[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5184-5185]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       LINKAGE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY

                               of nevada

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 25, 2010

  Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call my colleagues' 
attention to a recent blog post on the Jerusalem Post website, written 
by Abraham Foxman, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, 
ADL. Mr. Foxman challenges the idea that there is ``linkage'' between 
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other conflicts in the Middle 
East. It is both unrealistic and dangerous to believe that solving the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict will somehow solve our problems in Iran, 
Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and everywhere else in the Middle East. 
Distinct conflicts require distinct solutions and lumping them all 
together serves no one's interests, least of all our own. I highly 
recommend this excellent article.

                [From the Jerusalem Post, Mar. 21, 2010]

     A Point of View: Linkage and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

                          (By Abraham Foxman)

       No matter how many times it is proven to have no validity, 
     the theme of linking the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to 
     broader issues in the region rears its head over and over 
     again. Zbigniew Brzezinski did it in the 1970s, trying to 
     blame Soviet influence in the region on the absence of a 
     solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Prior to the first 
     Gulf War, there were those who opposed the war on the grounds 
     that we needed first to address the Palestinian issue before 
     we could credibly confront Saddam Hussein. And early on in 
     the Obama administration, reports were circulating suggesting 
     that American interests throughout the Middle East were 
     dependent on progress on the Palestinian-Israeli front.
       Henry Kissinger, in his magisterial two-volume memoir, 
     dealt with this matter head on. He demonstrated during the 
     Cold War that America's ability to further its broader 
     regional interests was connected not to a need to resolve the 
     Palestinian issue, but to showing America's moderate allies 
     in the region--Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Gulf States--
     that it paid to be allied with America. The best way to prove 
     that? When Israel was under attack by regional extremists 
     supported by the Soviets, it was vital for the US to make 
     sure that Israel triumphed. By doing so, the moderates would 
     absorb the truth that the future lay with the US and its 
     allies. Standing up against radicals and with one's allies, 
     rather than blaming one's friends for problems in the region, 
     continues to be the best formula for serving US interests in 
     the Middle East.
       Now we are hearing the linkage theme once again. After the 
     brouhaha between the administration and the Israeli 
     government surfaced, a story emerged indicating that a 
     military team under General David Petraeus's CENTCOM command 
     reported to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. 
     Michael Mullen in January that Israel was jeopardizing US 
     standing in the region. And then Petraeus himself, speaking 
     before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 16, 
     reinforced this message. He stated that the Israeli-
     Palestinian conflict ``foments anti-American sentiment, due 
     to a perception of US favoritism for Israel.'' He went on to 
     say that ``Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits 
     the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments 
     and peoples in the AOR (Area of Responsibility) and weakens 
     the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.''
       Once again, an illusion is at work here, one that will, if 
     pursued, invariably result in no real progress being made in 
     the region. We all want peace between Israel and the Arabs. 
     And putting more effort toward such a goal is a good thing. 
     What is not real, and is dangerous, is putting most of 
     America's eggs in the region in this basket.
       The Arab-Israeli conflict has never responded to such a 
     heavy emphasis. Progress is made when Arab leaders decide 
     it's time for peace. Maybe Assad of Syria is considering 
     this, and it should be explored. But that's very different 
     from placing this conflict at the center of everything. 
     Disappointment, as always, will follow since the gap between 
     what the Arabs want and Israel wants is substantial. 
     Moreover, Arab willingness to accept Israel's legitimacy as a 
     ``Jewish State'' is belied by everything that comes from Arab 
     leaders and Arab media.
       What inevitably happens if such unrealistic weight in the 
     region is given to the Israeli-Arab conflict is that Israel 
     comes to be seen as the problem. If only Israel would stop 
     settlements, if only Israel would talk with Hamas, if only 
     Israel would make concessions on refugees, if only it would 
     share Jerusalem, everything in the region would be fine. Iraq 
     would be fine. Afghanistan would be fine. Pakistan would be 
     fine. Iran would be fine. Lebanon would be fine.
       Of course, this is nonsense. These problems would remain 
     even if Israel did not exist. The result of such an approach 
     would be no progress on America's interests and great stress 
     in US-Israel relations.
       The Kissinger approach of strengthening moderates may be 
     tainted in some minds because it may be associated with 
     Bush's policy--but it doesn't have to be. One doesn't have to 
     be a Bush supporter to understand that the greatest need in 
     the region today is for victories by the moderates over the 
     radicals. In Israel's case, radical challenges exist from 
     Hamas in the south, Hizbullah and Syria in the north, and 
     Iran. All are complicated challenges. US support for a strong 
     and wise Israeli policy in response to these challenges will 
     provide the best opportunity to strengthen American 
     interests. Holding off Hamas, weakening Hizbullah, or 
     preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons will provide the 
     biggest boost to moderates throughout the Middle East. If the 
     Obama administration can help bring about one or more of 
     these accomplishments, it will go a long way to restoring 
     American influence in the region and, by the way, make 
     Israeli-Arab peace far more likely.
       This linkage trend, if continued, is dangerous and 
     counterproductive. It could undermine the historic bipartisan 
     support for Israel in America, a support based on moral and 
     strategic grounds, that has been--and still is--good for both 
     countries. It will reduce whatever incentive the Palestinians

[[Page 5185]]

     have to reach a compromise peace with Israel; if America is 
     backing away from Israel, the Palestinians would reason, then 
     hopes of Israel's disappearance will be strengthened. It will 
     raise questions about American loyalty and credibility among 
     the Arabs who, despite their rhetoric criticizing US support 
     for Israel, would be far more distressed about the US 
     abandoning an ally.
       It diverts attention away from the larger challenges in the 
     region--Iran's nuclear program, and the challenge of Islamic 
     extremism and terrorism. Finally, it has the smell about it 
     of blaming the Jews for everything. The notion that al-
     Qaida's hatred of America or Iran's pursuit of nuclear 
     weapons or the ongoing threat of extremist terrorist groups 
     in the region is based on Israel's announcement of building 
     apartments is absurd on its face and smacks of scapegoating.
       It's time for the administration to step back not only from 
     the harsh rhetoric but also from the illusionary thinking 
     about Israel hurting American interests. America and Israel 
     can have their differences, but the US has no better ally 
     than Israel. The administration needs to recognize this and 
     find ways to reassure those who are raising concerns.

                          ____________________