Professor Avi Shlaim is an Israeli-born academic. He is a lecturer of International Relations at Oxford University and has written the book The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World.
He shared his thoughts with me on 30 May 2013.
The occupation is illegal.
All Israeli settlements that are built on occupied land – without a single exception – are illegal and so is the annexation of Jerusalem; Palestinians are engaged in a struggle for national liberation, and it’s probably the last anti-colonial struggle of the post-war world. Israel is an ethnocentric state in a cosmopolitan world society, a reactionary status quo power opposing change. This is perpetuated through American support for Israel. In America, Israel is not foreign policy issue, it’s a domestic policy issue. Because of the power of the Israel lobby in America, Israel has tremendous influence over the broad spectrum of America’s policy towards the Middle East: because of America’s one-sidedness and partiality towards Israel, and because America has a veto at the UN Security Council, the international community has not been able to discipline or to sanction Israel. That’s how Israel gets away with its latter-day colonialism.
Since 1978, America has used the veto on the Security Council 42 times on behalf of Israel. Here is one extreme example of how Israel de facto wields the veto at the Security Council. In September 2011 there was a draft resolution before the Security Council condemning Israel’s settlement expansion on the West Bank: not condemning the existing settlements, only settlement expansion, and asking Israel to stop it. Fourteen members of the Security Council voted in favour and America defeated the resolution by exercising the veto. Now, since 1967, the American official position on the settlements is that they are illegal and an obstacle to peace, and yet they voted against this resolution. America used the veto to defeat its own policy.
During the Cold War, Israel was commonly described as a strategic asset for America; I never accepted this description. I always thought that Israel was a liability for America, but since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, it’s become pretty clear that Israel is no longer an asset for America: you cannot rationally argue that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank serves America’s interests: it doesn’t. Even General Petraeus, when he was head of Central Command, told Senate that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is a major source of hostility toward America worldwide, adding that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank puts lives of American soldiers in Iraq and in Afghanistan in jeopardy. This is not me saying this, it’s a senior American general who says that Israel is a strategic liability for America. In broader, political terms, because of its blind support for Israel – including the occupation of the West Bank – America alienates the Arab world and antagonises the Muslim world. So I totally reject the notion that Israel is a strategic asset for America: it’s a liability and an embarrassment.
Israel is an aggressive and belligerent country that resorts to force too readily, and is therefore a destabilising force in the entire region. In my book, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World – which I am now updating for a new edition – I put forth a very simple theme: ever since its creation, Israel has been very ready to resort to military force and remarkably reluctant to engage in meaningful diplomacy to resolve its conflict with the Palestinians. So, my summary of Israeli foreign policy since the beginning is: too much brute military force and too little diplomacy. That also goes for Israel’s position in relation to Iran: ever since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, Israel has been engaged in demonizing Iran and spreading misinforation about Iran and exaggerating the extent and scope of the Iranian nuclear program. Netanyahu’s real objective was to induce America to launch a military strike against Iran. Fortunately he has not succeeded in unleashing America against Iran, but he continued to beat the war drums, and to threaten an Israeli military strike against Iran. However, all the intelligence and security chiefs are opposed to such an action: it would be far too risky and it could have disastrous consequences for the entire region and for America as well. So, despite his best efforts, Netanyahu has failed to provoke America to take military action against Iran and he doesn’t have the support of anyone, any of the leaders of the defence establishment in Israel for taking military action. He has been stymied, luckily.