The recent disclosure by WikiLeaks prove that the Obama administration, and its water carrier J Street, were dead wrong in repeatedly asserting that the only way to get Arab support for tough policies toward Iran's nuclear weapons program is for Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank. There are good reasons for Israel to reach an agreement with the Palestinians leading to a two state solution, but garnering Arab support against Iran is not one of them. The WikiLeaks proved beyond any doubt that Israel's Arab neighbors have a strong, independent basis for wanting to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power.
The recently released cables establish that Saudi Arabia was pushing the United States to bomb Iranian nuclear sites; these cables never mentioned the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Nor were the Saudis alone in calling for the United States to cut off the "head of the snake." Other Arab nations were banging the drum for a military attack as well. Indeed there is evidence that the Saudis and Israelis -- who have no diplomatic relations -- have discussed military options against their common enemy.
Ever since the Obama administration tried to put pressure on Israel by linking the end of the occupation to Iran, I have pointed out the absurdity of this linkage. But General David Petraeus, Secretary of State Robert Gates and Vice President Joe Biden have all insisted that the continuing occupation has made Arab states less willing to cooperate with the United States in preventing Iran from developing nuclear bombs. This party line view has been parroted, as usual, by various representatives of J Street.
Not only has this linkage never been true, but we now know that the Obama administration has long been aware that the Arabs states are as anxious as Israel about Iran's nuclear ambitions. This information was contained in diplomatic cables that date back months, if not years. Why then would the Obama administration deliberately mislead the public in regard so important a matter? The same question must be asked of the Bush administration, which also mislead the public when it came to Iran by releasing the National Security Estimate in November 2007 that falsely concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program.
The answer may well be that both the Obama and Bush administrations realize that nothing, short of a military attack, will stop Iran from developing deliverable nuclear weapons. Since both administrations have apparently taken any military option off the table, they seem to have accepted a policy of "containment." But containment is not a policy. It is an admission of failure. And failure requires a scapegoat. If Israel does not end the occupation, and Iran does develop nuclear weapons, it will be easy to blame Israel rather than the United States for this game-changing development.
In an op-ed in this past Sunday's New York Times, Chas Freeman -- the anti-Israel zealot whose nomination to become Chair of the National Intelligence Council was withdrawn under pressure -- has already tried to cast blame on Israel. He argues that notwithstanding the clear language of the recently released cables, the Gulf Arabs do not want the United States to attack Iran. Nor did the cables, according to Freeman, "demonstrate a basis for Arab-Israeli solidarity against Tehran." This is patent nonsense, reflecting Freeman's bias, rather than reality. He also argues, with typical contempt of history, that the only country that ever says no in the Middle East is Israel, forgetting that Israel has on several occasions offered to end the occupation and accept a two state solution. Freeman conveniently forgets that when the occupation first began, Israel offered to return the land captured in a defensive war in exchange for peace with its Arab neighbors. All the Arab states convened in Khartoum and issued their three famous "nos": No negotiation, no recognition, no peace. So much for Freeman's credibility.
The truth is that the Palestinians have marginalized themselves in the Middle East by rejecting offers that the Arab states have urged them to accept. Iran is the 800 pound gorilla in the area, and all the other countries in the Middle East recognize that and have a common interest in preventing so irresponsible a regime from working together with North Korea to develop nuclear rockets.
The WikiLeaks prove what many of us have been saying for years: that the United States, as the leader of the free world, must stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons -- whatever it takes. Although an air and rocket attack should remain an absolutely last resort, this military option must remain on the table. If all else fails and the United States must resort to military action, the Arab world will support such action (at least in private), regardless of whether Israel and the Palestinian Authority finally make peace.
Professor Alan Dershowitz's latest book is a novel, The Trials of Zion.
Alexia Parks: WikiLeaks: The First World InfoWar
Why do you think Iran's heart beats on the Arab streets? Because Israel continues to spill Palestinian blood on a near-daily basis.
Advocating, behind the scenes, that the US bomb Iran so that the US and Israel receives the backlash while the Arab leaders publicly condemn us is very different from supporting sanctions. That should be obvious. I am not sure why it is not to Dershowitz except that it allows him to advocate for killing more muslims and absolving Israel of blame.
What Wilileaks shows is that the Sunni Arab nations would be happy if we took the Shia Persians down a peg. I suspect they would be even happier if we took Israel down a peg. Somehow I doubt Dershowitz would consider that significant.
But it appears Freeman is right, this does not tell change anything. If we want the Arab people to support sanctions against Iran it would help to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian situation. And if we want Arab leaders to support sanctions it would help to get the Arab people behind the idea.
The idea that this changes anything is a dream of some supporters of Israel regardless of what Israel does who are desperate for support of the idea that Israeli policy is not self-defeating. Unfortunately it is.
"Early speculation on the motive behind Israel’s slaughter in Gaza that began on 27 December 2008 and continued till 18 January 2009 centered on the upcoming elections in Israel. The jockeying for votes was no doubt a factor in this Sparta-like society consumed by “revenge and the thirst for blood,”[1] where killing Arabs is a sure crowd-pleaser. (Polls during the war showed that 80-90 percent of Israeli Jews supported it.)[2] But as Israeli journalist Gideon Levy pointed out on Democracy Now!, “Israel went through a very similar war…two-and-a-half years ago [in Lebanon], when there were no elections.”[3] When crucial state interests are at stake, Israeli ruling elites seldom launch major operations for narrowly electoral gains. It is true that Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s decision to bomb the Iraqi OSIRAK reactor in 1981 was an electoral ploy, but the strategic stakes in the strike on Iraq were puny; contrary to widespread belief, Saddam Hussein had not embarked on a nuclear weapons program prior to the bombing.[4] The fundamental motives behind the latest Israeli attack on Gaza lie elsewhere: (1) in the need to restore Israel’s “deterrence capacity,” and (2) in the threat posed by a new Palestinian “peace offensive.”
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/finkelstein-on-gaza-war-massacre/
Israel allows all those things and more, including the right to dress as one pleases, say what one thinks, listen to music one likes, and publish what one wants to publish.
The occupied territories are a completely different matter. But they are not "Israel" and will eventually be shed in a 2-state solution.
Those wascally awabs. They just hate peace, don;t they? After all the Israeli's have offered them!
Talk about straw man arguments. Glenn Beck would be proud.
There isn't enough information in that statement for it to be "undeniable fact". He hasn't articulated the terms of any offer or the reasons given for rejection. He has labelled those rejecting as "all the Arab states" without identifying them, differentiating between them, discussing their political motivations, the Palestinian position etc etc. It's far easier to group diverse people into one and give them one mind, one motivation, one politic because nuances require deeper thought and over-simplification is the mother of knee-jerk reactions. So he makes a sweeping generalisation and argues that this proves that the Israeli's are "good", generous and peaceful and the "Arabs" are "bad", ungrateful and warmongering when in actual fact he hasn't proven ANYTHING. He then uses that so-called proof to say that because Freeman does not accept, or did not mention such an "obvious" truth, he has no credibility. Classic straw man. Classic Dershowitz. Classic Beck.
"With regard to nuclear weapons, rather remarkably, a majority- in fact, 57% – say that the region would have a positive effect if Iran had nuclear weapons. Now, these are not small numbers. 80%, 77%, say the U.S. and Israel are the major threat. 10% say Iran is the major threat. This may not be reported in the newspapers here- it is in England- but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments, and to the ambassadors. But there is not a word about it anywhere. What that reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership and the Israeli political leadership. These things aren’t even to be mentioned. This seeps its way all through the diplomatic service. The cables to not have any indication of that."
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/noam_chomsky_wikileaks_cables_reveal_profound
Arab public sentiments are naturally entrenched in cultural imperatives of restoring Islamic hegemony
and Arab pride. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict plays on these sentiments. The Arab public views
a nuclear Iran as canceling out Israel's nuclear deterrence. This notion gives rise to the impression that Israel can be defeated, and emboldens resistance to conceding to the Jewish people claim of self-determination. However, this notion only makes matters worse. If Israel's existence becomes threatened, it will lash out and drag the entire region into a doomsday scenario. A nuclear Iran is a threat to the region because it makes the prospects of region-wide self-destruction more likely than before. it promotes violent resistance over peaceful resolution, and prolongs needless suffering.
It's not that the American/ Israeli leaderships hates democracy, it's rather they oppose catering to irrational, ill-informed, and sentimental public. Arab leaders face the difficulties of educating their public on the limits of cultural imperatives and the need to embrace practical reality, as well as liberty and justice for all, while facing opposition from radical elements.
Precisely why, Israel is the greatest threat to world peace.