Iraq - Arab-Israeli Peace Linkage - in which direction?

12/15/2006

If you like this post - click to Reddit!
add to del.icio.us	Add to digg - digg it

Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000542.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.

by Moderator @ 04:26 PM CST [Link]

Replies: 8 comments

Dear Ami,

I disagree with your assesment entirely:

1. Iran has wanted the U.S. to grant the Islamic Republic recognition and security and stop complaining about Iran's nuclear program. Talking to Iran about Iraq will help influence people like Mukataba Al-Sadre and other shites who have connections with Iran.

2. The U.S. will not entirely lose its influence in the Middle East if they pull out from Iraq. The U.S. still gives the Israelis massive military aid. Furthermore the U.S. could look at the Arab-Israeli conflict as a way to get back influence in the Middle East.

3. Americans are dying and tax money is going for a war that is going nowhere. It is not the job for Americans to die for other countries in the Middle East. If Israel wants Iraq to succeed then Israeli troops should go into Iraq and leave the Americans out of it. America should care for its own interests and shouldn't continue to die for special interests.

Your most serious mistake in your article is this:

According to the Iraq Study Group:

"The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The keywords in the quote are the "Middle East" which is much bigger than just Iraq and indeed in order dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict will help acheive America's goals in the Middle East. You twisted the words of the Study Group to make it look like they were connecting Iraq to the Arab-Israeli conflict but the Study Group clearly said the U.S. goals in the Middle East is linked to the Arab-Israeli conflict not Iraq.

That last mistake I pointed out killed your argument before you even began.

Posted by Butros Dahu @ 12/17/2006 08:08 PM CST

Butros, I have read a lot of your stuff on here and in general it is very sensible, but the idea that Israel should send troops to Iraq is the worst one I have ever heard. Perhaps you were joking and your sense of humour is too subtle for me?

I think it's a fair assumption that the Iraq Study Group is principally concerned with Iraq and their idea, which is sensible up to a point, is that the USA would be seen as a "fair cop" in the region if it wasn't perceived to be enabling Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. (Although in fact things have probably gone to far for that to happen for a generation or two).

One thing I do agree on is the question of US influence. The view on the left and in much of the world is that the whole reason the Israelis can afford to be so intransigent over the Palestinian issue is that they can count on bipartisan support from the US. The reason Oslo and other peace plans got off the grond to the limited extent that they did is that the US threatened to tinker with the purse strings of its massive financial and military aid to Israel. According to this school of thought, if US support to Israel stopped, the Israelis (extremist or not) would be forced to do a deal with their neighbours, stop building settlements, assassinating Palestinian leaders not to its liking and so on.

That would remain the case whether or not the US pulled out of Iraq, and whatever the result of the current spat with Iran.

Posted by Smudger @ 12/19/2006 05:48 PM CST

i think that there should be more people working to try and solve this cnflict quickly and safely

Posted by Robbie @ 12/20/2006 03:41 PM CST

The only problem with the US pulling it's funding for Israel is Israel would quickly cease to exist. Israel may be a nuclear power, but that is not enough of a deterrant for illogical, triabl factions that live in the region. The support for conventional warfare equiptment meant for defense, is not only to keep Israel safe but also to keep the entire region safe from a nuclear catstophe. This is evident in the US's support for the Fatah. If the US were only supporting Israel they would not be concerned about the use of cluster bombs nor the prospect of Israel using it's nuclear arsenal to defend itself. People seem to have a misconcieved perception that Iraq and the US's conquest into the middle east has something to do with Israeli support. In fact it does not. Iraq is simply the US's garuntee that oil remains flowing at a cost that is agreeable to the American public. The entire US economy is dependant directly or indirectly on foreign oil. If we were to rely on our own supply, the crude price per barrel would be astronomical leading to a severe economic depression or complete colapse. Of course this is the old school of thinking and there were alternatives before we plunged into the whole mess, but it seems personal greed got the best of our elected officials who hold personal intrest in companies that would benefit from the spoils. Israel, like all of our partners, is only of intrest to us because we have something to financially gain from the partnership. Israel is somewhat of a thorn in the US's side. We protect the "bully" to keep him from pounding the entire playground. Yet, without them in the way, we would not likely have such poor relations with the middle-east.

Posted by OMFG @ 12/20/2006 06:52 PM CST

I'm not so sure Israel would cease to exist without US support. It won the 1948 war with minimal help from the USA (most of its weapons were purchased from Czechoslovakia) and as far as I am aware the massive flow of US state aid commenced after the 1967 war and was largely in response to the USSR's links with Arab regimes.

The nuclear deterrent might not deter the "illogical tribal factions", but none of them are running neighbouring states, and are certainly not in any postition to destroy Israel militarily in any likely scenario.

What I think IS probably true is that without the US support, Israel's present level of military spending would mean that civilian standards of living would have to drop substantially (Sparta has been put forward as an analogy). That might dissuade Jewish immigration and encourage emigration. Which combined with Israeli Arab population growth could eventually whittle away the Jewish majority.

Which is why making peace with all the neighbours would be a much more attractive proposition than it is now.

Regarding Iraq, I don't think there is much causal connection between US involvement in the two situations, rather both spring from the common factor of oil - Israel is a strong, reliable regional ally, Iraq a probably failed attempt at replacing an unfriendly regime with a friendly one. (Iraqi oil is certainly not flowing at the moment).

Posted by Chris @ 12/21/2006 02:59 PM CST

Dear Smudger

I was not calling on Israelis to send troops to Iraq but a general feeling that Americans shouldn't die because another country wants America to succeed for its own interests. The same could be applied to Saudia Arabia who doesn't want Iran to influence Iraqis. If Saudia Arabia wants the Iraq situation to be a success then Saudis should die for there interests and not expect Americans to die for Saudi interests.

Posted by Butros Dahu @ 12/22/2006 11:24 PM CST

A loss of US influence in the Middle East can have a different and salutory effect. When Israel recognizes that its protector super power cannot underwrite its adventures, it will eventually realize that it has to accomodate and become part of the region in order to survive. An essential pre-requisite would be the just resolution of the Palestinian issue, including full withdrawal from the territories it occupied in 1967.

Posted by Raif Hijab @ 12/26/2006 05:29 PM CST

OK Butros, basically you WERE joking. I get it now.

However your comment assumes that the US is in Iraq because of Israel, which I don't think is the case at all. I think the US is in Iraq purely and simply because of the oil. Other nations may try and influence the US one way or another, but in the end the US will do what its rulers judge is in the best interest of the US ruling class.

And in fact, the people lobbying hardest for the overthrow of Saddam appear to have been not Israelis but Iraqi expatriates with close links to the Iranian intelligence services.....

Posted by Smudger @ 01/24/2007 04:35 PM CST

Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned.