Ian Lusticks iron dice

martinkramer.org /sandbox/2013/09/ian-lusticks-iron-dice/

Martin Kramer on the Middle East

This post first appeared on the Commentary blog on September 24. As both Jonathan Tobin and Jonathan Marks have previously written here [at Commentary ], University of Pennsylvania political scientist Ian Lustick, author of a recent op- ed promoting the one- state solution and featured prominently in the New York Times , isnt an outlier. To the contrary, American academe is full of Lusticks: 60- something Jewish radicals who went through some transient phase of simplistic far- left Zionism before discovering that the real Israel is complex. Disillusioned, they rode their leftism to minor eminence as repentants in departments and centers of Middle Eastern studies, where Jewish critics of Israel provide ideal cover for the real haters. Such Jews used to be devotees of a Palestinian state, but now theyre scrambling to keep up with the freakish fad of a one- state solution set off by the late Edward Saids own famous conversion (announced, of course, on the pages of the New York Times , in 1999). Because Lusticks piece ran in the Times , it was a big deal for some American Jews who still see that newspaper as a gatekeeper of ideas. In Israel, its passed virtually unnoticed. Whatever the articles intrinsic interest, its particularly fascinating as a case study in intellectual self- contradiction. For Lustick has reversed his supposedly wellconsidered, scientifically informed assessment of only a decade ago, without so much as a shrug of acknowledgement. Lets briefly recap Lusticks dismissive take on the two- state solution in his new article. It is an idea whose time has passed, it is neither plausible or even possible, its a chimera, a fantasy. The obsessive focus on preserving the theoretical possibility of a two- state solution is as irrational as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Conclusion? The pretense that negotiations under the slogan of two states for two peoples could lead to such a solution must be abandoned. In fact, negotiations do actual harm: Diplomacy under the two- state banner is no longer a path to a solution but an obstacle itself. We are engaged in negotiations to nowhere. The ult imat e t wo- st at er Yet only a decade ago, Lustick thought that the success of the peace process in achieving its aim of two states wasnt only plausible and possible. It was inevitable. Lustick explained his thesis in a lengthy 2002 interview peppered with analogies and metaphors, including this one:

I like to think of it as a kind of gambler throwing dice, except its history thats throwing the dice. Every throw of the dice is like a diplomatic peace process attempt. In order to actually succeed, history has got to throw snake eyes, 2. And, you know, thats not easy, you have to keep throwing the dice. Eventually, youre going to throw a 2. All of the leadership questions and accidents of history, the passions of both sides, the torturous feelings of suffering, the political coalitions, the timing of elections will fall into place.

What is Lustick saying here? Remember that the odds of throwing snake eyes on any given toss of the dice are 36 to 1, so only a fool or an idiot would despair after, say, a doz en or even two doz en throws. Even failure is just a prelude to success, since as long as you keep throwing, eventually, youre going to throw a 2. The old sawhorse that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is belied by the dice- thrower, who repeats the same action knowing that each result will be different. And thats why the United States keeps repeating the diplomatic moves that Lustick now finds so tiresome. The peace processors are just adhering to his logic, circa 2002, which guarantees that one of these initiatives is destined to succeedprovided there are enough of

them. And what did Lustick in 2002 have to say to those Israelis who want the West Bank and Gaz a to remain permanently under Israeli rule? You will have to roll a 13, Lustick told them.

But you cant roll a 13, which is to say that the right has no plan for how it can successfully keep the territories anymore. They dont even advocate as a realistic option expelling the Palestinians. So they have no plan. So if you are the right and you know you have to roll a 13, the strategy is, dont let the dice get rolled, keep trying to stop every initiative and subvert it if it gets started. Its the only rational thing to do in order to prevent history from eventually producing what it will produce, which is a two-state solution.

So the Israeli version of a one- state solutionan Israel from the river Jordan to the Mediterraneanwas the hopeless cause of dead- enders who defied history itself. In 2002, Lustick was certain that one of these days, Israel would leave the West Bank:

Israel is caught between the inability to make the issue disappear by making the West Bank look like Israel, and the inability to make it disappear by actually withdrawing, by getting through that regime barrier, that regime threshold. Some day, one of these days, that regime threshold is going to be crossed.

The Palestinian version of the one- state option? Lustick didnt even mention it in 2002. So Lustick was the ultimate two- state believer. I dont think even the inveterate peace processors, whom he now dismisses so contemptuously, ever assumed that repeated failures would bring them closer to their goal. Lustick did believe it: one couldnt prevent history from eventually producing what it will produce, which is a two- state solution, and it was just a matter of time before that threshold is going to be crossed. So certain was Lustick of the inexorable logic of the two- state solution that he believed even Hamas had acquiesced in it. And because Israel had spurned Hamas, Israel had squandered an opportunity to turn it into a loyal opposition. Here lies the problemperhaps dishonesty is a better wordin Lusticks latest piece. Lustick 13 never takes on Lustick 02, to explain why history, destined to lead to two states only a few years ago, is now destined to end in one state. Its tempting to make light of the seemingly bottomless faith of peace processors, and Ive done it myself, with relish. But the case Lustick made for them in 2002 had a certain logic. The case hes made against them in 2013 is weak. Indeed, he never really builds much of a case at all. Is it the number of settlers? If so, he doesnt say so. Lustick knows how many settlers there are, and he numbered them in a lecture in February. In 2002, he says, there were 390,000 (West Bank and East Jerusalem). In 2012, he says, there were 520,000. Thats 130,000 more (two- thirds of it, by the way, natural growth). Presumably, some significant proportion of the 130,000 have been added to settlements whose inclusion in Israel wouldnt preclude a two- state solution, because of their proximity to pre- 1967 Israel. So we are talking about some tens of thousands. Which 10,000 increment, between 2002 and 2013, put Israel past the point of no return? Lustick doesnt say. In the Times , he claims that American pressure could have stopped Menachem Begins reelection in 1981, precluding the building of massive settlement complexes and prompting an Oslo- like process a decade earlier, in the 1980s. Its a well- never- know counter- factual, but it doesnt solve the conundrum. Lustick knew all this in 2002, and it didnt dampen his faith in the historic inevitability of the two- state solution. So the question remains: whats happened since 2002 to change Lusticks mind so drastically? The st at e will not survive! Here we come to Lusticks supposedly original contribution to the one- state argument. He isnt repeating the usual claim that Israeli settlements have made a Palestinian state unachievable. Hes arguing that the Israeli state is unsustainable. The disappearance of Israel as a Zionist project, through war, cultural exhaustion or demographic momentum, is at least as plausible as an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. The best indicator? Israelis say so! Many Israelis see the demise of the country as not just possible, but probable. The State of Israel has been established, not its permanence. The most common phrase in Israeli political discourse is some variation of If X happens (or doesnt), the state will not survive!

I dont know any research thats established the most common phrase in Israeli political discourse, and Im guessing that Ian Lustick doesnt either. He just made it up. In his February lecture, he did cite one work, from 2009, that counted how many articles published in the left- wing Haaretz employed the phrases existential danger or existential threat. Theres a bump up after 2002 (Second Intifada), then a spike up in 2006 (Second Lebanon War). The study proves absolutely nothing. After all, this is Haaretz , the Wailing Wall of the Israeli left. A perfectly plausible explanation is that the papers editorial bias, exacerbated by the eclipse of the left, has tended to favor doomsday prognostication. And Lustick is contradicted by real research on real people, which he either ignores or of which hes ignorant. The Israel Democracy Institutes latest large- scale poll, for 2012, shows that optimists outnumber pessimists among Israeli Jews by a margin of 79 percent to 18 percent. Over 85 percent say Israel can defend itself militarily and only 33 percent think Israel will become more isolated than it now is. The Tel Aviv University academic who oversees the poll summariz ed the results: It is important to note that most Israelis view the countrys future optimistically. Our national resilience rests heavily on the fact that even though people are negative on Friday evenings at their family dinner table and the z eitgeist is discouragement, when you scratch a little deeper, people are not really depressed here. That may be an understatement. Israel is ranked eleventh in the world in the latest UN- commissioned World Happiness Index, which hardly correlates to any level of depression. According to the Peace Index poll ahead of this Jewish New Year, only 16 percent of Jewish Israelis think the countrys security situation will worsen. 46 percent think it will stay the same, and 28 percent think it will actually improvethis, despite the chaos in Syria and the Sinai, and the spinning centrifuges in Iran. The only thing Israelis are persistently pessimistic about is the peace process, but that doesnt sour the overall moodexcept for the small minority, including those op- ed writers for Haaretz , who apparently constitute Lusticks sample. (Lustick also alludes to demographic momentum as working against Israel, and he has puttered around with figures in an attempt to show that Israelis are lining up to emigrate. He got away with this until an actual demographer, Sergio DellaPergola, took a hammer to one of his amateur efforts and left nothing intact. Its a mustread takedown.) Israel t he balloon But in the end, for Lustick, it doesnt really matter how prosperous or stable or viable Israel appears to be, even to Israelis. Thats because Israel is like wait for it a balloon. Just as a balloon filled gradually with air bursts when the limit of its tensile strength is passed, there are thresholds of radical, disruptive change in politics. Zionist Israel is a bubble thats bound to burst. Its been inflated by American support, and the peace process has protected it from rupture. But the larger the balloon gets, the more devastating that rupture will be. In February, Lustick revealed that he is writing an entire book on this thesis, evoking history again, with a fresh analogy to exchange rates:

History will solve the problem in the sense of the way entropy solves problems. You dont stay with this kind of constrained volatility forever. When you constrain exchange rates in a volatile market by not allowing rates to move even though the actual economy makes them absurd, rates will eventually change, but in a very radical, non-linear way. The more the constraint, the less the adaptation to changing conditions, the more jagged and painful that adaptation is going to be.

Better, thinks Lustick, that the peace process in pursuit of the two- state solution be shut down now, so that both sides can slug it out againthis time to painful stalemates that lead each party to conclude that time is not on their side. Israel, which has defeated the Palestinians time and again, has to stop winning. Pulling the plug on the peace process, he writes in the Times , would

set the stage for ruthless oppression, mass mobilization, riots, brutality, terror, Jewish and Arab emigration and rising tides of international condemnation of Israel. And faced with growing outrage, America will no longer be able to offer unconditional support for Israel. Once the illusion of a neat and palatable solution to the conflict disappears, Israeli leaders may then begin to see, as South Africas white leaders saw in the late 1980s, that their behavior is producing isolation, emigration and hopelessness.

And thats where we want to be! Enough rolling of the diplomatic dice! Its time to roll the iron dice! It may sound cynical to you, but Lustick thinks its destiny: The question is not whether the future has conflict in store for IsraelPalestine. It does. Nor is the question whether conflict can be prevented. It cannot. Remember, this is someone who

Palestine. It does. Nor is the question whether conflict can be prevented. It cannot. Remember, this is someone who just a few years ago insisted that a two- state solution was inevitable. Now he argues exactly the opposite. The world should get out of the way and let the inescapable violence unfoldonly this time, the United States wont be in Israels corner, and so Israel will be defeated and forced to dismantle itself. The problem with rolling the iron dice, as even an armchair historian knows, is that the outcome is uncertain. What Lustick would like history to deliver is a defeat of Zionist Israel of such precise magnitude as to create a perfect equilibrium between Jew and Arab. But it may well be that the outcome he desires is the equivalent of rolling a 13, because Israel has deep- seated advantages that would be magnified greatly were Israel ever to find itself up against a wall. (The fortieth anniversary of the 1973 Yom Kippur war may be an apt moment to remember that.) Or something in his scenario could go wrong. As Clausewitz noted about war, No other human activity is so continuously or universally bound up with chance. One of the possible outcomes Lustick imagines is that Israelis whose families came from Arab countries might find new reasons to think of themselves not as Eastern, but as Arab. Given that even the Arabs dont think of themselves anymore as Arabs (especially when they gas or bomb one another), and that Jews never thought of themselves as Arabs even when they lived in Arabic- speaking countries and spoke Arabic, one wonders how many thousands of dice rolls it would take to produce that outcome. Prophet of Philly In the end, its pointless to debate Lustick on his own hypothetical grounds, invoking rolling dice, bursting balloons, and volatile exchange rates. Thats because nothing has happened since 2002 between Israel and the Palestinians, or in Israel, that can possibly explain his own total turnaround. I suspect his Times article has nothing to do with the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, and everything to do with Lusticks attempt to keep his footing in the shifting sands of American academe. Ever since Edward Said veered toward the one- state solution, the pressure has been growing, and its grown even more since Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said Professor at Columbia, finally gravitated toward the same position (something I predicted he would do well before he actually did it). This turn of events left Lustick in the rear of the radical vanguard and far from the action. Ever since Tony Judt passed on, theres been a vacancy for a professorial Jewish supporter of the one- state solution. So this is Lusticks late- career move, and I anticipate it will do for him a bit of what it did for Judt, transforming him from an academic of modest reputation into an in- demand hero. Invitations will pour in. Soon we will hear of a controversy involving an invitation rescinded, which will raise his standing still higher. And its quite plausible that the Times piece will land him a heftier advance for his next book (as of February, Ive not written the conclusion yet), and the promotional push of a major publisher. In anticipation, Lustick is already casting himself as a prophet of Israel, exemplified in this quote from an answer he gave to a question last winter:

I argued in 1971 that 1,500 settlers in the West Bank were a catastrophe that would lead Israel into a political dungeon from which it might never escape. I was laughed at. I also argued for a Palestinian state alongside of Israel in the early 1970s, but it took twenty-five years before the mainstream in Israeli politics agreed with that. It may take another twenty-five years before they realize that what Im saying is true now and will be even truer if Israel is still around in twenty or twenty-five more years.

This is not a human measure of prescience, as Lustick himself has acknowledged. How far in advance would anyone have been able to imagine the Iranian revolution or the fall of the Soviet Union? Lustick: Ten years? No. Five years? Maybe two, if you were very, very good. If, as Lustick claims, he consistently sees the future of Israel twenty- five years forward, he must inhabit a sphere far above the regular run of prognosticating political scientists. He is now compiling the Book of Ian. Read it, O Israel (enter credit card here), and weep.