The Linkers position is premised on the notion that if Israel is disliked by its neighbors America will be disliked by Israel’s neighbors. This is because America is perceived as supporting Israel. Monetarily in the form of 2.2 billion a year, militarily by sharing much of Americas advanced weaponry , and politically by defending Israel in the UN, UNHRC, and UNSC.
If supporting Israel is so detrimental to American interests then why does America support Israel? The linker responds that the Israeli lobby has a tight hold on the US congress and demands support for Israel, as the price for electoral backing by AIPAC.
Some more intelligent linkers concede that America has a moral obligation to support Israel.
This moral obligation is an extension of the Truman doctrine which sought to constrain post World War II Soviet expansion, by supporting all Democracies. Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle-East. Linkers contend that America’s political and strategic obligations trump their moral obligations.
This is the crux of the Carter/Brzezinski/Obama argument. America is faced with an either or scenario, support Israel or support the Arabs. Their conclusion is that they must, from a strategic perspective, support the Arabs –in some instances by pressuring Israel. In other words there is no middle-ground. Brzezinski, Obamas Foreign policy advisory recent statements reflect this either-or perspective. In response to the question of what America should do if Israel attempts to use Iraqi airspace to bomb Iran nuclear facilities:
" Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse."(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/brezinski-calls-for-obama-to-shoot-down-israeli-jets-a-liberty-in-reverse.html)
In other words EITHER let Israel use Iraqi space controlled by America to prevent Iran from going nuclear -a threat the Israelis see as existential -OR take the Iran side, and by proxy Syria and Lebanon, and shoot down Israeli planes. This despite the fact that America agrees (from a moral standpoint and as Thinkers argue also from a strategic standpoint) that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. Thus taking the position that, strategically, Iran is more important than Israel, even though morally Israel is in the right.
Furthermore the linkers assert that there is no gray area – a scenario like Israel doing what it must and America criticizing Israel after the fact, which America must.
The linkers take this perspective and apply it to the Israel decision to build in Jerusalem. They claim that Israel must be stopped at all costs because strategically it’s in America’s interest to do so. After all the stability of the middle-east is linked to Israel’s actions.
Indeed the linkers rhetorically contend, "would America rather have Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Muslim world as allies or little troublesome Israel"?
There are many variations of this argument. For example some linkers concede that Israel is not the cause of ALL instability in the larger middle-east, but that it is one cause that needs to be addressed.In other words Israel is a smaller problem to American interests then hard-core linkers think, BUT STILL A PROBLEM.
Some that take this view, explain that America would be better off allying with Iran and Turkey -both non Arabic states- then they would with the Israel/Jordan/Egypt/Saudi Arabia faction. After all Iran and Turkey are burgeoning powers in the region AND are Muslim. Indeed this view is relatively comprehensive in that explains Iran's drive for nuclear weapons and Turkeys reorientation towards the region as an attempt to create the political capital to bend American foreign policy. The linker urges America to accept.
The bottom line is that Linkers argue that it is in America’s strategic interest to pressure Israel or pull support.
For the Thinker it is strategically AND morally essential for America to ally completely with Israel. This will be discussed in part three of this series.
Showing posts with label linkers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label linkers. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Linkers and the Thinkers": Is Americas Support For Israel Hurting America (1)
Israel's decision to continue building homes for Jews in East Jerusalem has raised the ire of the Obama administration. Some have argued that the anger was fostered by the timing of the Israeli foreign ministries announcement to build 1,600 homes -Vice President Biden was in Israel pushing to renew the peace initiative. However it is likely that the Obama administration is following through on its promise to place the Israeli/Palestinian conflict on top of its agenda.
There are a number of interesting developments that affirm this latter perspective.
CENTCOM Chief David Petraeus testified in front of a Senate Armed Service Committee that Israels decision to build in West-Jerusalem is weakening Americas military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hillary Clinton continued this trend of thought when she addressed AIPAC and warned Israel against building, what this administration has termed, settlements. While debka.com reports that America has gone so far as to threaten to place American military installations in the West bank, which is tantamount to America giving the Palestinians an American security shield. This shield would effectively undermine Israeli deterrence in a future conflict with West-bank terrorism . Indeed these policies seem to be driven by more then mere timing issues. It is more likely that they reflect an underlying ideology translated into a Middle-East policy.
This ideology is known as "linkage". Linkage is not a new concept, on the contrary it is a reoccurring philosophy that was most prevalent amongst American policy makers in the Carter administration. Linkage proposes:
1.that the stability of the entire Middle-East is subject to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
2. if America supports Israel that is not at peace with its Arab neighbors then America suffers politically and strategically.
3. most if not all of the conflicts in the so called larger middle-east (Pakistan, Afghanistan etc.) are spurred on and exasperated by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Opponents of the Linkage argument, most notably Dennis Ross, argue that the conflict between al-Qaida and America, Yemen's war with its Houthi rebels, or Iran's drive for Nuclear weapons would occur regardless of Israels existence or its conflict with some of its neighbors.
The implications of linkage are clear. America will suffer strategically as long as Israel has not made peace with its Arab neighbors. Israels Arab neighbors will not make peace with Israel as long as the Palestinians are unhappy. Thus it is in Americas SUPREME interest to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
To be clear ALL agree that it is in Americas interest, as well the Israelis for that matter, to resolve the conflict. However the "Linkers" see it as the most pressing issue in the Middle-East that must be resolved at all costs -even forcing Israel into submitting to International dictates of where Israelis can live in Israel.
To many in America and Israel, that I term the "Thinkers" (because their arguments are very theoretical), the Linkers argument is the result of the realization that on the moral battle-ground it is nearly impossible to defeat supporters of Israel. So they created a strategic reason to pressure Israel. Moreover the linkers are undermined by the fact that they would never, (and have never argued) that American ties with China are a moral or strategic liability. I.e. that by supporting China America loses strategic sway on the weaker nations around china (including Japan, India, and Taiwan).
The Linkers respond that the bottom line is that Al-Qaida, Palestinian, and a plethora of other terrorist groups have pointed to Americas support for Israel as the reason for their attacks. The only reason America supports Israel is because of the nefarious Israeli lobby which stifles criticisms of Israel.
Whatever your opinion on this issue it is important to familiar with the perspectives that surround it, if only to be able to refute misinformation.
Part two of this discussion will analyze the "Linkers" arguments.
Part three will look at the "Thinkers" arguments.
There are a number of interesting developments that affirm this latter perspective.
CENTCOM Chief David Petraeus testified in front of a Senate Armed Service Committee that Israels decision to build in West-Jerusalem is weakening Americas military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hillary Clinton continued this trend of thought when she addressed AIPAC and warned Israel against building, what this administration has termed, settlements. While debka.com reports that America has gone so far as to threaten to place American military installations in the West bank, which is tantamount to America giving the Palestinians an American security shield. This shield would effectively undermine Israeli deterrence in a future conflict with West-bank terrorism . Indeed these policies seem to be driven by more then mere timing issues. It is more likely that they reflect an underlying ideology translated into a Middle-East policy.
This ideology is known as "linkage". Linkage is not a new concept, on the contrary it is a reoccurring philosophy that was most prevalent amongst American policy makers in the Carter administration. Linkage proposes:
1.that the stability of the entire Middle-East is subject to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
2. if America supports Israel that is not at peace with its Arab neighbors then America suffers politically and strategically.
3. most if not all of the conflicts in the so called larger middle-east (Pakistan, Afghanistan etc.) are spurred on and exasperated by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Opponents of the Linkage argument, most notably Dennis Ross, argue that the conflict between al-Qaida and America, Yemen's war with its Houthi rebels, or Iran's drive for Nuclear weapons would occur regardless of Israels existence or its conflict with some of its neighbors.
The implications of linkage are clear. America will suffer strategically as long as Israel has not made peace with its Arab neighbors. Israels Arab neighbors will not make peace with Israel as long as the Palestinians are unhappy. Thus it is in Americas SUPREME interest to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
To be clear ALL agree that it is in Americas interest, as well the Israelis for that matter, to resolve the conflict. However the "Linkers" see it as the most pressing issue in the Middle-East that must be resolved at all costs -even forcing Israel into submitting to International dictates of where Israelis can live in Israel.
To many in America and Israel, that I term the "Thinkers" (because their arguments are very theoretical), the Linkers argument is the result of the realization that on the moral battle-ground it is nearly impossible to defeat supporters of Israel. So they created a strategic reason to pressure Israel. Moreover the linkers are undermined by the fact that they would never, (and have never argued) that American ties with China are a moral or strategic liability. I.e. that by supporting China America loses strategic sway on the weaker nations around china (including Japan, India, and Taiwan).
The Linkers respond that the bottom line is that Al-Qaida, Palestinian, and a plethora of other terrorist groups have pointed to Americas support for Israel as the reason for their attacks. The only reason America supports Israel is because of the nefarious Israeli lobby which stifles criticisms of Israel.
Whatever your opinion on this issue it is important to familiar with the perspectives that surround it, if only to be able to refute misinformation.
Part two of this discussion will analyze the "Linkers" arguments.
Part three will look at the "Thinkers" arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
