U.S.-ISRAELI RELATIONS TAKE ANOTHER TURN
uexpress
Date: 4/20/2010
By Georgie Anne Geyer Georgie Anne Geyer – Tue Apr 20, 5:55 pm ET
WASHINGTON –– Politicians and Middle East thinkers here are still talking –– and admiring and complaining –– about Gen. David Petraeus' recent comments on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and their potentially negative effect on American fighting men.
Most are not even quite sure what he said. Was it that Israel is endangering American troops in the region? Or that the Arabs are using Israeli "intransigence" to poison the whole area? Or is it perhaps the Palestinians who are just plain hopeless?
Well, not quite any of those. Yet you would think he had said things far worse, given the responses to his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 16 about our involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Actually, in his written testimony, the hero of Iraq and the man portrayed by Foreign Policy Magazine as eighth on its 2009 list of "Top 10 Global Thinkers" said:
"The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our (CENTCOM) ability to advance our interests in the AOR (area of responsibility). Israeli–Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large–scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti–American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel."
Then he continued, saying: "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al–Qaida and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas."
While we have surely had such dustups before in our alliance with Israel, there is something very different about the tenor of it this time. Gen. Petraeus' words are more than moderate and true. Indeed, how could it all be otherwise?
The fact that they come from the man who is head of the U.S. Central Command provides them a gravitas that is too often absent in sober Middle East critiques.
All the general really said was that the United States' close relationship with Israel is costing us the friendships and alliances of many Arab countries because of the Palestinian cause, that that in turn tends to cause the breakdown of responsible Arab regimes that we support, and that all of this stokes even further the irrational anger in Iran, which could lead to a real blowup across the entire region.
As Daniel Kurtzer, the highly respected former U.S. ambassador to Egypt and Israel, and himself Jewish, wrote afterward on the bitterlemons–international website:
"Petraeus' statement to the Senate is not surprising to those of us who have served and traveled in the Arab world. We may not like what we hear, and some of what is said is highly exaggerated; but these are constant themes expressed by Arab interlocutors, including friends of the United States. We need to take this seriously."
To which the Anti–Defamation League, one of the leading Jewish lobbies, responded critically: "Gen. Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the U.S. and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli–Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived U.S. favoritism for Israel. This linkage is dangerous and counterproductive."
Now let's pause for a moment and see where we really are. This is not just another dustup, but may well be a moment of real change. There is little question that just below the surface relations between the two countries are changing –– and will change even further.
More and more since the failure of the Oslo Accords in the 1990s and the virtual takeover of Israeli politics by the Far Right, often represented by natively anti–American Russian Israelis and ultra–conservative Sephardics from the Arab world, relations have deteriorated between the two countries. Israel has become the petulant and demanding dependent, and the U.S. has become the long–suffering Sugar Daddy, often angry and insulted but afraid to say anything because of the power of the lobbies.
But when the U.S. went into the Middle East with boots on the ground, everything changed –– and ironically, it had gone into Iraq after Afghanistan at the behest of the neocon group in the George W. Bush administration, whose major intention was to have American troops there to protect Israel. That move has now badly backfired, for it is precisely those troops who see themselves threatened in the Arab world by our ties to Israel.
The whole argument has been turned around –– and you hear over and over, versions of a new refrain: "We don't need to prove that we're committed to Israel's security; they need to prove that they're committed to ours."
In fact, the new argument taking form –– which is not unlike the independent–minded policy of Dwight Eisenhower when he was president and defeated the Israelis, the British and the French in their attempt to take over Suez –– is that Israel should be free to do whatever she wants, but not in our name.
Many Israelis agree with this thinking and are praising President Obama for his attempts to restart the peace process. Ambassador Kurtzer perhaps has the answer. He calls for the activation of "a serious peace process with a serious American role" in which we would "get in return the kind of Arab support Washington will need to curb Iran's aggressive intentions."
In fact, not only can progress in the Middle East be made that way, but that's the only way it can be made.
Source
About headlines and content that gets changed after it was added to this site - see disclaimer here
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in ourefforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
Email this to a friend