This potential as well as the necessary consequences was behind the principled objections by diplomatic veteran Loy Henderson as well as the distinguished SecState of the time of Israel's creation, General George C. Marshall. These men as well as others whose propensity for antisemitism was nil, foresaw the implicitly never ending conflict between the new Jewish state and its Arab neighbors. They also saw the concomitant potential for a decreasing capacity for the US to operate freely in the region serving as an honest broker between Israel and the "Arab and Muslim World" while simultaneously serving its own national and strategic interests.
The ever growing connection between Israel and the US would, it was predicted, hobble the American capacity to function effectively in an area which possessed a developing strategic and economic importance for the US. Sixty years ago a handful of farsighted people dreaded the consequences which must ensue upon the American recognition of the Israeli state as it was created on the battlefield.
Politically and culturally the US has become, as was warned, ever more tightly entangled with Israel. Now, it appears as if President Obama seeks to cut this long-developing, ever-more-constraining Gordian Knot.
This prompts a question. In so doing will the US simply be carrying water for another country?
Specifically, is the US pursuing its subjectively defined national and strategic interests in applying pressure on the Israelis without an equal effort directed at the Arab actors? Or is it simply carrying water for Saudi Arabia?
Recent reports out of the feudal kingdom of Saudi Arabia point at the second alternative. The Saudi monarch, King Abdullah, has reportedly told President Obama to "impose" a solution on the government of Israel. An article printed in a newspaper owned by one of the King's nephews has the Saudi monarch promising the American president that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which is acceptable to all the Arab actors would be a "magic key" to the solution of any (unspecified) number of other problems bedevilling American relations with Arab and Muslim states.
The Saudi foreign minister took an identical line in an upcoming Newsweek article in which Prince Saud al-Faisal urged that the US cut off all foreign aid to Israel in the event the state did not comply with requirements of the "Two State Solution." The Prince, like the King, appeared to be saying, "See how easy it is. Just money muscle the intransigent Jews."
While both the King and the ForMin were "creatively ambiguous" in just what the final, acceptable requirements of the "Two State Solution" might be, there is no reason to think that these were much different from the 2002 Saudi plan which has subsequently re-emerged under the sponsorship of the Arab League and, most recently, Jordan's King Abdullah II. These plans called for Israel to retreat to its pre-1967 borders. (Presumably leaving behind the totality of the infrastructure and other appurtenances constructed over the past forty-two years for the turn-key benefit of the teeming Arab Palestinian masses.)
The plan also demands Israel leave the portion of Jerusalem conquered from Jordan in 1967 which portion includes that not inconsiderable artifact of the Jewish religion--the Western or Wailing Wall. The plan also requires an Arab "right of return" to pre-1949 properties now in Israel. Or maybe it doesn't--this part is creatively ambiguous.
In return the Arab League members will normalise relations with Israel. This may or may not mean an effective end to all terrorist acts, propaganda and other hostile actions undertaken by non-state actors against Israel (aka the Zionist entity.) Overall, the proposed package appears to demand a whole lot of substance for not very much of close to nothing.
(Those who doubt the validity of this assessment are invited to take a close dekko at the practical level outcome of the Camp David Accords as they affect Israel's national security and other interests.)
Saudi Arabia's less than firmly ensconced monarchy has a very good reason for demanding that the US carry its water. The reason is contained in one word: survival.
The House of Sand is under threat from Iran. The monarchy is very well aware that Iran has regional hegemonic power status ambitions. It is very well aware that the mullahs behind the government of Iran want to displace Saudi Arabia as the leading figure in the Gulf region--and beyond. The Saudis believe (hope?) that by being the power behind a comprehensive settlement to the Israeli-Arab conflict on terms quite favorable (and equally undeserved) to the Arab states it can form a solid Arab bloc to resist Iran.
The Saudi doomsday scenario is predicated upon an alliance between the Shia powers of Iran and Iraq as well as an expanded diplomatic linkage between Tehran and Damascus and an expansion of power by the Iranian backed Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Not a pleasant view to be sure. Also, probably lacking in realism, but that's beside the point at least in the estimate of the oil powered, jacked up camel herders of the Empty Quarter.
The Saudis could take a more realistic view of how the settlement of the Israeli-Arab conflict might be fashioned. But, to do such would require two exercises in the impossible.
The rulers of the sand pile without end would have to acknowledge the series of diplomatic and political blunders committed over the past eighty years by the Arabs. Not in this universe.
Even more impossible, the Saudi regime would have to turn its collective back on the Wahhibist sectarians without whose support the dune of rulership would blow away in the slightest wind. To the Wahhibist the very idea of peace with the Jews is anathema. It is the worst of "Un-Islamic activities" imaginable.
It is impossible to decouple the antisemitic nature of Islam from the politics of solving the Arab conflict with Israel. If the Obama administration really, really believes that the words of the Koran are somehow irrelevant to the international politics of today simply because they were first written more than a thousand years ago, it is in serious need of a reality check. The ultimate stumbling block for peace in the Mideast is not the Israeli settlements in the West Bank or the unwillingness of Israel to surrender security to the good will of the Arab states.
The speed bump on the "Roadmap" is the words of the Prophet. It is the doctrine of Islam. While there may be any number of observant Muslims who are willing to take a live-and-let-live attitude to Israel, this is not the case with the True Believers both Sunni and Shia. Certainly the Salifists and their successors, the Wahhibists, cannot and will not drop the injunctions contained in the Koran and Hadith that damn the Jews whenever and wherever they exist.
The pursuit of peace in the Mideast is laudable. More, it is necessary. However this pursuit must not be at an unnecessary cost to either Israel or the US. It must be in pursuit of genuine, definable, direct American national and strategic interests.
Carrying endless buckets of water for Israel as a matter of mindless political advantage has been and is wrong. It has been and is harmful to our national and strategic interests.
Putting down Israeli buckets in order to pick up ones marked "Saudi" would be just as wrong, just as harmful to our interests--perhaps even more so. In pursuit of peace in the Mideast the governing question must be, "What's in it for the US?"
No comments:
Post a Comment