US Policy on Israel is Stuck in the 1970s
print
tell a friend
Photo Credit: Yori Yanover
The very first post that I wrote in this blog back in 2006 was about the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group and its non-sequitur assertion of the “linkage theory.” You will recall that the war in Iraq was going badly at the time, with Sunni and Shiite ‘insurgents’ killing large numbers of each other’s people as well as American soldiers. Here’s part of what they said:
Iraq cannot be addressed effectively in isolation from other major regional issues, interests, and unresolved conflicts. To put it simply, all key issues in the Middle East—the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need for political and economic reforms, and extremism and terrorism—are inextricably linked. In addition to supporting stability in Iraq, a comprehensive diplomatic offensive—the New Diplomatic Offensive—should address these key regional issues. By doing so, it would help marginalize extremists and terrorists, promote U.S. values and interests, and improve America’s global image…
The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This was followed by a series of specific recommendations to “solve” the conflict, by forcing Israel to give up all territory it took control of in 1967, including the Golan, Judea and Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem. Of course this didn’t happen, and the bleeding in Iraq was stanched by the “surge,” the temporary deployment of additional troops plus the strategy of buying the support of indigenous Sunni elements in Iraq.
The opportunistic invocation of the linkage theory during the Iraq war crisis was yet another example of its persistence, despite the fact that even before the “Arab Spring” there was no reason to believe that it was true. Today it has been further falsified by events, as Jeffrey Goldberg made clear recently in a discussion of Chuck Hagel, another linkage theory advocate:
Come with me on a quick tour of the greater Middle East. The Syrian civil war? Unrelated to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. The slow disintegration of Yemen? Unrelated. Chaos and violence in Libya? Unrelated. Chaos and fundamentalism in Egypt? The creation of a Palestinian state on the West Bank would not have stopped the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, nor would it have stopped the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorism in Algeria? Unrelated. The Iranian nuclear program? How would the creation of a Palestinian state have persuaded the Iranian regime to cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons? Someone please explain. Sunni-Shiite civil war in Iraq? The unrest in Bahrain? Pakistani havens for al-Qaeda affiliates? All unrelated. I’ll add that with regard to Iran, the theory is not only wrong, it is backwards — rather than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict influencing Iran to misbehave, Iran exacerbates the conflict by financing Palestinian terrorists!
As recently as 2010, President Obama professed belief in some form of the linkage theory, and Goldberg correctly asks,
Hagel wants to lead the U.S. Defense Department. I would like to know if he still believes in linkage. More important, I would like to know if Obama is still captive to this same, flawed concept.
The linkage theory was always a good excuse to pressure Israel, because it was an appeal to American interests, not Arab or Palestinian ones. This was especially useful between 1973 and the 1990s when Arabs and Palestinians had a very poor image in the U.S., being associated with astronomical oil prices and terrorism. Since Oslo, it’s become more acceptable to say things like the following (from Obama’s notorious 2009 Cairo speech):
On the other hand [compared to the Holocaust!], it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. Suddenly, it’s all about caring for the Palestinians. But why are the Palestinians in particular so deserving of help compared to other groups around the world, many of whom are much worse off?
tell a friendAbout the Author: Vic Rosenthal created FresnoZionism.org to provide a forum for publishing and discussing issues about Israel and the Mideast conflict, especially where there is a local connection. Rosenthal believes that America’s interests are best served by supporting the democratic state of Israel, the front line in the struggle between Western civilization and radical Islam. The viewpoint is not intended to be liberal or conservative — just pro-Israel.
You might also be interested in:
You must log in to post a comment.
No Responses to “US Policy on Israel is Stuck in the 1970s”
Loading ...
The US policy of opposing settlements began in 1968, before anyone cared about Arab oil:
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v20/d137
The US imported approximately 35.5 million barrels of oil from all countries combined in March 1968. In November 2012, the US imported 63 million barrels from the Persian Gulf alone. Nine Presidents — four Democrats and five Republicans, have maintained this policy.
And what is wrong with the quote from Obama's "notorious" Cairo speech? Everything there is accurate. (Well, one can argue about the term "humiliation" but Obama stole it from George W. Bush.)
That said, Goldberg is of course correct. Israel had nothing to do, for example, with the massacres taking place in Syria, although it is of course getting blamed. Israel could vote itself out of existence tomorrow and Syria would still have a civil war, Iran would still be pursuing nuclear weapons, and Al Qaeda of the Magrib would still be trying to take over Mali.
The policy has been consistent but you're not correct about nobody caring about arab oil. Arab oil was already driving the politics of Palestine well before the state was established.
Ironically, other people would make that argument as well, only with the conclusion that the Cold War is over and at this point our support for Israel doesn't provide the United States any strategic benefit anymore.
So Charlie,you oppose the settlements,think Israel should return to the indefensible 67 borders?
If you want to keep the territories you have to annex them and give Israeli citizenship to the Arabs living there.
But in any case, the borders aren't the issue today. Iran is.