Linkage is normal

By Fester:

One party has some desirable goods that it will give to another party in exchange for changes in behavior on non-related subjects.  That basic transaction is commonplace and it occurs at every relationship level from parents dealing with four year olds by an ice cream stand to international relations as the US opens up some of its markets as a sign of geo-political favor by economic incentives.  Not a big deal when this occurs, or at least it is not a big deal normally. 

Right now it looks like the Obama Administration is engaging in linkage on its Isreal policy.  The US has AH-64D helicopters which are optimized for deep batlefield approach march preperation against large armored columns but satisfices for heavy mobile firepower for urban warfare.  Isreal wants those choppers.  The United States wants a hard freeze and most likely a gradual rollback of Isreali settlements in the West Bank. 

Right now the choppers are being held up for an inter-agency review.  The official concern is using Apaches in Gaza has produced signifcant civilian casualties.  More likely this is an attempt at linkage and leveraging the fact that the US gives Isreal billions of dollars in arms and spare parts every year.  It is a veiled threat that Isreal will not be placed in a category above and beyond any other category of relationships that the United States engages in. 

Let's see if this works.  

Comments

[Ron Beasley]

The most amazing thing about all of this is the lack of outrage fron Israel's supporters in congress. Of course the blogoshpheric wingnuttery is up in arms but that's par for the course.

[BJ Bjornson]

I'm rather surprised by the way things are going as well, particularly given this was one of the areas I didn't expect Obama to make much change in, as opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan, where he's made much less than I like. As for Congress, I think there are at least two major reasons for the shift. One, as noted by Matt Yglesias, is the rise of organizations like J Street, which is running a campaign supporting Obama's position and made sure the lobbying on Israel is a lot less one-sided than it used to be.



The other is related to the actions I noted in my earlier post, where Lieberman's ultra-nationalists are pursuing clearly discriminatory legislation and notable for their nasty rhetoric, which given Leiberman is the foreign minister, is pretty hard for the usual Israeli defenders to overlook as unrepresentative. There was a story in Haaretz after the election noting that his and his party's inclusion into the Israeli cabinet was likely to undermine Israel's international image. It appears they were right.

[Peter G.]

This is how you use soft power. The incremental use of carrot and stick is how you steer a negotiation towards desired ends. I'll disagree with BJ by arguing that Lieberman is unrepresentative of Israel since he does represent a hard right view and Israel is not a two party democracy therefore he represents what is only a minority view within that government. A member of a coalition does not necessarily represent the views of the whole coalition. If loyalty oaths become law then you can argue that his views represent the views of the whole government.

[BJ Bjornson]

I'm not surprised you disagree with me Peter, but Yisrael Beitneinu is the third largest party in the Knesset and Lieberman is Deputy Prime Minister as well as Foreign Minister. Like it or not, they aren't some tiny fringe movement without any real power, they are a significant force in the government and have considerable support and influence. And it doesn't help that Likud and Netanyahu, particularly since the more moderate members broke away to form Kadima, are hardly considered warm and fuzzy in their own right.

[Peter G.]

Indeed they are the third largest party BJ. They have a whole fifteen of the one hundred and twenty seats which it seems puts them a ways away from forming a majority government. The vicissitudes of forming a functional government in a parliament as fragmented as the Knesset usually results in some distasteful members of any coalition having some influence. I don't believe Lieberman's party has the influence to get those draconian loyalty laws passed. I suppose we shall soon see.