What if John F. Kennedy had never gone to Berlin? What if he hadn’t given that speech at the Rathaus Schöneberg in 1963 in which he proclaimed, in his horrible Massachusetts accent, “Ich been ein Bee-leena”? What if he had chosen to side with the Soviets instead?
In the most recent world war, the Soviets had been America’s ally. They had suffered unimaginable losses — 20 million people, by their own estimate — after a surprise attack by one of their neighbors, and were still coming to terms with that. Moreover, to many Americans — not to mention French, British, Belgians, Poles, Norwegians and so on — World War II was still a recent memory.
The Germans were on their best behavior, to be sure, but perhaps this was only because they knew the world was watching them. If some of them were doomed to live their lives behind a concrete wall, well, that might just be a consequence of history — their fault for being on the wrong side originally.
Many people did think like this. Kennedy, however, went to Berlin and supported the old enemy — Germany — because he knew that the world had to look toward the future. He could imagine a day when (East) Germans would live in freedom; and that freedom would make them peaceful.
Another Wall
Half a century later, the world needs another Kennedy, to see past the chaos of the moment and describe a better future. Another people who have been on the wrong side of history are encircled by a barrier even higher than the Berlin Wall. The power in the region, itself a victim of genocide and surprise attacks by its neighbors, is understandably nervous, but it’s denying liberty to others in the name of its own security. The US, to the extent it shows any interest at all in helping to resolve the situation, says it’s waiting for both sides to elect different leaders. That could take a while.
Although the situation in Israel and Palestine affects the security of the entire Western world, no serious effort has been made since the days of Bill Clinton to even talk about it. Even the Arab spring seems to have bypassed that part of the Middle East completely.
It’s no wonder that the Palestinians have given up on waiting and are now trying to get the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state. They moved a step closer on Monday, when UNESCO voted 107–14 (with 52 abstentions) to admit Palestine as a member.
The United States responded by saying it would withhold $60 million it pays in dues to the organization — in other words, one-sixth of the budget of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (Germany voted no as well, but with less drama.)
To be fair, the United States was simply obeying its own laws — one from 1990 and one from 1994 — that forbid it from funding any UN organization that gives membership to a non-state entity. Someone back then had seen this coming; each of those laws followed an important milestone on the road to Palestinian statehood.
Peace, anyone?
Is anyone interested in peace? The Israelis, who continue to build settlements where they’d agreed not to? The Palestinians, many of whom fail to understand that Israel is not going away? The Americans, who have enough other problems to deal with? And why are the Americans thought to be the only potential arbiters of peace?
My theory is that both sides recognize that America is the only country with enough military strength to guarantee peace in the region. It’s also powerful enough (despite appearances) to put its money where its mouth is. After all else failed in the 1978 peace talks between Israel and Egypt, President Jimmy Carter offered to pay each of the two countries to become friends. Israel still gets $3 billion a year, Egypt more than $1 billion. Since the signing of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty in 1994, America has also invested heavily in Jordan.
Without saying much about it, the US has, in the last several years, spent a fair amount of money on infrastructure projects in the West Bank. As a result, the West Bank is now close to being a functioning state. All that could come crumbling down, however, if the US makes good on its threat to withdraw that funding because it feels the Palestinians are jumping the gun.
What would Kennedy have done?
