Conservative commentators have a habit of bemoaning our "culture of entitlement." The reasons for this critique vary; some feel that this "culture of entitlement" results in dependence on the government, while others are opposed on more pragmatic grounds, like cost control and deficit reduction. Whatever their reason for opposing it, conservatives are opposed to the development of any social norm whereby individuals or groups of individuals come to see the provision of certain goods as an unqualified right.
Social norms are interesting creatures. We encounter social norms every day; indeed, they are the dos and don’ts of our daily life. Children are acculturated according to social norms. They can range from serious and fundamental societal commands ("thou shalt not kill") to comparatively inconsequential or even potentially problematic habits, such as the gendered expectation that men hold open doors for women as they enter a room.
At the root of any given social norm is a behavioral expectation. That is, a certain social context, environment or behavior calls for a certain response. When that response occurs, we feel at ease. Our expectations have been met. The extended hand results in a handshake, a deferential nod leads to a reciprocal response, or the exchange of money results in the transfer of a good. As the last example illustrates, these social norms are often codified into legal rules. A promise, supported by consideration, is accepted, and a contract results. The individual is bound by his promise, and should he fail to live up to it may face social as well as legal consequences.
Sometimes, however, the basis for a social norm is undermined by shifts in the surrounding environment. These shifts may be the result of an innocuous and unplanned development or a considered analysis of the norm and a rejection of it. Whatever the case may be, our expectations often will (and often must) change as a result of a new environment. In recent years, owing to changes in the economy and social interaction, the phrase "the new normal" has taken on a life of its own. The New Normal, while a catchy phrase, is simply a new word for describing a new norm, and new norms are an old hat.
For decades, a paradigm has dominated our discussion of Israel and our policies in the Middle East, pursuant to our "special relationship" with the Jewish state. The various attributes of this paradigm are familiar to most Americans and observers of American politics, if only partially and dimly. Israel and the US are "in a war against terror." Together we confront rogue and pariah states that threaten our joint security. And then, of course, there’s the moral case: Israel is an underdog, a Jewish David facing an Arab Goliath. It is a "democracy" that we must protect because it "shares our values." Alternatively, and indeed additionally, we must support Israel because of the history of Christian antisemitism in Europe culminating with the Holocaust, because Israel seeks peace while Arabs (always an undifferentiated monolith, and inclusive it would seem of Persians) reject peace for war. For some Christian Zionists, Israel is simply a means to an end: The Jewish state must be supported to facilitate the End Times.
One of these justifications is inevitably paraded out in response to any criticism of Israel’s actions, no matter how legitimate that criticism is, nor how cogently the source of that criticism makes her case. It does not matter, because for many Americans Israel can do no wrong and the interests of the US are always commensurable with Israeli interests. Or, if the Zionist in question is more reflective, they might admit that it is possible for those interests to diverge and for Israel to behave poorly, but the same social response is still expected for the aforementioned reasons or simply...because. Because, after all, we are accustomed to seeing the same response. Indeed, we are conditioned to expect the expected. Continuity and tradition become valued for the sake of maintaining a developed social and now political norm: The US will always support Israel.
That may be changing.
Four years ago, the publication of the Mearsheimer/Walt article "The Israel Lobby" generated a firestorm of debate. Most controversially, the authors argued that the "special relationship" between Israel and the United States was strategically and ethically flawed. In other words, the Israeli/American alliance was bad for the United States and increasingly bad for Israel:
Finally, the Lobby’s influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability to persuade Washington to support an expansionist agenda has discouraged Israel from seizing opportunities – including a peace treaty with Syria and a prompt and full implementation of the Oslo Accords – that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists. Denying the Palestinians their legitimate political rights certainly has not made Israel more secure, and the long campaign to kill or marginalise a generation of Palestinian leaders has empowered extremist groups like Hamas, and reduced the number of Palestinian leaders who would be willing to accept a fair settlement and able to make it work. Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and US policy more even-handed.
The recent flotilla massacre, along with the intervening events of the 2006 Lebanon war and more importantly the barbaric context of "Operation Cast Lead" have opened the doors of the debate. Nature, it would seem, abhors a vacuum:
The question now remains: What will the Obama administration do? To avoid being held directly accountable for Israel's assault because of the decades of direct U.S. military aid and its assurance of complete impunity for Israeli war crimes, the U.S. will have to begin, at least, by ending its endorsement of Israel's plan for an internal domestic "investigation" of its own violations. Instead, the U.S. will have to allow (if not actually support) the creation of a truly international, meaning UN-coordinated investigation of the massacre at sea. Longer term, a real change in U.S. policy will be required if the U.S. is to get out from under the rising level of international isolation, by ending its military aid to Israel (currently a ten-year $30 billion package), and allowing, if not actually supporting, efforts towards real accountability for Israeli military and political leaders.
So if those are the necessary first step for the Obama administration and other governments, what should civil society be doing? First, even as we mourn the dead, we should celebrate the courage and commitment of the Free Gaza Movement, the ships' passengers and crews - for showing the world that when governments and the UN fail to protect the human rights of vulnerable populations, and when they fail to hold violators of those rights accountable, then global civil society will step forward. What the Gaza Flotilla and the massacre of the Mavi Marmara have accomplished, so far, include not only reaching people around the world with unchallengeable new evidence of Israeli violations, but actually forcing policy changes in key governments.
To consolidate and broaden those gains, global civil society will have to continue to mobilize and strengthen our BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaigns that bring non-violent economic and other pressure to bear on Israel to end the occupation and end its apartheid policies, and we should note the important new BDS victories that have emerged in the wake of the Gaza Flotilla crisis. Those victories include the decision by the student body of Rachel Corrie's alma mater, Evergreen College in Olympia, Washington, to divest from companies that profit from the Israeli occupation, and to make their campus Caterpillar-free.
The Lobby has anticipated this response. In the wake of the Lebanon War, the Reut Institute discussed the foreseeable strategy, albeit with a crude propaganda hue:
The recent war in Lebanon has revealed the consolidation of a Resistance Network, in which various political state and non-state actors promote a radical agenda through strategic, cross-boundary collaboration against Israel.
The Resistance Network conducts itself against Israel according to a political logic that is based on a theory of "Implosion", whereby Israel will not be overthrown militarily, but rather will be pressured on a number of fronts that will ultimately lead to its internal implosion as a state. This logic promotes the establishment of one Palestinian / Arab / Islamist state in place of Israel.
The hysteria of this response was itself evident in the Israeli reaction to the flotilla massacre. On Friday Andrew Sullivan spoke of "Israel Derangement Syndrome" in response to the neoconservative reaction to the massacre. Mark Steel also weighed in with some humor:
It's time the Israeli government's PR team made the most of its talents, and became available for hire. Then whenever a nutcase marched into a shopping mall in somewhere like Wisconsin and gunned down a selection of passers-by, they could be on hand to tell the world's press "The gunman regrets the loss of life but did all he could to avoid violence." Then various governments would issue statements saying "All we know is a man went berserk with an AK 47, and next to him there's a pile of corpses, so until we know the facts we can't pass judgement on what took place."
To strengthen their case the Israelis have released a photo of the weapons they found on board, (which amount to some knives and tools and wooden sticks) that the naive might think you'd expect to find on any ship, but the more astute will recognise as exactly what you'd carry if you were planning to defeat the Israeli army. It's an armoury smaller than you'd find in the average toolshed in a garden in Cirencester, which goes to show the Israelis had better destroy Cirencester quickly as an essential act of self-defence.
The fact of the matter is that the weight of the Occupation is beginning to strangle Israel itself. More and more music artists are pulling out of scheduled events, and what remains of Israel’s Left is greeted with sizable counterprotests and smoke bombs. The Likud coalition government continues to crack down on dissent in the name of "state security", and the only viable opposition, Livni’s Kadima, sits in silent protest and, perversely, consent::
Let it be known in Jerusalem and Washington, Ramallah, Paris and London, where some people are still pinning hopes on the attractive woman with the white suits and pseudo-moderate rhetoric - Israel has no alternative ruling party. None. Stop counting on Livni, she is a flimsy crutch. Netanyahu is wearing a mask, the right wing is in disguise.
A dangerous, murky wave of nationalism and intolerance is washing over Israeli society. Some blame the Netanyahu-Lieberman government, but the truth is Kadima is no less to blame, no less responsible. It is not only silent, it is an active partner in the treachery. The only merchandise Livni has to offer - "the peace process" - is moldy and misleading. It's not peace, just a process.
Livni will have her photograph taken with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, will smile with chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia, and the world will leave us alone. The only fire burning in her belly is the desire to become prime minister. Why? Just because.
The disease of the Occupation is slowly but steadily unraveling the Jewish state. Do the American Zionists have what it takes to recognize the problem and save Israel from itself? Judging by the reaction of our own government, it is far from clear that they do. Yet there are signs that America’s think tank circuit is beginning to contemplate what would have been unthinkable a mere two years ago: Is Israel a political liability?
The list of recent moves by the Netanyahu government that potentially threaten American interests has grown steadily, many foreign policy experts argue. The violence that broke out when Israeli commandos stormed aboard a Gaza flotilla last week chilled American relations with a key Muslim ally, Turkey. The Gaza fight also makes it more difficult for America to rally a coalition that includes Arab and Muslim states against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mr. Netanyahu’s refusal to stop Jewish housing construction in Arab East Jerusalem also strains American ties with Arab allies. It also makes reaching an eventual peace deal, which many administration officials believe is critical to America’s broader interests in the Muslim world, even more difficult.
Both President Obama and Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have made the link in recent months between the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict and American security interests. During a press conference in April, Mr. Obama declared that conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up "costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure"; he drew an explicit tie between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
General Petraeus sounded a similar theme in Congressional testimony earlier this year, when he said that the lack of progress in the Middle East created a hostile environment for America. After a furor erupted, he said he wasn’t suggesting that soldiers were being put in harm’s way by American support for Israel, and he went to great lengths to point out the importance of America’s strategic partnership with Israel.
"But the status quo is unsustainable," he said in an interview Friday. "If you don’t achieve progress in a just and lasting Mideast peace, the extremists are given a stick to beat us with."
Yet if the status quo is unsustainable and is now a threat to our national interests, who will have the courage to confront Israel? Do the American Zionists have what it takes to save the Jewish state from itself? Will Americans sit back and allow Israel’s domestic lobby to pull us into one conflict after another?
At the end of the day, one thing may be said with some reasonable certainty: The status quo is unsustainable, and that is the new normal.