There are those, who, in order to show their sophistication about the Middle East will claim that it is Israel’s position that makes peace in the Middle East so elusive. A recent variation on this was the March post in Foreign Affairs alleging that Gen. Petraeus found the failure to move forward on the peace process a major concern of his.
This was followed by Max Boot pointing out that the peace process was one of a number of factors mentioned by Petraeus (and not one that he actually presented in his oral testimony to the Senate). Philip Klein of the American Spectator asked Gen. Petraeus directly, and the general confirmed Boot’s reading of his testimony.
Still the blame Israel first crowd persists. Last week (via memeorandum) Jeffrey Goldberg showed his sophistication by quoting an unnamed Jewish leader, who also wishes to sound sophisticated:
“Is there hypocrisy here? Of course there’s hypocrisy. Does the average Arab leader care about the Palestinians? If they cared, they would have bought them new houses with their oil money a long tim ago. But they know that their people, thanks to al Jazeera, care, and are aware of the situation on the ground, and they know that America is Israel’s prime benefactor. The point is, the perception of israeli intransigence makes it seem like the deck is stacked against the Arabs and considering that we need the Arabs for oil, to stand against Iran, for all kinds of things, it’s Israel’s job to help its main ally unstack that deck a little. Petraeus was just telling the truth about the on-the-ground reality.”
Funny thing is, if you look at the whole briefing prepared for Petraeus, you’d learn (.pdf) for example:
The activities and policies of the Iranian regime constitute the major state-level threats to regional stability. Despite repeated International Atomic Energy Agency findings of Iranian violations if non-proliferation obligations, five United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and extensive diplomatic efforts through the P5+1, the Iranian regime is assessed by many to be continuing its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability, which would destabilize the region and likely spur a regional arms race. The Iranian regime employs surrogates and violent proxies to weaken competitor states, obstruct the Middle East Peace Process, and expand its regional influence. In particular, Iran uses proxy groups to train and equip militants in direct conflict with U.S. forces operating in the region, to frustrate efforts to stabilize Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza, and to interfere with the domestic politics in each. In the past, Syria has facilitated the Iranian regime’s reach into the Levant and the Arab world by serving as the key link in an Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas alliance. The Iranian regime’s domestic activities are also troubling, as its recent violent suppression of opposition groups and popular protests has violated the human rights of the Iranian people and fomented further instability and unrest and increased the role of the security forces in the affairs of the state.
None of the folks who feign sophistication and bravery for viewing American challenges in the Middle East mainly through the prism of Israeli intransigence suggest that we therefore need to take a more decisive stand against Iran.
And of course there are those who go even further than Jeffrey Goldberg, like a poster at the leftist site, The Moderate Voice:
I admit I’m a bit surprised that Goldberg is willing to acknowledge the reality that it’s Israel, and not the Palestinians, that poses the greatest threat to a peaceful two-state solution and to its own national security — but hey, better late than never:
So it’s not only that America’s security is harmed by Israel, but so too is Israel’s. Of course this assumes the reason that there’s no peace is mostly because of Israel. It’s a proposition that is based on ignorance as it was Arafat in 2000 and Abbas in 2008 who rejected peaceful settlements based on what everyone knows is required for peace.
Israel Matzav sums up his response like this:
In summary, there is no agreement between Israel and the ‘Palestinians’ on the table because the ‘Palestinians’ will not accept a Jewish state of any size. This isn’t about ‘settlements’ – it’s about Israel’s existence.
The argument that the Arab states would be more cooperative with the United States if only the US ‘resolved’ the ‘Palestinian problem’ is bogus, especially when one considers that the only resolution acceptable to the Arabs is the destruction of the Jewish state. The Arabs will act in their own interests, and will cooperate with the United States when they see that as being in their interest. The ‘Palestinian problem’ has no connection to Iran. The Arabs will support anything the US agrees to do about Iran (which is so far nothing) and they are not the ones holding up sanctions.
The vast majority of American Jewry will support Obama regardless of what he does to Israel. It’s the opposite of James Baker’s “F**k the Jews – they don’t vote for us anyway.” It’s “F**k the Jews – they’ll vote for us anyway. American support for Israel is not dependent on the 1.7% of the US population that identifies as Jewish. American support for Israel comes from America’s Christian heartland, and they will vote for either party. Thus all the ‘Jewish leaders’ who are afraid to have Rozen and Goldberg identify them can remain anonymous.
We in Israel have to keep acting in our own interests. Returning to the 1967 borders would be an existential danger for us. We saw it in Lebanon (which we left ten years ago this week), and we saw it in Gaza. If God forbid we return to the 1967 borders, within a few years, we won’t have a state left.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Israels borders as defined by the UN do NOT include the land won in 1967. Its absurd to argue that Israel must keep the land and still be seen as wanting peace?! sigh, you reap what you sow. everything flips around, eventually.
The UN has no authority to define a countries borders. Almost every country that came into being with the fall of the Ottoman enpire has some border dispute and the UN has never involved itself in any of them.
In any case Israel’s “borders” of 1967 were not recognized international borders. They were merely armistice lines from the 1949 Armistice agreement. In August 1967 Israel offerred to return all the land captured in the June 1967 Six Day War, except Jerusalem. In return Israel wanted recognized borders, a negotiatied peace treaty, and recognition as a nation by the Arab states. The Arabs answered next month with the “Three No’s of Khartoum”, no recognition, no negotiations, no peace. It has never been Israel that stood in the way of peace, but always the Arabs.
When Israel’s enemies say “Peace in the Middle East” what they mean is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its Jewish inhabitants. When they whine for “American evenhandedness” what they mean is that we should help them do this evil deed.
Ari, the UN resolutions passed after the 1967 war specifically did *NOT* set Israel’s borders or require Israel to stay within the 1949 armisitice line (do you know what that is, I doubt it). It is so typical of those who blame it all on Israel to smugly spout off only to reveal they don’t know WTF they are talking about.
Minor nit, soccerdad – wasn’t it Foreign Policy, not Foreign Affairs, that had the anti-Israel post referencing Petraeus?