Former ambassador explains U.S.-Israeli relations

Ambassador Dennis Ross spoke about diplomacy and the United States-Israeli relationship with a small group of students on Tuesday in the Political Science Seminar Room of Mergenthaler Hall.

In his career, Ross has worked for the Pentagon, the State Department and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He served as a diplomat under U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, specializing in American policy regarding the Soviet Union and the Middle East.

Ross began the talk by discussing the purpose of diplomacy.

“Statecraft sort of encompasses diplomacy, but it’s sort of beyond diplomacy. Statecraft is the capacity to identify objectives and then marry your means to your objectives,” he said.

He noted that while it may seem simple or easy to match means to objectives, in reality many state objectives are formed without any conception of how to accomplish them. He used the United States’ uncertain policy toward Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as an example.

“Maybe the objective of having Assad leave was the right objective,” he said. “But if you did an assessment, you’d say, ‘You know what, we really don’t have the means to remove him... So maybe we should redefine our objective, and we should figure out, well, what we can do to contain him.”

Ross emphasized the importance of making sure objectives are achievable.

“Objectives should be a function of what is a real interest but feasibility matters, so making assessments is pretty important,” Ross said. “A fact-based assessment is really what should guide you, right... But a lot of times we’ll have what I call faith-based assessments that guide us.”

Ross elaborated on the difference between fact and faith-based judgments.

“There was a presumption that [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein was evil, that he backed terrorists, that he was pursuing a nuclear weapon. And he couldn’t have nuclear weapons — that would be sort of marrying the worst weapon [to] the worst hands, and so every bit of information that came in related to this was seen through a prism. The prism was shaped by the perception of Saddam and who he was,” Ross said. “When you got information that seemed to validate that assumption, all that was accepted. When you got information that seemed to contradict that assumption, that was rejected.”

Ross also discussed the role that interests and values play in shaping foreign policy such as that of the U.S. regarding Libya prior to the ousting of former President Muammar Gaddafi.

“Robert Gates, who was then our Secretary of Defense, said, ‘We have no interests in Libya. We have to reason to intervene there’... And I said, in response, ‘Well, it depends on how you define interests. If Gaddafi acts on what he says he’s going to do in Benghazi, and he kills a very large number of people, well, that might define the way we are seen,’” he said. “‘But even in concrete terms, if it produces a huge flood of refugees across the border into Egypt at a time when Egypt’s in transition... You might be destabilizing Egypt at a critical time, so that is an interest.’”

Ross believes that political differences stem from varying outlooks.

“A realist tends to define our interests in narrow terms... Most realists think that when we intervene we should intervene on behalf of something that’s a concrete interest, for example, oil or something that relates specifically to our economy,” Ross said. “What’s more complicated [is the question]: Is our standing in the world an interest? Is our credibility an interest?”

Ross argued that most realists such as Gates would see maintaining credibility as an interest.

“An idealist defines our interests in terms of being connected to humanitarian values. An idealist would argue that we needed to intervene in Syria to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, which has, in fact, taken place. We have reports that close to half a million have actually been killed in Syria. Almost 12 million have been displaced,” Ross said.

He noted that American idealists and realists should be concerned about the refugee crisis. Ross argued that it’s not only a humanitarian tragedy but also a political issue because the influx of refugees is destabilizing the European Union, an American ally.

“Our interests, our values should have propelled us to a different kind of intervention than we’ve had,” Ross said. “So it says maybe defining interests, maybe defining objectives is not so easy.”

Ross also shared his thoughts on the root of conflict in the Middle East.

“There’ll be no peace or stability in the Middle East until minority rights are respected. There is no country in the Middle East outside of Israel where actually minority rights are respected in law,” Ross said. “What you see in the Middle East generally today is a struggle over defining identity and who’s going to control the definition of identity.”

He noted the importance of Israel as a stable country in the region.

“Israel is the only country in the region that actually has a rule of law, a separation of powers, an independent judiciary. Freedom of speech is enshrined in law. Freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, women’s rights are respected. You have regularly-scheduled elections. The loser always accepts the outcome. [It’s the] only country is the region where gay rights are respected,” Ross said. “So we share values with the Israelis because they’re a democracy. We share interests with the Israelis because when you look at threats in this region, Israel is actually more capable of dealing with these threats than almost anybody else.”

Ross said that Israel’s relationship with Arab states is actually more stable than it may appear to be.

“Today Israel’s relationship with all the Sunni-Arab states is different than we’ve ever seen before,” he said. “The Arab gulf states — their main preoccupation is Iran — they see Israel as a bulwark against Iran. Egypt and Jordan, they have peace treaties with Israel but they see Israel as basically a bulwark or a partner against the radical Islamists. The scope of the cooperation is still largely below the radar screen because the Palestinian issue is still something that has a resonance as a source of injustice.”

Ross also believes that despite tensions between Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, relations between the two countries have actually progressed.

“Obama has done more in the realm of security cooperation with the Israelis than any of his predecessors. Now, he inherited a structure of that cooperation... There was a very robust relationship already, but it was dramatically enhanced,” Ross said.

Ross said the progress between the U.S. and Israel was largely necessitated by Iran’s actions and concerns about Iran’s capabilities.

“A lot of what we did through the first term, quite apart from the intelligence cooperation and the security cooperation which was very intense on this and related issues, was to draw on the Israeli insights into how we could make the sanctions regime more effective,” Ross said.

However, Ross noted that Israel remains a divisive issue in the U.S. He argued that America’s shared values with Israel should be emphasized to no longer make it a polarizing issue and allow for more productive debate.

Junior Liam Haviv enjoyed the talk.

“I thought what he had to say was absolutely incredible. [H]e was fascinating and kind and articulate and analytical. It was a pleasure,” he said.

As a member of the International Studies Leadership Committee, a student-run group, Sophomore David Hamburger helped organize the talk. He discussed the purpose of Tuesday’s event.

“Our goal is try and promote opportunities for International Studies students and for the broader Hopkins community to gain exposure to practitioners and to academics who are focusing on international studies and to promote intercommunal development,” he said.

Hamburger also noted that Ross had actually offered to come to campus on Tuesday because he was participating in the Baltimore Speakers Series on Monday night. Hamburger thought Ross’ talk was useful and enlightening for students.

“I think Ambassador Ross did a terrific job in speaking to us, treating [us] with some understanding of the background material and giving us a very honest appraisal of what he thought,” he said. “For example, when he was speaking about President Obama’s administration, I thought that was a particularly useful way of combining what he said about diplomacy with a practical application of how he’s seen that succeed or in this case, perhaps, not succeed.”

Hamburger also discussed the benefits of the seminar-like structure of the presentation.

“What we really try and do is promote this sort of small group interaction because that allows people to ask more questions, ask [them] in a more open environment and hopefully sort of draw out a more open response from the person who’s speaking with us.”