Foreign Policy has an impressive new roster of bloggers, including Thomas Ricks, Laura Rozen, Marc Lynch, and Dan Drezner. All of them are excellent reading. Indeed, they'll possibly be required reading if the Obama administration's "Fairness Doctrine Restoration and Progressive Media Mandate Act" passes. But for now, they're just good reading. Foreign Policy's most interesting and controversial pick, however, is Stephen Walt, of Walt and Mearsheimer fame. And, more impressively, Walt appears to be using the blog for its highest purpose: Saying things that few established media outlets would otherwise publish. For instance:Here's a thought experiment:Imagine that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria had won the Six Day War, leading to a massive exodus of Jews from the territory of Israel. Imagine that the victorious Arab states had eventually decided to permit the Palestinians to establish a state of their own on the territory of the former Jewish state. (That's unlikely, of course, but this is a thought experiment). Imagine that a million or so Jews had ended up as stateless refugees confined to that narrow enclave known as the Gaza Strip. Then imagine that a group of hardline Orthodox Jews took over control of that territory and organized a resistance movement. They also steadfastly refused to recognize the new Palestinian state, arguing that its creation was illegal and that their expulsion from Israel was unjust. Imagine that they obtained backing from sympathizers around the world and that they began to smuggle weapons into the territory. Then imagine that they started firing at Palestinian towns and villages and refused to stop despite continued reprisals and civilian casualties.Here's the question: would the United States be denouncing those Jews in Gaza as "terrorists" and encouraging the Palestinian state to use overwhelming force against them?
There are certain problems with this analogy relating to international law. Namely, under the auspices of the institution that major world powers had recently made up, the Jewish state was a legal entity and its destruction would have been illegal, and it wouldn't have been strange for the US to intervene. But the Palestinians didn't exactly buy into the legal process that created the state of Israel. This is how the situation looks to them, and to most of the Arab world. Moreover, as an explanation of how American interest group politics impact the conflict, Walt's point is undeniable. Imagine any situation in which the plights of an oppressed Arab and oppressed Jewish group are equal, and imagine how much coverage each would amass in America's op-ed columns and presidential campaigns. There's nothing wrong with that. The concerns of the Irish are also advantaged, as are those of sugar producers.But it's important to be aware of. And it explains why polls show that Palestinians don't trust America to act as a fair broker. They're right. Domestic politics make it impossible for America to act as a neutral broker in the conflict, and that has implications for any eventual settlement.
