Providing a uniquely un-ideological point of view, Political Science professor Malik Mufti gave a lecture on US foreign policy toward Israel, last Wednesday.
The lecture, which was given at Hillel and attended by about 50 people, focused on US interests in Israel. "My take [on the situation] privileges cold hard calculations of national interest over ideological or moral considerations," Mufti said.
Hillel President senior Josh Pressman felt the lecture was timely, since foreign policy toward Israel is "not covered enough [in the media] because the focus is on Iraq."
Mufti believes that the ongoing conflict is bad for American interests. America is invested in Israel because America wants a democracy in the region, which "could promote the forces of modernization," he said.
Mufti stressed that the US does not care about ownership -- "who gets what town"-- or "fairness, as such." The continued conflict, he believes, is harming the American case in Iraq -- "[the conflict] is costing the US in a very real way." According to him, the easiest way to combat anti-American sentiment in the Arab world is to ensure a Palestinian state.
Mufti first came to believe that there might be a solution to the conflict while serving in the Jordanian Army during the Lebanon War. Noticing that most of the demonstrations against Israeli atrocities were taking place in Israel, he saw "room for dialogue."
Mufti emphasized that the conflict is "not some sort of intrinsic, built-in, atavistic hostility."
"[Each side is] not driven to annihilate the other ... they might be happy if that happened, but it's not their practical objective," he said.
In the end, according to Mufti, the conflict is about land. He criticized those who attempt to characterize the struggle as having "good and bad side." Specifically, Mufti condemned journalist David Brooks, who contends that the conflict is not a question of land or borders, but a struggle between Israeli liberalism and Palestinian illiberal nationalism.
"It's true that Israel is liberal, but that's not why they're fighting," Mufti said. "It is about land -- with a deep religious, cultural, and historical value to each side."
Mufti feels that the conflict is "eating away at decent feelings" on both sides. "[The Israeli government] is quasi-Fascist in some elements now - the struggle over land is corrosive of liberal values," he said.
Mufti theorized that the conflict continues because "both sides believe there is more to gain by the continued application of force." He said that both the Israeli and Palestinian campaigns are characterized by a desire to make the other side feel that "it's not worth it." According to him the ultimate question will be, "who finally will be able to stomach it more? ... I'd put money on the Palestinians," he said.
There is an "almost perfect set of factors to keep the conflict going," in Mufti's opinion, although the situation is "not so terrible that it cannot get a lot worse." He said that the violence could escalate considerably before either Ariel Sharon or Yasser Arafat decided that the struggle was not worth it.
Mufti stressed that a majority of Israelis and Palestinians say they would accept the same borders. One audience member pointed out that a majority of Palestinians support suicide bombing, and asked whether this fact was incongruous with the fact that a majority of Palestinians would accept borders that are acceptable to most Israelis. Mufti believed that these facts are not incongruous.
"[Palestinians] lived for 25 years under a humiliating occupation without violence ... now moral people blow themselves up to kill Israelis ... only when the suicide bombings started did Israel consider a retreat from the West Bank," he said.
In Mufti's opinion the only feasible solution to the conflict is an American intervention to enforce the borders that were agreed upon -- and then abandoned -- at the Camp David talks.
Some students questioned whether US intervention would lead to more anti-Americanism by Arabs. Mufti did not think so. "Palestinians know that US restraint on Israel is the only reason Israel is not more aggressive," he said.
Junior Alexis Gerber, asked Mufti whether the US has a right to make such an intervention. Mufti explained that it is in the US's best interest to enforce a settlement. "I just don't see it in terms of rights," he said.
Another student asked whether the United Nations would be a better choice for enforcing a settlement. "No. They can help, but why would Israel trust the UN?," Mufti said. "It must be the US because Israel would trust them."
Students found the lecture informative. "It was wonderful ... I was very glad to finally have the opportunity to hear Mufti speak," Gerber said. "It was a balanced account, compared with the rhetoric people usually use."
More from The Tufts Daily
