The world sees this as a strategic mistake and a moral disaster

In mid-July, writer Michael Young interviewed Stephen M. Walter, professor of international affairs and director of the International Security Program at the Belfer Center at Harvard Kennedy School, to discuss the implications of the ongoing war in Gaza for U.S. power and Israel, especially in light of the changing international situation. We present the highlights of the interview below:

Michael Young: How do you evaluate the performance of Israel and the United States in the Gaza War?
Stephen Walt: The war has been a disaster for both Israel and the United States, although it is the people of Gaza who have suffered the most, including tens of thousands of deaths. Israel believed it could establish a “Greater Israel” and forever deprive the Palestinian people of their political rights. But it failed to monitor the attack launched by Hamas on October 7. Since then, it has been waging a brutal war with the stated goal of eliminating Hamas, but has consistently failed to achieve that goal. It has severely damaged Israel’s claims to moral legitimacy and exacerbated growing divisions within Israel.
The Biden administration’s handling of the war has been horrific. The United States has offered only the mildest criticism of Israel’s behavior and has not used the pressure card it could use to end the carnage. The U.S. administration’s claims of support for a “rules-based order” have proven hollow and have only given critics and opponents around the world ample reason to criticize it more. Sometimes strategic necessity requires countries to pursue morally questionable policies, but in this case, U.S. policy is a serious strategic mistake and a moral disaster.
• • •
Yang: A few years ago I wrote an interesting book, The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of American Dominance, in which I argued that the United States was engaging in what I called “liberal hegemony.” You mean it’s trying to spread democracy around the world. But U.S. military support for Israel against Gaza reflects blatant illiberal behavior. Do you think the Gaza war has the ability to undermine the concept of “liberal hegemony”?
WOLTER: Support for a “liberal hegemony” approach had been waning long before the Gaza war. Moreover, democracy has been in decline around the world for fifteen years, and there is little enthusiasm today for regime change led by the United States or for the spread of democracy by excessive force. Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden have abandoned America’s previous commitment to the goal of unbridled “hyperglobalization.” But Biden still draws a clear distinction between democracies and authoritarian regimes, and he and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have condemned Russia, Iran, and some other countries for violating international standards. But the Gaza war has exposed the great hypocrisy on these issues.
• • •
Yang: How do you think Trump will act if he is re-elected, especially on the Middle East issue?
Walter: The US foreign policy establishment was able to curb many of Trump’s initiatives during his first term because of his inexperience and lack of knowledge, but it will be more difficult for the establishment to control him if he is re-elected. He will be more confident in his decisions because the “Make America Great Again” movement has spent four years drafting a long list of people who share Trump’s views and appointing them to senior positions. Permanent public service institutions may continue to hinder his efforts, but influential Republican groups are doing their best to overcome these obstacles.
However, I don’t think this will have much impact on Trump’s approach to the Middle East. He gave Israel everything it wanted in his first term and put forward his vice presidential candidate Jay. This. Vance believes that the United States should provide more support and even help Israel destroy Gaza, while Trump wants to curry favor with rulers such as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. This is also what Biden is doing. Trump will not approach Iran or do anything to encourage peace between Israel and Palestine. He simply does not care about these issues. The good news is that Trump will not rush to intervene militarily in the Middle East, even if his actions may increase the possibility of regional conflict.
• • •
YJ: In 2007, you and your colleague John Mearsheimer wrote a book about the Israel lobby in the United States. Do you think the situation you describe is different from 2007?
Walt: A lot has changed since we published the book in 2007. Back then, the subject was still taboo. You couldn’t talk about the political influence of the Israel lobby without being subjected to a barrage of false accusations and insults. Today, people are talking openly about this lobby.
Finally, there has been a significant shift in attitudes among young people, who are much more critical of Israel and Zionism in general than American women and older Americans. This is true even for many young American Jews, who do not see Israel as a role model or inspiration as their parents did. Some even see Israel’s actions as a betrayal of Jewish values.
Unfortunately, these changes have not resulted in a significant shift in U.S. policy. The Israel lobby has lost its moral authority, but it still has significant influence over politicians and policymakers, primarily due to its ability to allocate vast sums of money to support its favored candidates in U.S. elections. Take, for example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which spent a record amount of nearly $14 million to ensure that Rep. Jamaal Bowman lost the recent primary election simply because he criticized Israel’s crimes in Gaza.
• • •
Yang: I am struck by the huge difference in the positions of the US and the wider Western elites, as well as the elites outside the West, on what is happening in Gaza. Does this portend anything for the future of the world model of liberal hegemony that the US defends?
WOLTER: There is undoubtedly a huge gap between the US and Western elites and the countries of the Global South on this issue. This is due to several reasons. After the Holocaust, there was an overwhelming and completely understandable sympathy for the Jews, and thus the West has shown tremendous support for Israel from its founding until today. On the other hand, many in the West have shown little sympathy for the Palestinian people and even little understanding of what is happening to them.
As for the rest of the world, the founding of Israel is an old, familiar story: a group of people arrives in the country from the West, displaces and rules over the local inhabitants (or a combination of both) who have lived in the land for a long time (or centuries) and want to rule themselves.
The gap between Western positions and policies and those of the rest of the world is one reason why “liberal hegemony” failed, but in my view it is not the most important reason. Liberal hegemony assumes that the United States has found a magic formula for governing the country and that history is moving in a direction consistent with liberal democratic capitalism. It also assumes that spreading liberal ideals will be a relatively easy task and that other countries will welcome the United States’ exercise of benevolent hegemony. As we have seen, this view is completely wrong and even counterproductive.
Carnegie Center’s Diwan Blog
original: