David Rothkopf has an interesting essay on Foreign Policy’s website arguing that Western, and especially American, involvement in and attention to the Middle East is out of proportion to the region’s importance. He gets a few things right–such as the discovery of oil and natural gas elsewhere in the world and the fact that both rising state powers and extremist threats are increasingly coming from Asia (and Africa). The “pivot,” he correctly notes, wasn’t so much a strategic calculation as an acceptance of reality.
He could also have mentioned our role in the competition between China and Russia in Central Asia, or President Obama’s signature foreign-policy achievement, which was to identify Pakistan as the focal point of that region and plan accordingly. I think he underplays the threat of a nuclear Iran, but that may be (though he does not say this) because most of the world believes the U.S. or Israel will prevent that from happening anyway. But Rothkopf’s section on Israel gets a bit fuzzy, though in a roundabout way reinforces his underlying point. Here’s Rothkopf:
Barack Obama’s generation entered the workforce at the time Ariel Sharon was directing Israeli troops into the camps in Lebanon, a watershed that for many washed away much of the positive narrative about Israel the virtuous underdog. From then on, through the intifada and the construction of new settlements on contested land, Israel has systematically damaged its standing in the eyes of the world (which hasn’t been hard to do since so many around the world are predisposed for pretty awful reasons to dislike the idea of a Jewish state to begin with)….
But given the periodic flare-ups of unreasonable behavior at the top from the Israeli government, the embrace of Israel as an ally carries with it costs — and the new technologies of modern conflict offer many alternative ways to counterbalance these risks. That’s not to say America is better off without Israel as an ally. We are. Just not at any price.
The demographic and political tides in the region are turning against the Israelis in ways that rightfully have them nervous. Absent a deal with the Palestinians in the next several years, their situation is likely to grow more precarious — and, with the potential rise of Arab democracy, more difficult to defend for a country like the United States whose foreign policy is built (in theory at least) on ideas like the right to self-determination.
Much of this is necessarily vague. At what “price” should we ditch our relationship with Israel? Are we anywhere close to it? He doesn’t say. Ditto on the unexplained throwaway line about “flare-ups of unreasonable behavior” from the Israeli government. And what of the bizarrely random time stamp on when Barack Obama’s generation entered the work force? At that age, they are old enough to have known why Sharon went into Lebanon–though Rothkopf doesn’t mention it, as it was an undeniable act of self-defense.
Rothkopf says Israel fumbled away Western goodwill “through the intifada and the construction of new settlements,” a very strange thing to say considering that the intifada was a terror war conducted by the Palestinians against Israeli civilians. And a peace deal will not be reached in the next several years, but because it is the Palestinian leadership refusing to negotiate, it remains highly unlikely the U.S. will blame Israel, though the media most certainly will. And the “rise of Arab democracy” argues against supporting an authoritarian, corrupt, hateful regime on the West Bank of the Jordan, not in favor of empowering the Mubarakites.
So why does this still support Rothkopf’s thesis? Because Rothkopf is describing the kind of worldview that tends to dominate Foggy Bottom, and possibly even the current White House, as Rothkopf seems to suggest. The obsession with the Middle East really boils down to the Western obsession with the peace process, and that peace process can be destructive to everyone involved. It ruined Bill Clinton’s foreign policy by letting Yasser Arafat hijack Clinton’s attention (Clinton wanted peace with Syria and, by extension, Lebanon instead–a worthy goal).
George W. Bush’s Mideast policymaking was naturally consumed by Iraq and Afghanistan, but going forward that won’t be the case. The Obama administration, meanwhile, has decided it wanted peace in the Middle East and sent George Mitchell to lecture the Israelis and Palestinians about Northern Ireland. And that turned out to be only the warm-up act for nonsensical policy demands and aggressive and off-putting grandstanding.
The worst kept secret about the Middle East is that the peace process was healthiest before the United States took a public role, and American foreign policy was healthiest before presidents began wasting political capital (and time and energy) on an issue that wasn’t going anywhere. Bush understood this and was criticized for it. The answer is not to ignore the peace process completely (or the Middle East for that matter), but to not allow it to dominate the agenda. Rothkopf is right: Don’t ditch the Middle East, but don’t neglect more pressing matters for it, either.
Note also how he dances around the edge of an ever popular blood libel, "directing Israeli troops into the camps in Lebanon." Is he suggesting that Israel and not the Maronite militia committed the massacres at Sabra and Shatila? Is he unaware (or does he even care) that all the evidence showed that Sharon attempted to dissuade the Maronite leaders from taking revenge on the Palestinians, and that the investigation found that his major fault was believing them when they said they would not take revenge? Or that a US court found that the person who accused Sharon of directing or approving the attacks had deliberately lied, and that Time Magazine escaped liability only because Sharon was a public figure and Time, having sloppily accepted the lie at face value, believed that its blood libel was true? n nHow many people know the name of the Lebanese leader who actually led the massacres? Yet he is welcome among all of those who are firmly convinced that Sharon committed them.
Ahad, the Lebanese leader who actually led the massacres was one Elie Hobeika who is no longer among the living. He was a traitor to the Phalanges and was also guilty, according to Barbara Newman, ex-NBC correspondent, of the assassination of Bashir Gemayel. It is known that Hobeika was a Syrian agent. On the other hand, in your support, is the fact that Hobeika was forgiven in Lebanon –and even by the PLO– for the Sabra-Shatila massacre and even made a minister in the Syrian-dominated Lebanese govt.
Belying Rothkopf's argument and Seth Mandel's seeming equivocation about U.S. and EU focus on the Middle East, one needs to ask a simple question – what if we woke up tomorrow and Iran detonated its first nuclear weapon? And based on whose opinion you ask, they're quite close to pulling this off. Nothing like a nuclear explosion to focus the mind especially when it will be minutes later that the Saudis will buy theirs from the Pakistanis or bribe the Chinese into supplying a few extra nukes they have lying around. While I agree in principal that Europe is hopeless and a U.S. pivot to the Pacific has been justified for more then 20 years along with much more focus on events south of the border in Mexico, Central and South America, I can't imagine that turning focus away from the Middle East, which like the Balkans pre WWI is now the tinder box for a new world conflict, is an especially wise move. I don't disagree that Russia and China would love the United States to be endlessly tied down in Middle East conflict and pay much less attention to their attempts to secure or restore regional hegemony, but Rothkopf's suggestions and conclusions seem to ignore the obvious. The U.S. has alliances with Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan that can be used to lower the temperature in that volatile region, or at the very least, stand in for U.S. forces with minimal help while the U.S. addresses equally important concerns about China and Russia. The need to act on multiple levels with different amount of political and military force also outs the fecklessness and risks that sequestration represents.
There has been too much time spend on Israel. The real issue is not Israel; the real issue is Islam.
The world can live with Israel and Israel can live with the world, but Islam can’t.Judaism and Christianity have come to terms with the modern world. Islam has not. It cannot live with modernity. That is what Islamism is about. That is what 9/11 was about, that is what the Arab/Israel conflict is about. The modern world is inimical to the Arab/Muslim world.
OBL understood that. He thought he could shatter the West’s facades and bring the advancing western flood to a halt.
Ayatollah Khoemini understood that. He sought a modus vivendi by way of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It was to be a competitive Muslim country that could keep up with modern technology and embrace democratic political shibboleths while remaining true in the practice of the Faith.
Instead Iran is a country that snipes at political protesters from roof tops, hangs homosexuals and Bahai, stones adulteresses and seeks to wipe challenges to the Koran, like sovereign Jews in Islam’s heartland, from the map.
This struggle between the world and an Islam faithful to the uncreated Koran, will continue on center stage until one break. It won’t be modernity.
Israel has merely been modernity’s front man, wrestling the beast, demonstrating the chasm, taking the heat, while oil has turbocharged the Arabs political punch.
It is entirely possible that Israel will yet succumb. But that won’t change the conflict. It is not about her or Palestine, but about an unyielding 7th century world view that thinks it can prevail.
Like many on the West, Rothkopf has been indoctrinated by the western and Islamic anti Jews propaganda. nJ & S needs to be annexed. A fabicated state for Muslin living in Israel will always be a Trojan horse. Better get rid of it. The sooner the better.
There has been too much time spent on Israel. The real issue is not Israel; the real issue is Islam. n nThe world can live with Israel and Israel can live with the world, but Islam can’t. Judaism and Christianity have come to terms with the modern world. Islam has not. It cannot live with modernity. That is what Islamism is about. That is what 9/11 was about. So too the Arab/Israel conflict. Modernity is inimical to the Arab/Muslim world. n nOsama bin Ladend understood that. He thought he could shatter the West’s facade and bring the advancing western tide to a halt. n nAyatollah Khoemini understood that. He thought the Islamic Republic of Iran could prove a modus vivendi: a competitive Muslim country able to keep up with modern technology and embrace democratic shibboleths, while remaining true in the practice of the Faith. n nOBL was wrong. America can build a hundred skyscrapers for every one which terrorist try to shatter. And Khomieini was wrong. Iran snipes at political demonstrators from roof tops, hangs homosexuals and Bahai, stones adulteresses. and hopes to erase with nuclear weapons contradictions of the Koran, like sovereign Jews in Islam’s heartland. n nThis struggle between the world and an Islam faithful to the uncreated Koran, will hold center stage until one or the other breaks. It won’t be modernity. n nIsrael has merely been modernity’s front man, wrestling the beast, demonstrating the chasm, taking the heat, while oil has turbocharged the Arab's political punch. n nIt is entirely possible that Israel will yet succumb. But that won’t change the conflict. It is not about her or Palestine, but about an unyielding 7th century world view that thinks it can prevail over modernity.