The price of occupation

I don't think that it would change much, but an Islamist party is in control of the Turkish government right now. They may be even more constrained than a secular party.

When the state of Israel starts marginalizing the relationship with its strongest Muslim ally (a.k.a. Turkey), one would think that the United States has the will to publicly denounce Israel's unhelpful behavior in the region. At this pivotal moment in history- when President Obama is trying to get his vision for the Middle East off the ground- the last thing the White House needs is a belligerent nation that is deliberately stalling the prospects for a basic (yet essential) peace.

When are American policymakers on the Hill going to learn that a close alliance with an extreme right-wing government is detrimental to the national interest? Perhaps more pragmatically...what benefits has Washington received through decades of unconditional support for the Israelis? Certainly, widespread public hostility to America in general would not be included in this list.

Yet, this is the only product that is associated with the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Arabs of all nationalities, whether Syrian, Saudi, Jordanian, Egyptian, or Iraqi, commonly perceive the United States as a hegemonic and intrusive power that caters to the whims of the "Zionist" regime in Jerusalem. Even with a new president in office, this sentiment continues to dominate the mainstream discourse of Arab public opinion.

Of course, this sounds like a typical anti-Israeli rant. This, however, could not be further from the truth (I am actually a supporter of Israel in general, minus the whole "Greater Israel" plan). What I am trying to convey is a sense of realism to the debate; the United States is not getting anything from the Israelis in return for its staunch support (both diplomatically and militarily). If Israel was a true friend in international relations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would stop treating Washington like a whiny little-brother who does not understand the situation. Surely, an unwillingness to cooperate is not what one thinks of when friendship comes to mind.

All in all, one thing is rather clear: as long as Israel continues to stonewall negotiations for a two-state solution, they should come to expect an Arab coalition against their ambitions. In their eyes, Israel is nothing more than a artificial entity that possesses a totalitarian agenda (this is certainly not mending any fences between the Israelis and the Arabs in relation to Iran's nuclear aspirations).

What is more, as long as Israel uses indiscriminate force to combat the terrorist threat- thereby killing innocent Palestinians in the process- Washington should not be surprised when Obama's peace-doctrine is jeopardized in a consistent way.

http://depetris.wordpress.com

Professor Walt titles his post, "The Price of Occupation."

If the price of massively retaliating against a guerilla force lobbing rockets into your territory is the cancellation of military exercises with a nation that is increasingly belligerent, it seems like a pretty small price to pay to me.

Presumably Professor Walt isn't suggesting that the cancellation of these exercises represents any cost at all to the United States. It strains credulity to suggest that they represent anything but a good-will gesture on the part of the American military to the other nations that planned to participate.

The mantra of Professor Walt and his fellow "realists" is that a two-state solution is in the American interest and that the costs of American support for Israel are at least as great (if not greater) than the benefits to the United States.

Putting aside for a moment the question of whether the cost-benefit analysis recommended by "realists" is anything other than a quaint anachronism, Professor Walt is very sparing when he tells us how the U.S. relationship with Israel detracts from American interests.

Is this the best he can do is to reference a cancelled training exercise with Turkey and that other great military power, the Netherlands?

While he's at it, why doesn't Professor Walt pen a post on the fact that the U.S.-Israel relationship has cost the United States access to Iranian caviar or Syrian figs (which are supposed to be delicious). Combine these costs with the cancelled military exercise and the costs of supporting Israel really add up.

Right Professor?

There's a story in Ha'aretz today suggesting it was really a dispute over arms shipments, but that's frankly pretty hard to believe

It may be partially true, although I have no doubt that pressure over Gaza played a role in it as well. Keep in mind that when Erdogan came back for a hero's welcome, he then rather pointedly refused to break any meaningful commercial or political ties with Israel after his spat with Peres. These things run deeper than the surface.

Here as elsewhere, Professor Walt is certainly not alone in treating "the Jewish state" like just any other state, which it is not. The problem with the so-called "two-state" solution is that the land taken from the Palestinians in 1948, which act was made official by the West and the USSR at that time, is still occupied territory. There are hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees sitting in camps all over the Middle East because of it. Professor Walt never seems to talk about that, or suggest what is supposed to happen to them. I don't blame him. For the gentlemen in Tel Aviv, those refugees are non-persons and it is a taboo to suggest that they be repatriated to their own land and villages inside "the Jewish state".

The 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem constitutes simply an extension of the original 1948 occupation by predominately east European and now American Jews. It is all occupied territory and illegitimate. Perhaps something can be worked out, but it seems doubtful when "realists" are prevented by the fait accompli of Zionism's success to take into account the stark injustice of the current setup. The true "price of occupation" is not the "undermining of U.S. and Israeli interests" (whatever they are) but rather the acceptance by default of an Orwellian world where wrong equals right. It has led America down the road to perpetual wars for perpetual peace. It is bankrupting the country.

Germanicus

I agree with Walt that alliance with Turkey is a great asset to the US and to Israel.

However, it requires tortured logic to make the leap that a) Israel pursuing a "Greater Israel" has caused b) Turkey to cancel military exercises because they are exercised about Operation Cast Lead. It's not even clear why this post needs to be framed this way. It's sloppy, the contradiction is obvious, and the point could have been made better without it.

Operation Cast Lead came about as a result of Israel leaving Gaza. It is very likely that if they stayed, it wouldn't have been necessary. And nothing like this (cancelled military exercises) is happening because of events in the still occupied West Bank. It is happening because of events in the unoccupied territories.

The exact same can be said of the territory from which Israel withdrew in Lebanon.

Well, once again Professor Walt shows his lack of research skills. Doing a follow up news search is always a good idea.

The reason Turkey banned Israel from this week's NATO air force exercises was "yet another delay in the delivery of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs," and not Turkish opposition to Israel's Gaza offensive, Turkish newspaper Today's Zaman quoted a senior Turkish air force official as saying on Wednesday.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121022.html

Turkey has cited Israel's delay in the delivery of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to the country as the main reason behind the cancellation of an international air force exercise.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=108674&sectionid=351020204

I don't expect a retraction.

Dave123, I think you have to separate a diplomatic ‘excuse’ from a diplomatic ‘reason’. Turkey, may have wanted to send a message to Israel and found the UAV issue a convenient way to express its displeasure. States in their relations with one another often relay two messages on a single issue, one to the public (late UAV deliveries) and one to the other state (the Gaza offensive).

Regardless of whether the delay in the delivery of Israeli arms shipments to Turkey was the proximate cause of the cancellation of the military exercises or not; the delay in the delivery is interesting in and of itself.

It raises the question of whether Israel should continue to sell armaments to a Muslim-majority nation that is becoming increasingly focused on religion and increasingly belligerent to Israel.

If the Europeans don't think the Turks can be trusted to join the European Union, exactly how wise is it for Israel to be shipping them sophisticated weaponry?

Turkey does have the second largest military in NATO after the United States, but as many have pointed out, NATO is little more than a relic of the Cold War and Turkey's admission into NATO was motivated by a desire to keep it out of the Soviet sphere.

Turkey is not immune from the pathologies currently afflicting the entire Muslim world although so far at least, those pathologies are somewhat more in check in Turkey than in other majority Muslim nations.

The idea that Turkey could become another Iran while remote is not completely far fetched. Israel needs to reflect on whether Erdogan and Gul can be trusted with sophisticated weaponry. After all, the idea that the Turkish military doesn't take orders from the civilian government no longer appears to be true.

The other thing Israel should continue to do is ramp up its already considerable military and economic cooperation with the Iraqi Kurds. It is widely known that the Mossad and the Peshmerga work closely together although Israel has kept this cooperation somewhat quiet out of respect for Turkish sentiments.

Perhaps the time has come for Israel to expand its relationship with the Iraqi Kurds and make this increasingly important relationship much more public.

In addition, it might be wise for American supporters of Israel to start aggressively promoting the Kurdish cause or even the creation of an independent Kurdistan.

In the newspaper today, both the Syrians and Turks have mentioned the upcoming joint military exercises they are planning to hold; it seems to me that two can easily play at that game.

Enhanced cooperation with the Kurds might be the perfect Israeli response.

Netanyahu guesses wrong that the only relevant intersection between Israel and Turkey or Saudi Arabia for example, are common responses to incremental military threats from Iran. (Even if they would only use it in provoked retaliations, not "first strike").

Somehow constructing peace on the basis of mutual humanization, and mutually healthy states, is not on his palette.

Its a tragedy, an opportunity to firm up international recognition of Israel, thereby making Zionism permanent.

...if it has started to sacrifice its own interests and alliances for the sake of foreign populations.

Either Turkey's leaders are terrible strategists, or the statements of the Chief of General Staff are what they are. Namely that kicking Israel out of the joint exercises are just a prelude to show how serious they are about a wider military sanctions regime if Israel doesn't pony up the UAVs according to the agreed upon delivery schedule.

"Israel's defenders often claim that it is a major strategic asset for the United States..."

Exactly. I have never heard the answer to this question:

"What has Israel done for the U.S., lately?"

(Fighting the terrorism created in large part because of our support of Israel does not count as a valid answer, for obvious reasons.)

What is the "special relationship"?

I mean I understand how it benefits Israel's right-wing polity, but what does it do for the US? What?

I am a Turkish speaker and here is what Prime Minister Erdogan said (the link to the Turkish national newspaper is below):

"We listened to the public; we voiced the conscience of our nation. The public did not want Israel to participate and that is why we postponed the international component of the military exercise".

http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=RadikalDetay&ArticleID=959197&Date=15.10.2009&CategoryID=78

I can't speak for the Professor, but I'm sure he has moments where he's frustrated by the bickering about 'the dwindling moral case' and the weak case for Israel's 'strategic' importance to the US.

Getting elected to public office is strategic case enough. Keeping your seat is THE imperative in politics.

If your constituency is comprised of a small but extremely vocal, active and resourceful minority, you do what comes naturally. Even if the majority has a bad view of Israel's aggression, they tend to compromise that stance in favor of concerns that are higher up on their list of voting issues.

If you want the answer to why stupid American decision-makers can't see the light on Israel, just look at their campaign donor lists.

Then considering opening your wallet and donating on the sole issue of their stance on Israel.

Your question will be answered.

Walt writes "...because Israel...refuses to allow the Palestinians to have a state." Once again Walt has no use for facts as they would just get in the way.

It wasn't Israel that rejected a Palestinian state in 1948, Israel accepted it!

It wasn't Israel That walked away from Camp David and Taba and chose a strategy of violence, aka 2nd intifada.

The occupation is the direct result of Arab aggression and hostility. The occupation will end when the hostility and aggression end.

The pertinent UN resolution 242 is land for peace. No peace no land!

Not Netanyahu or any other politician can stop a peace agreement if it is serious. So far the Palestinians have not been serious. Just last week I saw Saeb Erekat explicitly reject acceptance of Israel on PA TV, the same as Abbas did some 6 months prior....so don't f*^$ing tell me Israel is the problem.

I agree with Professor Walt assessment of the current situation in the ME. It seems to me that Turkey is the only European/ME country that can stand up to Israel hegemonic ambition. The Israelis should pay attention to Turkey's position in regard to their action in the ME especially after the senseless campaign of last December against Gaza. Policy makers in Israel should do their utmost effort to avoid friction between Israel and Turkey. If Israel lost Turkey as a valuable ally in the region, all bets are off. The survival of Israel as a Jewish state will be in jeopardy. The Israeli intransigence causes a rapprochement between Turkey and Syria, which is detrimental to Israel. I may be wrong it seems to me that there is a consensus between the great powers to let Israel go.

"Israel's defenders often claim that it is a major strategic asset for the United States..."

What has Israel done for the U.S., such that we send Israel 13.6 million dollars every DAY?

So Turkey's leaders are representing their voters?

Great.

Would that the motherf*'s in DC also listen to their voters instead of the 1% of US population who are rightwing militant zionists with $$$$$$$$$$$$ who buy influence.

Israel does not "occupy" Gaza.

Israel withdrew completely from Gaza.

In return, the Palestinians did not make use of the buildings and greenhouses and schools Israel left behind. Instead they burned them down.

And then they proceeded to launch thousands of rockets into impoverished Israeli border towns, hitting playgrounds, schools and homes.

I know. I was in Sederot when a missile hit.

Sorry, no other country in the world would allow its women and children to be hit with missiles day after day, week after week.

But apparently that what we Jews are supposed to do. Be attacked and take it. Any self defense on our part are termed war crimes.

Lets face it, the world only sympathizes with Jews when we are being gassed by the millions.

Well, since the war against Hamas there have been almost no rocket attacks from Gaza.

Professor Walt, why don't you ask the mothers in Sederot and Askelon whether they prefer better relations with Turkey or letting their kids go to the playground without fear of being hit by a Qassam rocket.

I think Obama should immediately execute an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan, but with an entirely different rationale:

1. This conflict was started to keep Al Qaeda on the defensive and in disarray, primarily to prevent another 9/11 attack on US citizens. To accomplish that going forward we must rely on tenatively committed NATO allies with little will or military reserves, a weak central Afghan regime governing a fractious tribal population, and an ineffectual Pakistani regime mounting occasional forays into its ungovernable northwestern tribal area.

2.The AfPak tribal areas selected by Al Qaeda, Mehsud, and Omar for their redoubt are virtually impregnable to any ground offensive we would sustain in these two hostile countries. Our military is fully capable of a successful assault, but none of the other participants would support the cost, military casualties, intrusion on sovereignty, or civilian collateral damage. Our opponents have enough money to continue indefinitely, and fund their deadly terrorist traps with persistance.

3. The US electorate, doesn't have the grit, tenacity, or patience required for a sustained military campaign against the world's toughest and most resourceful asymmetrical warriors, in the planet's most hostile terrain. We probably don't have enough body bags either.

4. This Administration and Congress will not support a ground initiative in sufficient strength to allow even partial or remote prospects of success.

5. The US cannot afford an expensive military operation, and the Chinese may restrict funding for it in future, at their discretion. Our government wants to economize its military budget and our ground forces are using worn equipment today.

6. An announced and prompt withdrawal, with an intention to use air power if we are impeded, could marginally reduce the exit risk to our troops.

This decision would enable our President to meet the expectations of the Nobel award, ease tension between Democratic hawks and doves in Congress, and skew the budget toward stimulus and social initiatives.

The only cost would be the loss of a handful of AfPak lives among those who cooperated with and relied on us.

The concern that our military will be viewed as "defeated" would be offset by the national comfort that we didn't risk their lives in an unwinnable campaign. Nations know we have adequate military strength for any challenge, or most any. After all, we no longer want to be the world's most unpopular policeman anyway.

But, of course, it would be fair to explain to the American people that the risk of future terrorist attacks on our citizens may increase slightly, but only in the remote future. Maybe tell our allies, too, before the withdrawal is announced.

The appalling historical ignorance of those who think Israel is the cause of Middle East instability is breathtaking. There has been a long history of inter-Arab wars having nothing to do with Israel, including Iran/Iraq, Iraq/Kuwait, Syria/Lebanon, etc. Only through the West imposing order have some relztively stable Arab nation-states been created in the region at all.

In addition the PLO itself has made war against every host country and has had to be kicked out by the armies of Kuwait, Jordan, and Lebanon.

Israel is a source of stability, not tension; without it we would more quickly see a nuclear armageddon as Iran, unchecked by the threat of Israeli nukes, would unleash their nukes on neighboring Arab countries.

Recall that several Arab countries have a long history of using weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological) against even their own populations, much less their "enemies".

Finally, since much of Walt's advocacy has been based on his notions of the "Israeli lobby", I post the following for the edification of readers:

--begin quote--

CAIR's Inner Workings Exposed

by Daniel Pipes
WorldNetDaily.com
October 15, 2009

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has, since its founding in 1994, served as the Islamist movement in North America's most high-profile, belligerent, manipulative, and aggressive agency. From its headquarters in Washington, D.C., CAIR also sets the agenda and tone for the entire Wahhabi lobby.

A substantial body of criticism about CAIR exists, some of by me, but until now, the group's smash-mouths and extremists have managed to survive all revelations about its record. The publication today [if published on October 15; or "this week" if published subsequently] of Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America (WND Books) may, however, change the equation.

Written by P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, the investigation is based largely on the undercover work of Gaubatz's son Chris who spent six months as an intern at CAIR's D.C. headquarters in 2008. In that capacity, he acquired 12,000 pages of documentation and took 300 hours of video.

Chris Gaubatz's information reveals much that the secretive CAIR wants hidden, including its strategy, finances, membership, and internal disputes, thereby exposing its shady and possibly illegal methods. As the book contains too much new information to summarize in small compass, I shall focus here on one dimension – the organization's inner workings, where the data shows that CAIR's claims amount to crude deceptions.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad and undercover intern Chris Gaubatz at CAIR's national headquarters in 2008.
Claim 1: According to Ibrahim Hooper, the organization's communications director, "CAIR has some 50,000 members." Fact: An internal memo prepared in June 2007 for a staff meeting reports that the organization had precisely 5,133 members, about one-tenth Hooper's exaggerated number.

Claim 2: CAIR is a "grass-roots organization" that depends financially on its members. Fact: According to an internal 2002 board meeting report, the organization received $33,000 in dues and $1,071,000 in donations. In other words, under 3 percent of its income derives from membership dues.

Claim 3: CAIR receives "no support from any overseas group or government." Fact: Gaubatz and Sperry report that 60 percent of CAIR's income derives from two dozen donors, most of whom live outside the United States. Specifically: $978,000 from the ruler of Dubai in 2002 in exchange for controlling interest in its headquarters property on New Jersey Avenue, a $500,000 gift from Saudi prince al-Waleed bin Talal and $112,000 in 2007 from Saudi prince Abdullah bin Mosa'ad, at least $300,000 from the Saudi-based Organization of the Islamic Conference, $250,000 from the Islamic Development Bank, and at least $17,000 from the American office of the Saudi-based International Islamic Relief Organization.

Claim 4: CAIR is an independent, domestic human rights group "similar to a Muslim NAACP." Fact: In a desperate search for funding, CAIR has offered its services to forward the commercial interests of foreign firms. This came to light in the aftermath of Dubai Ports World's failed effort to purchase six U.S. harbors in 2006 due to security fears. In response, CAIR's chairman traveled to Dubai and suggested to businessmen there: "Do not think about your contributions [to CAIR] as donations. Think about it from the perspective of rate of return. The investment of $50 million will give you billions of dollars in return for fifty years."

CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper and Chris Gaubatz work CAIR's booth at the Islamic Society of North America meeting in Columbus, Ohio, in 2008.
Combining these four facts reveals a CAIR quite unlike its public image. Almost bereft of members and dues, it sustains itself by selling its services to the Saudi and U.A.E. governments by doing their ideological and financial bidding.

This in turn raises the obvious question: should CAIR not be required to register as a foreign agent, with the regulations, scrutiny, and lack of tax-deductible status that the designation implies? Data in Muslim Mafia certainly suggests so.

Looking further ahead, I expect CAIR's days are numbered. It's a dirty institution, founded by Islamic terrorists and with many subsequent ties to terrorists. Over the years, it has established a long record of untrustworthiness that includes doctoring a photograph, fabricating anti-Muslim hate crimes, and promoting suspect polling. It has also intimidated critics via libel suits, boasted of ties to a neo-Nazi, and allegedly paid hush money. Eventually, close scrutiny of this outfit will likely lead to its demise.

That's the good news. Less happy is my expectation that CAIR's successor will be a more savvy, honest, respectable institution that continues its work of bringing Islamic law to the United States and Canada while avoiding the mistakes and apparent illegalities that render CAIR vulnerable. In that sense, the fight to preserve the Constitution has just begun.

Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

Related Topics: Council on American-Islamic Relations

You may post or forward this text, but on condition that you send it as an integral whole, along with complete information about its author, date, publication, and original URL.

--end quote--