Polarization and U.S.-Israel Relations. Ken Schultz Stanford University

Transcription

1 Polarization and U.S.-Israel Relations Ken Schultz Stanford University

2 Main Points Political polarization in the United States creates several potential challenges for U.S.-Israel relations. However, polarization evident in public opinion is dampened at the elite level because the constituencies most interested in this issue are strongly pro-israel. Polarization is more pronounced within the Democratic party, making it hard for President Obama to undertake major initiatives.

3 Polarization Democrats Republicans <1 Negotiating Partner (Palestinians, Iran) Israeli Right

4 U.S. Attitudes towards Israel In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians? Israelis Palestinians Both/Neither Source: Gallup.

5 Polarization Sympathy for Israel by Party ID Republicans Independents Democrats Source: from Gallup Previous years from the ipoll Databank, The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.

6 Note: The Pro-Israel Score is derived from principal components analysis of four questions from the 2012 survey described by Judy: (1) support for aid to Israel, (2) US position in a Middle East conflict, (3) Israeli intransigence, (4) Palestinian intransigence. The score is based on the first component, which explains 47 percent of the variance. By construction, it has a mean of zero and standard deviation of one.

7 Pro-Israel Attitudes by Party ID

8 Polarization and Iran If Israel were to attack Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program, what position should the U.S. take? Should it support Israel s military action, oppose Israel s military action, or should the U.S. stay neutral? Which is more important: to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action, or to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Support Neutral Oppose Prevent Avoid conflict Other/DK 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Dem Ind Rep 0% Dem Ind Rep Source: Pew Research Center for the People, Feb,

9 Perils of Polarization: Domestic Alternation in party control of the executive has the potential to create large swings in policy Legislation harder to pass due to divided government, minority veto points Disappearance of deference to president on foreign policy matters

10 Perils of Polarization: International Distance between current US and Israeli governments creates tension, distrust, and incentives to influence domestic politics in other country Challenge of credible commitments: will the promises/ threats of one US administration persist into the next? General dysfunction can diminish US power (e.g., defense spending cuts, lack of long-term investments) or create crises that divert attention (e.g., debt default)

11 A Benefit of Polarization? Schelling conjecture : A more hawkish opposition party may improve the president s ability to extract concessions from Iran (Schelling 1960; Putnam 1998). need to get elements of the deal approved by Congress threat that a successor will offer worse terms However, this bargaining advantage only accrues up to a point: once the opposition becomes too hawkish, feasible peaceful deals can be foreclosed (Mo 1995; Milner and Rosendorff 1997; Tarar 2005)

12 Jan-91 Mar-91 Jun-91 Nov-93 Oct-95 Mar-96 Apr-98 Jun-99 May-00 Feb-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Dec-01 May-02 Feb-03 Jun-03 Jun-04 Jul-04 Jul-04 May-05 Oct-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Dec-05 Feb-06 May-06 Jul-06 Jun-07 Jul-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Apr-08 Sep-08 Jan-09 Mar-09 May-09 May-10 May-10 Jul-11 Mar-12 May-12 % Pro-Israel 100 Polarization? House Roll Call Votes on Israel ( ) Note: This figure includes all roll calls in which the word Israel appeared in the title or summary. Each bar represents the percentage of representatives voting for the pro-israel position. Votes marked in red indicate (potentially) binding legislation (as opposed to declaratory resolutions). Sources: Voteview, THOMAS.

13 Jan-91 Mar-91 Jun-91 Nov-93 Oct-95 Mar-96 Apr-98 Jun-99 May-00 Feb-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Dec-01 May-02 Feb-03 Jun-03 Jun-04 Jul-04 Jul-04 May-05 Oct-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Dec-05 Feb-06 May-06 Jul-06 Jun-07 Jul-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Apr-08 Sep-08 Jan-09 Mar-09 May-09 May-10 May-10 Jul-11 Mar-12 May-12 Votes by Democrats on Israel 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Pro-Israel Anti-Israel Present

14 Jan-91 Mar-91 Jun-91 Nov-93 Oct-95 Mar-96 Apr-98 Jun-99 May-00 Feb-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Dec-01 May-02 Feb-03 Jun-03 Jun-04 Jul-04 Jul-04 May-05 Oct-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Dec-05 Feb-06 May-06 Jul-06 Jun-07 Jul-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Apr-08 Sep-08 Jan-09 Mar-09 May-09 May-10 May-10 Jul-11 Mar-12 May-12 Votes by Republicans on Israel 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Pro-Israel Anti-Israel Present

15 Why the Gap between Mass Opinion and Elite Behavior? Pro Israel Constituencies with High Salience and Information

16 Pro-Israel Attitudes by Political Interest

17 Why PICHSIs Matter Politicians are responsive to those constituencies for whom the issue has high salience and who have information and resources to influence policy. On matters pertaining to Israel, these constituencies are almost entirely on the pro-israel side. PICHSIs serve an anchor that limits the distance the two parties can drift apart at the elite level. To the extent that legislatures help make commitments credible across administrations (Martin 2000), pro-israel commitments have credibility.

18 Pro-Israel Attitudes by Party ID and Political Interest

19 Intraparty Polarization Jerusalem and the Democratic platform Leading from behind in responding to settlement expansion (Beinart 2012)

20 Looking Ahead Overall, security cooperation is likely to remain strong regardless of president, particularly on issues that Congress can influence Unless forced by events, President Obama will find it hard to make major initiatives on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, owing to lack of support from Netanyahu intra-party divisions Obama needs a deal with Iran since both a nuclear Iran and a war with Iran are very bad outcomes, but a deal that requires congressional implementation is tricky Continued rightward drift in Israel has the potential to increase inter- and intra-party polarization in the US

21 Anchored to What? A secure, prosperous, democratic Jewish state

22 Not an inch of difference Anchored to What?

23 Works Cited Beinart, Peter Why Obama will Ignore Israel. Newsweek (Dec. 10). Martin, Lisa L Democratic Commitments: Legislatures and International Cooperation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Milner, Helen V, and B. Peter Rosendorff Democratic Politics and International Trade Negotiations: Elections and Divided Government as Constraints on Trade Liberalization. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (1): Putnam, Robert D Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 42 (3): Tarar, Ahmer Constituencies and Preferences in International Bargaining. Journal of Conflict Resolution 49 (3):