In this dispatch at Foreign Policy (via memeorandum) Josh Rogin writes:
“Clearly one way that Iran is increasing its influence in the region is by exploiting the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians,” Ross said, echoing statements made by U.S. Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus in a report (pdf) submitted to Congress back in March.
“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests,” Petraeus wrote. “The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.”
Conservative hard-liners ripped Petraeus for the statement, linking the report to a story on Foreign Policy‘s Middle East Channel (some elements of which are in dispute). The National Review‘s Andrew McCarthy even accused the general of “echoing the narrative peddled incessantly by leftists in the government he serves and by Islamists in the countries where he works.”
But Ross, who is not often accused of being too hard on Israel, made similar comments Monday. “The continuation of the conflict strengthens Iran’s rejectionist partners and also Hezbollah. Iran deliberately uses the conflict to expose even the moderates in the region by stoking the fears of its populations and playing the worst most anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist prejudices,” he said.
Two things struck me about this. The first is Rogin’s assertion that elements of Mark Perry’s article about Petraeus are “in dispute.” Actually it was the three major elements of Perry’s article were REFUTED by General Petraeus. I suppose that since Rogin is also writing for a Foreign Policy blog, it wouldn’t have been proper to write that the article was an unprofessional hack job, but saying that elements were in dispute is a vast understatement. Petraeus did include Palestinian Israeli conflict is one of a number of complicating factors in his job, however to focus only on that and imply that it is Israel’s fault, is a distortion of Petraeus’s briefing.
The second point that’s troublesome is his assertion about Ross “…is not often accused of being too hard on Israel.” Actually as Rogin observes at the end of the article:
At Monday’s dinner, ADL Executive Director Abe Foxman defended Ross from a recent attack by an anonymous administration source quoted by Politico‘s Laura Rozen.
“He [Ross] seems to be far more sensitive to Netanyahu’s coalition politics than to U.S. interests,” the source told Rozen, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The charge wasn’t that Ross was “not … being too hard on Israel” wasn’t what was said. The charge was that Ross was accused of putting Israel’s interests ahead of American interests. It was a vile charge of disloyalty that no one would think of making about political figures regarding any other country, without being regarded as a bigot.
Rogin seems unwilling to acknowledge that criticism of Israel stems from motives other than what’s best for the United States.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
