From: allin
A panel featuring Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago and Professor Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia University discussed various aspects of foreign policy, including the volatile situation in the Middle East, specifically focusing on the Israel-Palestine issue and its potential for escalation of conflicts.
The West Bank as a Tinder Box
The discussion highlighted concerns about the West Bank, where Israeli settlements are buttressing and checkpoints are increasing, creating a difficult environment for Palestinians [47:01]. There is a “real concern” that the West Bank could collapse and turn into a “real conflict zone” [47:10]. This potential collapse raises questions about the reactions of neighboring countries like Jordan, a strong US ally, and Saudi Arabia, and whether such events could draw more actors into the region, creating a broader regional issue [47:21].
Jeffrey Sachs’s Perspective: International Law and Two States
Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who works at the UN, emphasized that there has been an international agreement for the last 50 years on what would lead to peace: a two-state solution [48:06]. This agreement involves two states, possibly with a wall between them, based on the June 4, 1967 borders [48:19]. A State of Palestine would be the 194th UN member state, with its capital in East Jerusalem and control over Islamic holy sites [48:27].
Sachs noted that international law supports this:
- The International Court of Justice (ICJ) recently reaffirmed that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal [48:39].
- The International Criminal Court (ICC) or ICJ is likely to find that Israel is in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention [48:47].
Sachs advocated for the implementation of international law, including building a wall if necessary, ensuring Palestinian rights, establishing a State of Palestine, and ending the Israeli “slaughter of Palestinians” and “apartheid state” [49:04]. He asserted that the current Israeli political governance, including figures like Benjamin Netanyahu, is “dead set against that” [49:26]. Sachs concluded that one country, the United States, primarily due to the “Israel Lobby,” stands in the way of enforcing this international solution [49:59].
John Mearsheimer’s Perspective: Limited Regional Escalation from Palestine, but Iran is the Flashpoint
Professor John Mearsheimer identified three major problems for Israel, aside from internal centrifugal forces: the Palestinian problem (in Gaza and the West Bank), Hezbollah, and Iran [50:50].
Regarding the West Bank scenario and its potential for escalation, Mearsheimer believes there is “virtually no chance” that if Israel were to go on a “rampage” in the West Bank akin to Gaza, Jordan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia would intervene militarily [51:11]. He stated that these countries “simply don’t have the military capability” and that Israel “completely dominate[s]” [51:23]. Therefore, he sees “not much potential” for escalation of conflicts with regard to the Israel-Palestine problem [51:31].
However, Mearsheimer views Iran as the “really dangerous flashpoint” in the Middle East tensions and Israel’s intelligence operations [51:48]. This is mainly because of Iran’s links with Hezbollah and its increasing alliances with Russia and China [51:42]. He noted that if Israel were to engage in a war with Iran, the United States would “in all likelihood” become involved [52:00]. He cited the April 1st Israeli attack on the Iranian Embassy in Damascus and the subsequent Iranian retaliation on April 14th, where the US was involved in the fighting alongside Israelis, French, British, Jordanians, and Saudis [52:05].
Mearsheimer clarified that neither Iran nor the United States wants a war with each other [52:43]. He asserted that Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel are the ones trying to “suck us into a war” with Iran, aiming for the US to “whack Iran,” militarily weaken it, and specifically target its nuclear capabilities, given Iran’s proximity to developing nuclear weapons [52:51]. The key question, according to Mearsheimer, is whether the United States and Iran can “work together to prevent the Israelis from getting us” into a major war [53:13].