Israel as a wedge issue and other notes on the Republican debate

1.

It has been a while – almost ten years – since I wrote an article for Slate that argued as follows:

Here's one lesson Americans can definitely draw from the Israeli experience of building a fence to separate them from the Palestinians: High fences don't always make good neighbors. It didn't happen in the West Bank, and it probably won't happen in Texas. The country that builds the fence buys a sense of security, but the people prevented from getting to work, or shopping, or marrying someone on the other side will not be thankful for it. And the reason is pretty obvious: Fences work.

It was last night when I heard Republican candidate Donald Trump use the same argument – and not for the first time, this had become somewhat of a theme – in the GOP Presidential debate:

We need borders. We will have a wall. The wall will be built. The wall will be successful. And if you think walls don't work, all you have to do is ask Israel. The wall works, believe me. Properly done. Believe me.

Should Israel be satisfied with such a message? On the one hand, it is good to be able to share one’s wisdom and experience with one’s ally. On the other hand, right when the Prime Minister of Israel is in Washington, trying to charm the Democratic politicians and voters that became annoyed with Israel during the debate over the agreement on Iran – maybe inserting Israel in such a way into a highly partisan American debate about immigration is not healthy for bipartisan support.

2.

It was impossible not to think about the Netanyahu visit as I was watching the debate. Is this the right time to say – as Senator Marco Rubio said – that “we have a president that treats the prime minister of Israel with less respect than what he gives the ayatollah in Iran?”

To some degree, and until further notice, the Netanyahu visit stole the thunder from Israel as a wedge issue for the 2016 campaign.

3.

Governor Kasich said in the debate that he wants to give the audience “a little trip around the world.” And so he did: he knows what to do in the Ukraine, in Syria, with the clerics in Saudi Arabia, with Egypt. He knows what to do with Israel: less public criticism. That is good advice. The decision by President Obama to put visible “daylight” between the US and Israel early on in his first term as President contributed a lot to raising suspicions in Israel and making it less cooperative with Obama's initiatives.

The Obama administration, in recent days, has been using the Netanyahu visit to essentially declare the end of its ambitious involvement in Israeli-Palestinian peace processing. It is a timely and wise decision: Obama can do little in the time he still has in office to promote an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, and, in fact, lowering expectations is probably one of the best contributions he could still make at this point in time. It would be wise for his successor – a Republican or a Democrat – to learn from Obama's interesting experience trying to get to peace without first gaining the confidence of the Israeli government and public.

Of course, the President's peace initiative failed for many reasons, chief among which is the very wide gaps between the parties to the conflict. But it is safe to say that the “daylight” strategy contributed to the failure. It had its logic, it had its appeal, it had many advocates – but it failed to take into account that peace cannot be made by Americans. It can only be made by Israelis and Palestinians, who both need to feel secure in taking momentous decisions about their future. Israel – if it is publically criticized by its one great ally – does not feel secure. When it does not feel secure, it is less likely to risk momentous decisions.

4.

The deal with Iran did not receive much praise from the Republican candidates. “One of the worst deals ever made,” said Trump. Iran is “on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon,” said Senator Cruz. And yet, it is worth paying attention to the fact that the candidates were not as adamant as in previous debates about the desirable next move in Iran. They did not say that the deal with Iran should be canceled, as some have in the past. They did not advocate any specific measures. Some of it is probably because there was no real pressure from the moderator to do such a thing. A part of it is just random – I assume that Cruz, had he been asked, would probably still promise to cancel the agreement. However, the lack of specifics can also suggest that as the race moves forward the candidates begin the long and painful process of having to adjust to certain realities with which they'd have to deal if and when they become president.

One such reality is political: the American public would not necessarily see a cancelation of the agreement positively. Another such reality is geopolitical: a country like the US doesn't just cancel agreements with no apparent reason. That is to say: for the next President to change course on Iran, the Iranians – with words and/or deeds – will be the ones providing the rationale.     

5.

Ben Carson, like many of the other candidates, talked about Russia, Putin, and their new adventures in the Middle East. “We have to recognize is that Putin is trying to really spread his influence throughout the Middle East,” he said. “And we have to oppose him there in an effective way.” Trump does not to oppose him: “if Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, 100%, and I can't understand how anybody would be against it,” he said.

A Presidential debate is not the time for serious discussion about foreign policy and its nuances, and Russia's involvement in Syria is surely too serious to be covered effectively with a soundbite. For Netanyahu, this was a main topic on the agenda for his discussion with the President. The Prime Minister – as Dennis Ross framed it three days ago – needed to know “whether Israel can count on America to back it.”

A Russian involvement in Syria threatens to impose new limitations on Israel's ability to operate in the area – obviously, Israel is not in the business of picking a fight with the Russian military. The traditional arrangement between Israel and the US was always quite simple under such circumstances: Israel takes care of its security when it comes to dealing with its neighbors, the US makes sure to prevent the intervention of other world powers (namely, the Soviet Union) against Israel.

Can Israel still feel confident that the US will be there to keep Russian involvement under check? Something for the candidates – Clinton and Rubio, Sanders and Trump – to consider and talk about.