Pressure Points

As the Trump administration reaches the halfway point, what are we to make of Trump foreign policy? In the January issue of Foreign Affairs, I address that question in an article entitled "Trump Versus the Government." There I argue that the president "is finding the vast U.S. government to be both an instrument of and a frequent barrier to the implementation of policies that he desires." The article discusses Trump's foreign policy choices, resistance to them in the government and even among some Trump appointees, and the uncertainty that this phenomenon can create in the minds of foreign leaders. It critiques some aspects of Trump foreign policy, suggesting for example that the president "has still not grasped that enormous benefits come from having a moral foundation for U.S. foreign policy," and supports many other steps the president has taken: "real accomplishments—not just greater defense spending by NATO allies but also a new, renamed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and a better trade deal with South Korea—and to reasonable demands, including for fairer trade relations with China." The article also suggests that Trump's style requires excellent staff work to be successful and argues that staffing problems have still, at the halfway mark, not been solved. The full text can be found here.     

Israel announced this week the discovery of several tunnels dug by Hezbollah and reaching from Lebanon into Israel. Their existence has been confirmed, and has been condemned not only by Israel but as well by the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom.  The head of UNIFIL, the UN force along the Israel-Lebanon border, was taken to see one of the tunnels. Reuters reported as follows: U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon have confirmed the existence of a tunnel discovered by the Israeli military close to the blue line separating the two countries, it said in a statement on Thursday. The U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is “engaged with the parties to pursue urgent follow-up action” and “will communicate its preliminary findings to the appropriate authorities in Lebanon”, it added. Haaretz noted that "UNIFIL's Head of Mission Stefano Del Col confirmed that he visited along with a technical team the spot where the IDF discovered the second tunnel close to the Blue Line." These tunnels are quite obviously a violation of Israeli sovereignty, and a violation of the governing UN Security Council resolutions, 1559 and 1701. Those resolutions demand that the Lebanese government exercise sovereignty in all of Lebanon. Resolution 1701 "calls upon the Government of Lebanon and UNIFIL…to deploy their forces together throughout the South...." of Lebanon.  Resolution 2373, adopted in August 2017, extended the UNIFIL mandate. It added that the Security Council recalls its authorization to UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind…. The existence of these tunnels, dug from precisely the area of southern Lebanon that UNIFIL is meant to patrol, means that this area is indeed "utilized for hostile activities." What then is the meaning of the UNIFIL response stating that “will communicate its preliminary findings to the appropriate authorities in Lebanon”? The meaning is that UNIFIL will likely do nothing. UNIFIL is not supposed to be merely a means of communication, or the Security Council would have bought cell phones instead of paying for a military force. Moreover, there are no "appropriate authorities" in Lebanon or Hezbollah would never have been able to dig its tunnels. The tunnels are hardly the only brazen Hezbollah violation of the Security Council resolutions undertaken right under UNIFIL's nose. Consider this: Hezbollah is blocking roads in southern Lebanon to smooth the path of missile it is moving into the area, according to a report in the newspaper Israel Hayom. Then there is the village of Gila, just north of the Israeli border, where there is a Hezbollah headquarters and according to the Israelis about 20 warehouses with weapons, combat positions, lookout positions, dozens of underground positions. All this was built in an area supposedly patrolled by UNIFIL.  What is to be done? As I wrote in a previous post about UNIFIL and its new commander,  Del Col should test the limits. That will make Hezbollah angry, but if Hezbollah isn’t vexed by UNIFIL's presence then we are all wasting a lot of money--$500 million a year is the UNIFIL budget—and effort supporting that organization and making believe that it is enforcing resolution 1701.  This is a test of UNIFIL and its new commander. "Communicating" to "appropriate authorities" is a euphemism for doing nothing at all. Hezbollah is preparing for war. UNIFIL is supposed to get in its way. If it cannot hinder Hezbollah's war preparations in any way and is even ignorant of them, UNIFIL is a waste of time and money. 

Everyone knows that American Jews are becoming increasingly distant from and disenchanted with the State of Israel. Articles and books expound on this subject regularly. And everyone knows why: Israel's right-wing government and its policy of expanding settlements, and Israel's maltreatment of non-Orthodox strains of Judaism are repeatedly mentioned as the key explanations. But it seems that what everyone knows is simply wrong--and oddly enough we learn this from none other than the left-wing Jewish group called J Street. J Street has for several elections cycles done a post-election survey of American Jews, and this year's is found here. The poll found that Jews called themselves Democrats rather than Republicans by a 76-19 percent ratio, which is close to what many other polls have found. What did respondents say about Israel? The survey asked "Compared to 5-10 years ago, do you feel more positive, more negative, or about the same toward Israel?" The result: 55 percent said about the same, 26 percent said more positive, and 19 percent said more negative. Respondents were asked "Does the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank make you feel positive about Israel, negative about Israel, or have no impact on how you feel about Israel?" The result: 48 percent said not had no impact at all, 32 percent said a negative impact, and 19 percent said expansion of settlements had a positive impact on them. Perhaps most strikingly, respondents were asked "How much have you heard about Israeli policy towards the non-Orthodox population, such as who can pray at the Western Wall, who can perform marriage ceremonies, who can grant divorces, and who can convert to Judaism?" This has been a source of constant controversy, especially with the largest denomination among American Jews, the Reform movement. Only 14 percent of respondents had heard "a great deal" about all of this, and another 21 percent said they had heard "a good amount" (whatever that actually means). But 32 percent said they had heard only "a little" about it and a remarkable 34 percent had heard nothing at all. J Street's poll adds those numbers up and notes in bold print that 35 percent say they have heard a good or great deal about the great controversy, while 65 percent have heard little or just plain nothing. Those numbers cannot have made J Street's publicists very happy, nor can they cheer the propagandists who are constantly telling us that such Israeli actions (or more narrowly, Netanyahu policies) are simply ruining relations between the American Jewish community and Israel. But relations are not ruined and more people said they felt more positive about Israel now than said the opposite--with most saying their views had not changed. And the impact of the great brouhaha about treatment of non-orthodox Judaism turns out to be exaggerated. Of the 35 percent who have heard a lot about the matter, half say it makes them feel more negative toward Israel; the other half are divided between 22 percent who say it makes them feel more positive and 28 percent who say it doesn't matter. Do the math: while the treatment of non-Orthodox angers some American Jews,  the great majority don't know and/or don't care.  That doesn't make any particular set of views right or wrong, but the J Street survey suggests that there is no great crisis in relations between the American Jewish community and Israel. Israel does have to worry about related matters: for example, views among those most active in community affairs, views among younger generations of American Jews, and views in the largest U.S. denomination, Reform. But the results of the survey suggest that the relationship between Israel and American Jews is stronger than prophets of doom constantly suggest.