Israel-Palestine Is Still Issue No. 1 in the Middle East. By Shibley Telhami.
Is Kerry Right to Put Peace First? By Shibley Telhami. Foreign Policy, July 22, 2013.
Forget Egypt and Syria. Israel-Palestine is still issue No. 1 in the Middle East.
Telhami:
As
Secretary of State John Kerry continues to give much time and effort to the
Palestinian-Israeli issue, with plans to convene negotiations in Washington
this week, his critics have come from right and left: With all the pressing
issues, why is Mr. Kerry focused on this one?
Critics
miss the point: No issue is more central for Arab perceptions of the United
States – even as Arabs are focused on their immediate local and national
priorities.
America
has little influence in the events unfolding in the Arab world, from Egypt to
Syria. More centrally, Arab perceptions of Washington are less dependent on
short-term American policy and more a product of deep-seated Arab mistrust that
ties everything the United States does to helping Israel and controlling oil.
That’s why both sides of every Arab divide – the Assad regime and its
opponents, the Muslim Brotherhood and its Egyptian opponents – blame the United
States for supporting the other side.
Just
the other day, even as many opponents of Mohamed Morsy blamed Palestinian Hamas
for supporting him, leaders of the Tamarod activists who helped depose the
Egyptian president refused to meet with Deputy Secretary of State William Burns
because of American support for Israel.
How
could this be the case? In part, it is a consequence of one of the few
successes of U.S. policy over the past decade. As American officials, from the
White House to Congress, have sought to project “no light” between Israel and
the United States, Arabs have come to believe it. It is rare to hear the words “Israel”
and “America” in the Arab world except in a pair. When Arabs are angry with
Israel, they are also angry with Washington. When Arabs are asked to name the
two countries that pose the biggest threat to them, they identify Israel and
the United States – far more often than Iran. For example, in May 2012, 94
percent of Egyptians identified Israel and 80 percent identified the United
States as the greatest threat, with only 20 percent identifying Iran. These
results were roughly comparable to poll findings in prior years.
It is
of course true that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not the source of most
problems in the Arab world and that most Arabs wake up in the morning thinking
about their daily challenges, not about Israel, Palestine, or America.
But, as
my research on Arab public opinion over the past decade shows, the conflict
remains the prism of pain through which Arabs view Washington and much of the
world – even more so since the region's uprisings. In October 2011, when I
asked Arabs in Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, and the UAE what
two steps the United States could do to improve their view of Washington, 55
percent of respondents said “brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace” based on the
1967 borders, with 42 percent choosing “stopping aid to Israel” as the second
step. In comparison, only 12 percent suggested providing more economic aid to
the region, and 11 percent proposed greater efforts at democratization. In a
2012 poll in Egypt, 66 percent identified brokering peace followed by 46
percent who recommended stopping aid to Israel; only 12 percent suggested that
Washington do more to spread democracy.
The
Palestinian-Israeli conflict is part and parcel of collective Arab identity; a
constant reminder of contemporary Arab history full of dashed aspirations and
deeply humiliating experiences. It is seemingly unending, with repeated
episodes of suffering over which Arabs have no apparent control. It is an open
wound that flares up all too frequently, representing the very humiliation
Arabs seek to overcome. Just this month an example was provided when Arabs
watched helplessly as Israel expanded settlements in East Jerusalem. If the
Arab awakening is first and foremost about restoring dignity, about raising
Arab heads high in the world, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict represents
dignity's antithesis.
In the
absence of peace, there is another reason the Arab-Israeli conflict will remain
an Arab focal point – the Israeli response to its sense of insecurity. Without
Palestinian-Israeli peace, Israelis assume that war with Arabs will remain
possible. The net result is that Israelis feel their security requires
strategic and technological superiority over any combination of Arab states. On
this they have the unreserved support of the United States and assurance from
Congress and the White House that Israel will receive what it needs to maintain
its “qualitative superiority” and that Arabs will be denied similar
capabilities.
Seen
from the Arab side, this Israeli imperative entails exactly the sort of
dominance they are revolting against. In an era of Arab awakening, 350 million
Arabs find it impossible to accept the strategic domination of a country of 8
million people. This is at the core of Arab attitudes on the nuclear issue:
Arab publics are suspicious of Iran, but in the past decade they have
consistently opposed limits on Tehran's nuclear program in large part because
they don’t accept that Israel alone can have nukes. For example, in my 2011
six-country poll, 64 percent of respondents said they opposed international
pressure on Iran to curtail its nuclear program. Remarkably, that same year a
majority of Arab citizens of Israel, 57 percent, also opposed international pressure.
In the
absence of Palestinian-Israeli peace, Israel and the Arabs are condemned to a
relationship of confrontation and occasional war, and America will be caught in
the middle.
Peace
would not of course determine the outcome of the battles in the Arab world, but
its absence guarantees that Israel, and therefore the United States, will be
the focus of almost every faction in the ongoing battles. And if
Israeli-Palestinian violence ensues, this will become even more the case.
Israelis
worry that acknowledging the centrality of their conflict with the Palestinians
for American foreign policy means that they will be blamed for everything that
goes wrong. This is improbable; Israelis also feared they might be blamed for
Arab anger toward America after the 9/11 attacks, but American support for
Israel only increased. More likely, Israel would be blamed if, in the absence
of peace, Americans started to see Israeli control of the Palestinians as an
apartheid relationship. The recent European Union decision to stop dealing with
Israeli settlements in the West Bank is a flavor of things that could follow.
The
Obama administration should be applauded for understanding the centrality of
the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Certainly, an argument can be made that it is
too late for the two-state solution; if it’s not, few believe there is much
time left. But few see good American options once Washington finally concludes
that a two-state solution is no longer feasible.
The
administration thus cannot be faulted for active diplomacy; no time is a good
time, and soon enough there may not be any time left. But it will be
justifiably faulted if, as in Obama's first term, it tries only half-heartedly
and fails.
Comment by misaacm:
Do the
350 million Arabs in the middle east, ruling over 99% of the landmass, in 22
countries really believe that the continued existence of tiny (9 million people
on less than 1% of the land) Israel is a “strategic domination”? Seriously? That’s
like saying the continued existence of Communist Nicaragua or Cuba is a “strategic
domination” of the US. I think that we have identified the key issue here; Arab
manhood is humiliated by the fact that they can’t seem to destroy tiny Israel.
The
author suggests that we assuage Arab insecurity by helping them cut Israel down
to size, and that somehow this will heal the Arabs of all of their nihilistic
tendencies. Perhaps the Arabs need to heal their own countries first, then they
won’t feel the need to prove their manhood by destroying Israel. My advice to
the failing Arab societies; forget about Israel. I know it shows your
impotence, but you can’t destroy it, and doing so won’t help you solve your
problems. Move on.