makes this more obvious.
Not sure that the criterion of America’s “standing in the world” is exclusively whether other countries vote with the US at the UN, as this post assumes.
Exactly. And when governments are scared of being accused of antisemitism for the slightest disagreement with Netanyahu, even more so.
Drum is right about the UN. The US often only gets support from Israel and some US protectorates. But again he slips in a bit of pro-Israel nonsense, in this case the idea that the Palestinians were offered a state at Camp David. They were offered the administration of East Jerusalem, which is what made the US optimistic. But the actual offer left Israel in control of all movement of goods and people in and out of "Palestine" (that is what we have now in Gaza which is not peace) and additionally would have left Israel in control of roads chopping up the West Bank (and back then a few still in Gaza) connecting scattered settlements with Israel. Barak actually bragged about his plan that it would only completely bisect Israel in one place. Otherwise if Palestinians were willing to go long distances out of their way they could avoid Israeli checkpoints.
The point is that if it was anyone but Israel and the Palestinians nobody would count that as a two state peace proposal. And if Jews were to live under the constraints that Palestinians would under this "peace proposal" and someone were to call that peace we would think that person was likely an anti-Semite.
Part of what confuses this is that the Clinton Administration, which was made up of advisors who really wanted peace, decided with no real evidence that if the Palestinians were to offer peace the Israelis would accept it. You can see how the Clinton administration saw this playing out with the Clinton Parameters, which were meant to lock in the offer on Jerusalem and grant Israel want it wanted, an end to the right of return, and put aside the settlement question for later. Built into this was the naive idea that despite the fact that Israel had used the time since the Oslo agreement to make its settlements more permanent, that when they got everything the US thought was fair they would simply volunteer to give up those settlements in return for nothing (having already gotten everything in the Clinton Parameters).
When the Palestinians did not make the peace offer (that Israel did not make either) this somehow retroactively got turned into the idea that Barak had actually offered peace. And since most Americans don't really care much about Palestinians, this revisionism has caught on. But if you actually look at the Barak offer as a peace offer it is pathetic and an embarrassment to Israel.
Thank you for this more detailed history.
It's not up to me to decide how the palestinians and israelis resolve their differences. Mutual destruction is OK with me.
Keep your fallout shelter well-stocked. And all those leftover N95s the government sent you? They're not adequate protection from the worldwide fallout.
You do have to wonder what Israel's endgame is.
Right now they have millions of Palestinians locked up in Gaza and millions more living in the West Bank where their land is slowly taken away by "settlers" and they are treated as, well you can't say second class citizens since they aren't even citizens. They are treated terribly and denied many basic rights.
I mean that can't expel them. No one would take them. They won't give them a state. They won't give them full citizenship. So what's the long term plan? And how much longer can the status quo last?
All the bombings of shelters, schools, hospitals, apartment buildings etc strongly suggest ... genocide. "Ethnic cleansing" at the very least. "From the river to the sea" was the Likud Party slogan.
Israel could arrange for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians, etc. eliminate or neutralize Hamas in return for Israel agreeing to the implementation of a state solution. But Israel run by Bibi or another right-winger won't do this.
I don't think Egypt really wants the Palestinians to have their own country. What would it look like? It would inevitably have more border with them than with Israel and I'd bet that's the last thing they want.
The present israel would never agree to a tru two state solution. Not sure tht nay israel post Camp David would ever agree to a true two state solution. Nor could Egypt or Saudi Arabia make any more meaningful contribution to the elimination of Hama than the PLO. There are only two ways of getting rid of Hams, genocide or giving the Palestinians their own viable state.