FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Joe Biden presented the administration’s version of the linkage theory to the AIPAC convention. I’ve linked the video below; the relevant part is about 5:20 into it (you really don’t want to listen to Biden for any longer than absolutely necessary — he invented ‘boring’).

His argument is that Iran “exploits” the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflicts in order to extend its influence into the Sunni world, something which would be otherwise “counter-intuitive”. Biden says that the continuation of the conflicts “strengthens Iran’s position”. The conflicts “give Iran a playing field upon which to extend its influence, sponsor extremist sentiments, inflame public opinion”. So in Biden’s view, ending the conflict would pull the rug out from under Iran.

Now almost nobody aspiring to leadership in the Muslim Middle East has ever done so by suggesting that maybe Israel isn’t so bad after all (Sadat may be an exception, but he didn’t survive it). But

• Iran is not so much making use of the conflict as creating it. Any actual moderate Palestinians have been suppressed in favor of extremists who are either Iranian proxies themselves or take advantage of the climate they have created. This makes it hard — impossible — to end the conflict while Iran pulls the strings.

• A primary Iranian goal is to eliminate Israel, both because it is an obstacle to other objectives and as an end in itself. Ending the conflict by forcing Israel to cede the territories to a Palestinian entity which will soon be controlled by Iranian proxy Hamas will severely weaken Israel and help, not hurt, Iran.

• As long as attention is focused on Israel and the Palestinians, Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons.

The best way to keep them from getting the bomb and taking control of the region is to directly confront Iran, diplomatically or militarily — whatever it takes to end its nuclear program and its export of worldwide terrorism.

After that I think we will be surprised to see how much simpler it is to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Here’s Biden at AIPAC:

Technorati Tags: Biden, linkage theory, Iran, Israel, Palestinians

News item:

WASHINGTON – US President Barack Obama plans to act firmly and decisively in order to reach durable peace, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday night in a closed forum attended by 300 of the biggest donors of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The event was held as part of the pro-Israel’s [sic] lobby annual conference in Washington.

He reiterated that the ability to confront Iran depended on the ability to make progress on the Palestinian front. Solving the conflict will make it possible to advance the handling of the main threat posed by Iran, he said.

As I’ve been writing for the past several days (here and here), this is wrong and dangerous. Forcing a Palestinian state into being now will only advance Iran’s goals in the region, not retard them.

Emanuel explained Obama’s determination to pressure the sides to reach a peace agreement by the fact that when there was no progress in the process there was an intifada, an escalation in Lebanon and an escalation in the Gaza Strip. When there is no peace, he said, it benefits those who are against Israel. If Israel fails to make peace with its neighbors there will be those who will favor violence, he stated.

This is truly an incredible statement.  When Arafat refused to accept a remarkably generous offer — because no offer that left Israel standing would suit him, after Israel had brought this terrorist back from exile and turned over large areas in the territories to his control — at this point he chose to unleash a massive murder offensive, which ended only when the IDF retook control of the areas.

When the IDF withdrew from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah invaded Israel, killed and kidnapped its soldiers and unleashed a massive rocket attack against the northern part of the country.

When Israel dragged 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza settlements, withdrew every last Jew from there, even dead ones, Hamas began its campaign of rocket attacks, cross-border raids, etc. Today there’s only one Jew left in Gaza, Gilad Schalit.

In every case Israeli concessions and withdrawals led to war and violence. How is it possible to miss this?

The White House chief of staff clarified that the foundation for an agreement between the two sides must be security for Israel and a sovereign state for the Palestinians. The US is committed to the two-state process, he said, adding that this was the only solution.

 All sides must meet their commitments, as difficult as they may be, he noted.

If Israel doesn’t meet her commitments, we know what will happen. But when terrorists with plausible deniability kill Israelis, what will the US do? The Palestinians will get their state, that’s guaranteed. But will Israel get security?

According to Emanuel, the US expects Hamas to accept the international Quartet’s principles – recognizing Israel and past agreements and renouncing terror. If Hamas fails to do so, he said, it will have no seat beside the negotiating table.

With all due respect, regardless of whatever magic formula Hamas can be made to utter, does anyone believe that Hamas will ever offer more than a temporary postponement of its jihad against Israel and Jews?

Meanwhile, while the US is busy raping Israel (apologies to ex-Ha’aretz editor David Landau who thought it was a good idea) into making concessions which will undoubtedly cost Israeli lives, Iran will be cheerfully spinning those centrifuges.

Israel needs to understand that the US is more interested in a Palestinian state and (as I wrote in my last post) keeping the Saudis happy than either Israel’s security or Iranian expansionism and bomb-making. Remember: American interests, Israeli interests. They are not the same. 

Let’s hope that Israel understands that in particular the Iranian nuclear program is an Israeli problem, which will need to be solved by Israel. The sooner the better.

Rahm Emanuel strikes a pose at AIPAC meeting

Technorati Tags:   Rahm Emanuel, Israel

Yesterday I explained how the Obama Administration’s policy toward Israel and the Palestinians is based on a mistake — the belief that the problems of Iranian expansionism and weapons development would be easier to solve once a Palestinian state had been established.

I argued that this is backwards, since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is exacerbated by Iranian support of Hamas, and that it is impossible to end the conflict without a change in Iran’s behavior.

I want to continue this thread with another argument, and then comment about the source of the mistake.

It seems to me that not only is the administration apparently blind to what Iran is doing now with regard to Israel and the Palestinians, its policy ignores Iranian plans for the future.

Iran has economic and political-religious objectives in the region. They would like to force the price of oil higher, so their less-efficient infrastructure can make a profit. As a result, they aspire to the power to bully Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to reduce production.

Further, Iran has expanded its influence in the arc comprising Syria and Lebanon: Syria has become an explicit satellite of Iran, a recipient of a huge amount of military hardware, much of which is under Iranian control.  Iranian influence over Lebanon, already great — Hezbollah presently is the single most powerful element in the government — will increase even more as Hezbollah makes expected gains in next month’s elections.

Egypt recently arrested a number of Hezbollah agents who were scouting targets for terrorist attacks, some of which were tourist sites where Israelis or Americans might be found, but others — such as locations along the Suez canal — indicated a plan to destabilize the regime. President Mubarak explicitly denounced Iran and Hezbollah.

In Iraq, with its Shiite majority, it’s hard to imagine that anything can prevent Iran from gaining control of that nation when US troops leave.

The Sunni nations are also worried that Iran may successfully export its brand of revolutionary Shiite Islamism, a previously unlikely outcome which its political successes make more and more imaginable.

All of these goals, of course, will be greatly aided by Iran’s achievement of a nuclear capability.

It’s obvious that the biggest obstacle to these plans is both the strongest military power in the region, and the closest ally of the US, Israel. And for this reason Iran is besieging Israel from the north and south by means of its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Note that this has nothing to do with the Palestinians, except insofar as they are being used as soldiers in the Iranian campaign to destroy Israel.

It is suggested that the Saudis and others will be more disposed to cooperate with the US in containing Iran if the Palestinian problem is ‘solved’ first. But since it would have no effect on Iranian behavior, there is no reason to believe this.  If this idea came from the Arabs, then it’s more likely that they are simply using this as a handy stick to beat Israel with.

Let’s assume that the Obama administration and the US State Department understand that the policy as stated is absurd. Then what do they gain from forcing the creation of a Palestinian state at this time?

• It’s not good for Israel and moderate Palestinians: as I said yesterday, it’s a prescription for war.

• It will not retard Iranian plans, and if it weakens Israel — which it must — it will advance them. If Israel gives up the Golan Heights, it will represent a direct strategic advantage for Iranian proxies Syria and Hezbollah.

• It will, however, please the Saudis, who would like to see a smaller (or no) Israel  and whose ‘peace plan‘ has now been mentioned as part of the formula for creating the Palestinian state.

• It will also please the pro-Saudi Arabists in the State Department, who have been trying to keep Henry Kissinger’s promise to reverse the outcome of the 1967 war ever since the oil boycott of the 1970’s.

Despite the talk about Barack Obama representing new beginnings, we see that US Mideast policy is still flowing from the same old sources. If the administration wants to give more than lip service to opposing Iranian plans, this has to change.

Technorati Tags: Obama administration, Israel, Palestinians, Iran, Saudi Arabia

A piece in the NY Times by Ethan Bronner will do to show the disconnect between Obama administration policy and reality.

JERUSALEM — The new government of Israel is seeking to reorient the country’s foreign policy, arguing that to rely purely on the formulas of trading land for peace and promising a Palestinian state fails to grasp what it views as the deeper issues: Muslim rejection of a Jewish state and the rising hegemonic appetite of Iran…

Such an ambitious effort to reformulate the conflict will be, by all accounts, tough to sell for two reasons.

First, even though the standard approaches have not yielded success, no alternative has emerged.

Second, the Obama administration has repeatedly backed the two-state solution, as have the Europeans. In other ways, too, this White House has seemed to be closer in outlook to Europe than the past administration was.

There’s an ambiguity in the concept “two-state solution”. One meaning is an outcome, a peaceful Palestinian state alongside Israel. The other seems to be a strategy for getting there, which is that the US forces Israel to make concessions.

Most Israelis think that a two-state outcome would be acceptable, if the Palestinians actually wanted it and if there were a way to safely obtain it. The Israeli government has been committed to this since Oslo. But practically no ordinary Israelis believe that it’s possible today, for two reasons: Hamas and Iran.

Muslim rejectionism of Israel has been around since 1947. It’s been the cause of several major and minor wars and much terrorism between wars. Some people thought that there was a window of opportunity around the early 1990’s, when external influences on the Palestinians were at their ebb: Iran and Iraq were weakened by their long war, the Soviet Union was gone. Possibly enough Palestinians could be found who were pragmatic enough to choose peace. But then somebody decided to pick Yasser Arafat, rejectionist par excellence to lead the Palestinians. And the window, such as it was, closed.

Israel’s effort to switch the discussion to Iran is likely to be met in Washington and in European capitals with the assertion that it is precisely because of the need to build an alliance to confront Iran that Israel must move ahead vigorously with the Palestinians as well as with the Syrians.

“President Obama views the region as a whole, and trying to isolate each problem does not reflect reality,” said a senior American official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the American policy was still in formation. “It will be a lot easier to build a coalition to deal with Iran if the peace process is moving forward.”

This ‘linkage theory’ — that the presence of Israel in the territories prevents progress on other issues, like Iranian weapons — is a blinding non-sequitur.

We know that Israel giving land to the Palestinians today will not lead to a peaceful two-state outcome. Gaza proves that. And the reason that this is so is because the Iranian-backed Hamas will prevent it. A similar argument can be made for the Golan Heights and Syria.

In the presence of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, territorial concessions lead to war, not peace.

The Americans and Europeans are proposing that Israel should make territorial concessions anyway. This, they believe will cause Arab states like Saudi Arabia or even Syria to help apply pressure to Iran to stop fomenting war and building nuclear bombs.

There are two big problems with this. The first is that it will leave Israel with a hostile terrorist state like today’s Gaza on a shrunken eastern border, leaving its heavily populated coastal plain defenseless. The Palestinians will be emboldened in their belief that they can reverse the nakba, and the conflict will get worse, not better.

The Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead are both direct results of Israeli concessions to Iranian proxies.

The second is that a weakened Israel will be a far less effective deterrent to Iranian expansion and weapons development than a strong one. Despite their public statements, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Saudis, Jordanians and Egyptians are counting on Israel to stop the Iranian weapons program before it’s too late.

The Palestinian question is actually much less pressing than the Iranian one, and today the former is clearly dependent on the latter, not the other way around.

Here’s is Bronner’s summation. Somehow the typical arrogant attitude of the unnamed American official shines through:

Israel says the occupation can be ended most easily once Iran is put in its place because then there will be much less risk of Iranian weapons being used against Israel from neighboring territory. Meanwhile, Israel says it cannot be expected to freeze settlement growth entirely.

The American, European and Arab response is that for Iran to be checked, every nation needs to do its part, and Israel’s part is to work toward ending the occupation, stopping settlement construction and fostering the creation of a Palestinian state.

When a senior American official was told that the Israelis did not view the Iranian and Palestinian problems as linked, he replied simply, “Well, we do.”

Technorati Tags: Israel, Obama administration, Mideast conflict, Iran

News item:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman decided to appoint Michael Oren as Israeli’s ambassador to the United States, Israel Radio reported Saturday evening.

The report stated that Oren will replace Ambassador Sallai Meridor in the coming weeks.

This is wonderful news. Dr. Michael Oren (Ph.D in Near East Studies) was born in the US and is an excellent, powerful speaker in English. An expert in the Mideast conflict but not an ideologue, he’ll serve as a antidote to the poisonous vapors arising from Obama advisors like Samantha Power.

I heard Ambassador Meridor interviewed on NPR during the Gaza war. They made mincemeat out of him; he came off as apologetic and evasive at the same time. This will never happen to Oren.

I recommend Oren’s book Power, Faith and Fantasy, an account of US relations with the Middle East since American independence, to everyone.

Technorati Tags: Michael Oren, Israel