Madam Speaker, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to a recent blog post on the Jerusalem Post website, written by Abraham Foxman, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, ADL. Mr. Foxman challenges the idea that…
Madam Speaker, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to a recent blog post on the Jerusalem Post website, written by Abraham Foxman, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, ADL. Mr. Foxman challenges the idea that there is ``linkage'' between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other conflicts in the Middle East. It is both unrealistic and dangerous to believe that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will somehow solve our problems in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and everywhere else in the Middle East. Distinct conflicts require distinct solutions and lumping them all together serves no one's interests, least of all our own. I highly recommend this excellent article.
[From the Jerusalem Post, Mar. 21, 2010]
A Point of View: Linkage and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
(By Abraham Foxman)
No matter how many times it is proven to have no validity,
the theme of linking the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict to broader issues in the region
rears its head over and over again. Zbigniew Brzezinski did
it in the 1970s, trying to blame Soviet influence in the
region on the absence of a solution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict. Prior to the first Gulf War, there were those who
opposed the war on the grounds that we needed first to
address the Palestinian issue before we could credibly
confront Saddam Hussein. And early on in the Obama
administration, reports were circulating suggesting that
American interests throughout the Middle East were dependent
on progress on the Palestinian-Israeli front.
Henry Kissinger, in his magisterial two-volume memoir,
dealt with this matter head on. He demonstrated during the
Cold War that America's ability to further its broader
regional interests was connected not to a need to resolve the
Palestinian issue, but to showing America's moderate allies
in the region--Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Gulf States--
that it paid to be allied with America. The best way to prove
that? When Israel was under attack by regional extremists
supported by the Soviets, it was vital for the US to make
sure that Israel triumphed. By doing so, the moderates would
absorb the truth that the future lay with the US and its
allies. Standing up against radicals and with one's allies,
rather than blaming one's friends for problems in the region,
continues to be the best formula for serving US interests in
the Middle East.
Now we are hearing the linkage theme once again. After the
brouhaha between the administration and the Israeli
government surfaced, a story emerged indicating that a
military team under General David Petraeus's CENTCOM command
reported to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm.
Michael Mullen in January that Israel was jeopardizing US
standing in the region. And then Petraeus himself, speaking
before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 16,
reinforced this message. He stated that the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict ``foments anti-American sentiment, due
to a perception of US favoritism for Israel.'' He went on to
say that ``Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits
the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments
and peoples in the AOR (Area of Responsibility) and weakens
the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.''
Once again, an illusion is at work here, one that will, if
pursued, invariably result in no real progress being made in
the region. We all want peace between Israel and the Arabs.
And putting more effort toward such a goal is a good thing.
What is not real, and is dangerous, is putting most of
America's eggs in the region in this basket.
The Arab-Israeli conflict has never responded to such a
heavy emphasis. Progress is made when Arab leaders decide
it's time for peace. Maybe Assad of Syria is considering
this, and it should be explored. But that's very different
from placing this conflict at the center of everything.
Disappointment, as always, will follow since the gap between
what the Arabs want and Israel wants is substantial.
Moreover, Arab willingness to accept Israel's legitimacy as a
``Jewish State'' is belied by everything that comes from Arab
leaders and Arab media.
What inevitably happens if such unrealistic weight in the
region is given to the Israeli-Arab conflict is that Israel
comes to be seen as the problem. If only Israel would stop
settlements, if only Israel would talk with Hamas, if only
Israel would make concessions on refugees, if only it would
share Jerusalem, everything in the region would be fine. Iraq
would be fine. Afghanistan would be fine. Pakistan would be
fine. Iran would be fine. Lebanon would be fine.
Of course, this is nonsense. These problems would remain
even if Israel did not exist. The result of such an approach
would be no progress on America's interests and great stress
in US-Israel relations.
The Kissinger approach of strengthening moderates may be
tainted in some minds because it may be associated with
Bush's policy--but it doesn't have to be. One doesn't have to
be a Bush supporter to understand that the greatest need in
the region today is for victories by the moderates over the
radicals. In Israel's case, radical challenges exist from
Hamas in the south, Hizbullah and Syria in the north, and
Iran. All are complicated challenges. US support for a strong
and wise Israeli policy in response to these challenges will
provide the best opportunity to strengthen American
interests. Holding off Hamas, weakening Hizbullah, or
preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons will provide the
biggest boost to moderates throughout the Middle East. If the
Obama administration can help bring about one or more of
these accomplishments, it will go a long way to restoring
American influence in the region and, by the way, make
Israeli-Arab peace far more likely.
This linkage trend, if continued, is dangerous and
counterproductive. It could undermine the historic bipartisan
support for Israel in America, a support based on moral and
strategic grounds, that has been--and still is--good for both
countries. It will reduce whatever incentive the Palestinians
have to reach a compromise peace with Israel; if America is
backing away from Israel, the Palestinians would reason, then
hopes of Israel's disappearance will be strengthened. It will
raise questions about American loyalty and credibility among
the Arabs who, despite their rhetoric criticizing US support
for Israel, would be far more distressed about the US
abandoning an ally.
It diverts attention away from the larger challenges in the
region--Iran's nuclear program, and the challenge of Islamic
extremism and terrorism. Finally, it has the smell about it
of blaming the Jews for everything. The notion that al-
Qaida's hatred of America or Iran's pursuit of nuclear
weapons or the ongoing threat of extremist terrorist groups
in the region is based on Israel's announcement of building
apartments is absurd on its face and smacks of scapegoating.
It's time for the administration to step back not only from
the harsh rhetoric but also from the illusionary thinking
about Israel hurting American interests. America and Israel
can have their differences, but the US has no better ally
than Israel. The administration needs to recognize this and
find ways to reassure those who are raising concerns.