FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

For some time I’ve been struggling with the ‘linkage theory’, the idea that “ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is necessary (or helpful) for solving other problems in the Mideast”. Its most recent proponent, of course, has been Barack Obama, who said this yesterday:

To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians – between the Palestinians and the Israelis – then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat… Imagine how much less mischief Hizbullah or Hamas could do if, in fact, we had moved a Palestinian-Israeli track in a direction that gave the Palestinian people hope. And if Hizbullah and Hamas [are] weakened, imagine how that impacts Iran’s ability to make mischief and vice versa. — Jerusalem Post

Linkage is not new.  For example here is a comment by Richard H. Curtiss, a retired State Department official and one of the most anti-Israel guys you’ll find west of Gaza:

By usurping the Palestinian cause, Saddam Hussain captured hearts and minds in the Middle East, Asia, Eastern and Western Europe, and even the United States. If the US allows him to go down in history as a hero of the still homeless Palestinians, Americans will lose the peace. This means our Arab allies will, eventually, be undermined. Our relations with all of our NATO allies will suffer. And US troops will someday be back in the Middle East, but very likely without either Arab or European allies. — “After the Gulf War, Linkage Means Winning the Peace“, 1991

The Iraqis themselves, apparently, believed in linkage. Here’s a snippet from a 2002 CNN broadcast during the run-up to the Iraq war:

Paula Zahn (CNN anchor): And how much have you heard from Iraqi officials lately about Palestine or a Palestinian state?

Jane Arraf (CNN Baghdad correspondent): Every day, that is the overriding issue, not just in Iraq, Paula, but in this region as well, and is really overshadowing U.S. plans for any intervention in Iraq. The feeling is, that as long as there’s simmering and as long as the United States is seen to be siding wholeheartedly with Israel against the Palestinians, it really is going to be very difficult to get a coalition here to launch any sort of action against Iraq.

It’s worth mentioning that 2002 was the height of the Arafat Intifada, a year in which literally hundreds of Israelis were blown to bits by Palestinian suicide bombers.

Linkage was also a favorite theme of Saudi agent James A. Baker, and appeared in the Iraq Study Group report he co-authored.

I’ve argued that linkage is profoundly illogical and that in fact the US administration does not even believe it — that it is simply being used as an excuse to force Israel to make concessions, with the implied threat that otherwise the US will not help deal with Iran.

But although the administration would like to use linkage as a club to beat Israel with, US actions against the Iranian nuclear program cannot possibly be waiting on ‘progress’ on the Palestinian Issue. Evidence for this is that Sunni Arab states like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are quite concerned about Iran, and you can bet that they are not holding their breath until there’s peace in the Holy Land. Certainly Obama is telling them that the issues are independent.

So if the Palestinians are actually irrelevant and everyone knows this, why is a Palestinian state presented as such a high priority for the US? There are several reasons:

• Domestic political considerations: a large proportion of the funding for Mr. Obama’s campaign — and many of his advisers — came from the ‘progressive’ wing of the Democratic party (and indeed, from progressives who might not even associate themselves with the Democrats). The Palestinian issue is very big in these circles.
• The US image in the Muslim world: Obama would like to reverse the general impression among Muslims throughout the world that the US is their enemy. One of his first interviews as President was with Al Arabiyah. What better way to score points than to take on probably the biggest symbol of ‘Muslim oppression’ in the world, the Palestinian issue?
• The State Department and the Saudis: almost since Rav Goren blew the shofar at the Temple Mount in 1967, State policy — possibly a result of strong Saudi influence — has been that the US should do its best to shrink the map of Israel back to what it was before.
• Europe: The Europeans love the idea, because it plays so well at home and helps them avoid considering the Iranian threat — for now.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Obama, linkage

Take your blood pressure meds before reading the article by Philip Weiss that I quote here:

On the eve of Nakba remembrance day, a young rabbi led an observance of the catastrophe “that cannot be denied, ignored, or wished away” in Union Square in New York last night before a largely-Jewish group. She said that four rabbis in four other American cities were also marking the event.

Alissa Wise, who is about to graduate from rabbinical school, told the Jews who had gathered that they had made a “courageous choice,” to face the truth that “Israel’s founding is inextricably bound up with the dispossession of hundreds of thousands.” She seemed charged with an awareness of Jewish history when she said that four other rabbis were leading similar remembrances in the Bay Area, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia.

She then led the group of about 60 people in a ceremony that echoed the Passover seder, or liberation festival of Jewish tradition, including the ritual reading of the names of Arab villages that were removed from the Israeli map in the early days of the Nakba, May 9-16, 1948.

“These are 63 of the 531 villages that were destroyed,” Wise said, “the violence that began in 1948 continues to this day,”

As the names were read aloud, to the bang of a drum, you could hear New York Jewish voices struggling with Arabic, and Arab-Americans pronouncing the names with authority.

…Wise led a reading of the Jewish litany, Dayeinu, or “Enough,” which is chanted at Passover, but these “Enough”s marked signal events of the Nakba, like the massacre at Deir Yassin and the expulsions of Palestinians from the cities of Haifa, Lydda, and Jaffa. [my emphasis]

Dayeinu indeed!

Enough of Jews who exploit their Jewishness to lend authority to the propaganda projects of the enemies of the Jewish state and people.

Ms. Wise thinks that she understands enough about the history of Jews and Arabs in the land of Israel — not to mention the politics of the region today — to take the positions that she does.

She does not.

Ms. Wise is very concerned about justice for all peoples, which is an important qualification for a rabbi, so she really should study the actual history of the region so that she can be sure that she is not shortchanging her own people. She should consider

• The historical connection of Jews to the land

• The origins of the Palestinian Arabs resident in 1948

• The behavior of said Arabs toward Jews before the founding of the state

• Who started the war in 1947-48

• The various reasons that Arabs abandoned their homes in 1948

• The reasons that few of the actual refugees were able to return

• The behavior of the Arab world toward the state of Israel since its founding, and particularly that of the Palestinian Arabs and their leader, Yasser Arafat

• The real facts behind the atrocity stories that she hears from Palestinians

• The attitudes of today’s Palestinians, their support for Hamas, their adulation of Samir Kuntar, etc.

• The present security situation, in which the Palestinian Arabs comprise the point of the Iranian spear aimed at the Jewish state

• What it would be like for Jews if there were no Jewish state

In addition, I suggest that she should be a little more cynical about the intentions of her Arab friends when they say that all they want is justice.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Nakba, Alissa Wise

Just about everyone — the administration and some liberal Jewish groups in the US, the Pope, Mahmoud Abbas, King Abdullah of Jordan, and others — are pressing Prime Minister Netanyahu to ‘commit to a two-state solution’. But what does this mean? And does it make sense?

One way this has been understood is as a commitment to the goal of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside Israel. It implies that Israel will negotiate a peace agreement which transfers some of the territories to Palestinian sovereignty (in particular, that of the Palestinian Authority [PA]). This has been the position of the Israeli government since the Oslo agreement was signed in 1993. Neither PM Netanyahu or Foreign Minister Lieberman — despite accusations to the contrary — has rejected this.

Then there is the interpretation of Abbas’ PA: Israel will withdraw to pre-1967 lines, including all of East Jerusalem (and especially the Temple Mount area), grant a right of return to ‘refugees’, etc. Nothing less is on the table. Obviously, Netanyahu will not ‘commit’ in advance — or ever — to anything like that.

The Israeli position, which will be clearer when Netanyahu meets Obama next week, seems to be that Israel will talk to the PA but will demand some concrete concessions from them, as well as US action against Iranian proxy aggression (i.e., Hamas and Hezbollah) before making an agreement to cede land.

The US administration seems to be somewhere in between,  demanding a prior commitment to a Palestinian state, although allowing land swaps so that Israel can retain some settlements and rejecting the settlement of ‘refugees’ in Israel. The US also rejects the idea that the Iran-Hamas-Hezbollah problem needs to be solved first.

I think it’s not unreasonable to refuse to prejudge the outcome of negotiations. For example, can Netanyahu agree today that the negotiations will produce a Palestinian state if  Abbas is not prepared to compromise on ‘right of return’ or anything else?

It’s also a little disingenuous for the ‘two-staters’ to pretend that there is no Hamas and that Israel’s jeopardy from Syria and Hezbollah’s rockets and Iran’s soon-to-be nukes may be ignored.

Can Israel be expected to transfer the West Bank to the PA when there is no reason to think that it won’t come under Hamas control — either by bullets, ballots or subversion? Hamas is more popular and stronger than the PA, and today only the presence of the IDF in the West Bank prevents a replay of the Gaza takeover. Shouldn’t there be some guarantee that the hostile Iranian proxy presence to the north and south will not be replicated in the east?

To a great extent, the ‘two-state solution’ is a slogan which in itself means little. The goal of PM Netanyahu’s meeting with President Obama should be concrete proposals which do not simply demand a Palestinian state while eliding the real security problems caused by the Iranian war-by-proxy.

Technorati Tags: Israel, two-state solution, Netanyahu, Obama