Defending Pollack

"War and Peace"
By Max Rodenbeck
Page 1 Book Review
Sunday, August 24, 2008

Max Rodenbeck, a contributor to The Economist, which we all know is basically a pro-Israel rag, writes a review of Kenneth Pollack's new book, A Path Out of the Desert.

In A Path, Pollack proposes increasing military aid to friendly regimes. Rodenbeck oversimplifies this proposal, writing – in feigned surprise – "But surely, one can't help gasping, the last thing more guns will bring is political reform." He then points out that conditioning aid on reform hasn't worked yet, as a way of dismissing this notion. In display of the superb even-handedness that has allowed the conflict to continue, he argues that the US should make aid to Israel conditional.

Rodenbeck calls into question Pollack's assertion that "the Arab regimes have implicitly or explicitly backed a range of terrorist groups." But Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria's support for Fatah and Hamas over the last several decades is well-evidenced.

Rodenbeck then takes a shot at sanctions, stating that "one of the most startling modern examples of mass impoverishment was…the Clinton-era sanctions on Iraq, which destroyed its middle class and set the stage for postwar chaos." One wonders, if conditioning aid on reform and sanctions are not viable options, what other means are there for compelling a regime to change its malevolent ways?

The review gets nasty when Rodenbeck senses that Pollack, the Jew, has put forth a pro-Israel position. In wonderful alliterative style, Rodenbeck, suggests that "the plight of the Palestinians" causes "Arab rage and venom" toward Israel. ("Arab rage and venom" is Pollack's phrasing.)

Here, Rodenbeck's true colors come through. Pollack is "protective" of Israel. In another instance, Rodenbeck conjures up the image of the American mother shielding her young child, Israel: The US "indulges" Israel.

He begs, "Can't we just admit that American support for Israel is strategically burdensome and is driven by the passion of several domestic constituencies rather than cold cost-benefit geopolitics?" Can't we? But is it true? Essentially, Rodenbeck is just spinning out Walt & Mearsheimer malarkey.

Without providing evidence to the contrary, Rodenbeck tries to upend Pollack's argument that "America's support for Israel over the years has even been a critical element in winning and securing Arab allies." One need only recall the Begin-Sadat agreement, which brought the Egyptians out of the Soviet and into the American camp in the late 1970s to know that Pollack is correct on this account and Rodenbeck is wrong. (Martin Kramer has written persuasively on this matter.)

Rodenbeck also takes Pollack to task for arguing that American support for Israel does not fuel Islamist hatred. Although Rodenbeck offers more evidence here than in the instance above, his effort to completely negate Pollack's argument displays his anti-Israel sentiment. Placing Israel at the center of the confrontation between the West and the Islamists is an overstatement.

Rodenbeck will surely be in the wilderness for some time to come.

Abes