• We need to take this seriously -   Daniel Kurtzer

• Little Baghdad -   Mark Perry

• Israeli policy-makers, take note -   Itamar Rabinovich

A taboo being challenged in Washington
 Saad N. Jawad

Although some have quibbled with what exactly he said, there is little doubt that General David Petraeus, the commander of the US Central Command who also served as commanding general of the multinational forces in Iraq from January 2024 to September 2024, was voicing broad US dissatisfaction with Israel and its policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians when he was recently quoted as saying that the Arab-Israel conflict is fomenting anti-US sentiments in the Arab world. Significantly, he went further to imply that this conflict is putting the lives of US soldiers in jeopardy, and that Israeli intransigence is harmful to US interests.

Petraeus' attitude is not new in American circles. It represents the realistic views and attitudes that have started to develop in the US since the publication in 2024 of two books, one by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about the harm to US interests the pro-Israel lobby in the US does (Walt by the way was Gen. Petraeus' advisor when he did his PhD at Princeton in 1987), and one by former president Jimmy Carter, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid".

Saad N. Jawad is a professor of political science at Baghdad University.

General David Petraeus denies saying that the persistence of the Arab-Israel conflict endangers American troops in the region. Vice President Joseph Biden also denies saying this. That part of the story should thus be laid to rest.

What Petraeus did say, however, is quite important. In written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 16, Petraeus said:

The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our [CENTCOM] ability to advance our interests in the AOR [area of responsibility]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.

Daniel Kurtzer holds the Abraham Chair in Middle East Policy Studies at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He served previously as United States ambassador to Egypt and to Israel.

When, at the end of World War II, George Marshall received word that Germany had surrendered, he put on his best uniform and visited Harry Truman. "Mr. President," he said. "I am pleased to announce that we've defeated Germany." Truman smiled: "I'm happy to hear that, General," he responded, "because for a while there I thought we were fighting the British."

The British and Americans worked well together in World War II, but even the best alliance is not seamless: Marshall's protege General Joseph "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell referred to the British as "f-cking pigs", Douglas MacArthur refused to cooperate with them during the Pacific War ("they just want their colonies back"), and Eisenhower's friendship with Winston Churchill earned him the enmity of George Patton: "Ike's the best general the limeys have," he said.

Franklin Roosevelt was only marginally less critical. He had two goals in the war: to defeat the Axis powers--and to end the British Empire. Roosevelt blamed the British for the war, describing British colonialism as one of its primary causes. Churchill was uncomfortably aware of this, but he knew the facts: the UK needed America not only to defeat Germany, but to survive. So it was with a sense of relief that Churchill welcomed December 7, 1941: it meant that his country was saved. But he was careful: thousands of dead at Pearl Harbor were not cause for celebration.

Sadly, some of Israel's most ardent American friends have failed to follow Churchill's example. In the aftermath of 9/11, the New Republic's Martin Peretz ("Israel, The United States, and Evil") was nearly gleeful. Finally, America could "grasp Israel's human losses"; finally the Israeli-American alliance was "bonded in blood"; finally "we Americans no longer need any instructions in how it feels to be an Israeli." Put another way, 9/11 might have been bad for America, but it was good for Israel.

Really? The brain-dead view of our history holds that we defeat our enemies and come home with our views intact. The reality is quite different: we defeat our enemies (or not, as the case may be) and then we marry them. Or set them up in business. There's a neighborhood called "Little Saigon" blocks from where I live. Then too, fighting people is a subversive experience: we learn about them. Once upon a time it was acceptable to refer to people as "dirty Japs," or "filthy Huns" or "gooks"--or, more recently, "Hajis". Not anymore. They're now our neighbors.

It's useful to keep all of this in mind when reflecting on what General David Petraeus said about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict several weeks ago: that the conflict "foments anti-American sentiment, due to a US perception of favoritism toward Israel." Petraeus' public words went further: the problems caused by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict head the list of challenges faced by the US in the region.

The outpouring of rage among the pro-Israel advocates was interesting: that Petraeus never said what he said, that he said it but didn't mean it, or that he said it but it only showed his ignorance. This last view--repeated by columnist Andrew McCarthy in the National Review ("Petraeus' Israel Problem")--holds that "Petraeus is echoing the narrative peddled incessantly by leftists in the government he serves and by Islamists in the countries where he works." What Petraeus really needs, McCarthy says, is a better understanding of the "totalitarian, iniquitous, misogynistic, homophobic, virulently anti-western and anti-Semitic culture that dominates Muslim countries."

Those who believe Petraeus, meanwhile, are "leftists," "terrorist groupies" or "Hizballah flunkies".

My God, man, I don't even hear this tripe in Israel. Rarely, if ever, do you hear anyone articulate Petraeus' real message: that if the United States wants to win the war on terror we have to address the region's most fundamental issues.

Of course, my country's senior military officers aren't delusional; they know that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict won't end the war on terror. But they're convinced that it will remove an arrow from the quiver of our enemies. And even if it doesn't, isn't it worth doing anyway? And there's another message. There's not only a deep strain of anti-colonialism in the American military, there's a strong sense that not only does America come first, no one comes second. We're willing to fight with our friends as a part of a coalition (in fact, that's our preference), but we'll only do so if we're the ones in charge. We're even willing to shed our blood with our allies, but only for our interests, not theirs. The message was clear for Churchill and it is just as clear for Binyamin Netanyahu: we don't need to prove that we're committed to Israel's security, they need to prove that they're committed to ours. Israelis can do that by working to resolve their conflict with the Palestinians. If they do, they'll remain a strategic asset and an ally. If they don't, they won't. It's just that simple.

Unfortunately, the Petraeus controversy has failed to spark a useful debate about US-Israel relations. The language surrounding the controversy has been divisive and polarizing. It'll only get worse, especially if Israel attacks Iran. If that happens, Americans will die. At which point, I'm quite sure, we'll hear Andrew McCarthy extol the virtues of killing Iranians: they're a bunch of "misogynistic", "homophobic" "anti-Semites" anyway so what the hell. And (I'm also quite sure) that even as the bodies of our dead arrive at Dover Air Force Base, we'll hear Martin Peretz tell us that while all those dead young men and women are bad for America, they're actually good for Israel. Because the lives lost will reinforce our "bond of blood" with our Israeli allies.

But don't try to peddle that garbage in the Pentagon.- Published 15/4/2010 © bitterlemons-international.org

Mark Perry is the author of "Partners in Command, George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in War and Peace". His most recent book is "Talking To Terrorists" (Basic Books, 2024).

What General David Petraeus said in his testimony before the Senate's Armed Services Committee on March 16, and the manner in which his statement was quoted, represented and interpreted, must be understood within the context of the charged atmosphere in Washington regarding US-Israel relations and the Israel-Arab peace process. The president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel are in open disagreement over these issues. Recently, a respected academic raised the question of dual loyalty in his blog. Against this backdrop, a statement by one of America's most prominent generals--head of the Central Command, who holds military responsibility and authority for most of the Middle East--that points to a negative linkage between America's support for Israel and the success and safety of its soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, is bound to become a controversial issue.

The controversy begins with the question of what General Petraeus actually said. Misquotation and misinterpretation by anti-Israel bloggers prompted a counter blog by the conservative author Max Boot. In his "Commentary" blog of March 18, Boot argued that Petraeus was both misquoted and quoted out of context and pointed to the discrepancy between the written text and the general's oral presentation.

Unlike Boot, I think that the written statement is important. But the paragraphs referring to Israel should indeed be put in context. In the first part of the written testimony, Petraeus speaks of "US interests and the most significant threats to them". He mentions and elaborates on a few such threats: "Instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iran's destabilizing activities and policies, instability in Iraq and in Yemen". This list is then followed by a second category, "Non-military challenges to security and stability". He points to eleven such challenges, the first of which is "insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace":

The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [area of responsibility]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and people in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.

Itamar Rabinovich, Israel's ambassador to the US in the mid-1990s, is the Ettinger Professor at Tel Aviv University. He is also affiliated with NYU and The Brookings Institution.