Dennis Ross and David Makovsky: The Illusion of Linkage

[Israel Insider]

The appointment of Dennis Ross to a high policy position at the NSA is surprising in view of the fact that his new book stands in diametrical opposition to the one being pursued by this new boss. In this excerpt published in today's New York Times, Ross and former Jerusalem Post correspondent David Makovsky savage the idea of "linkage" -- the oft-disproved notion that solving the Israeli-Arab dispute will make all others go away. - RK

====

Of all the policy myths that have kept us from making real progress in the Middle East, one stands out for its impact and longevity: the idea that if only the Palestinian conflict were solved, all the other Middle East conflicts would melt away. This is the argument of “linkage.” Neoconservatives have always rejected it, given their skepticism about Arab intentions and their related belief that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved. While realists have been the most determined purveyors, this myth transcends all others and has had amazing staying power here, internationally, and in the Middle East. In fact, few ideas have been as consistently and forcefully promoted – by laymen, policymakers, and leaders alike.

... the Iraq Study Group, cochaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, placed special emphasis on the idea of linkage: “To put it simply, all key issues in the Middle East – the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need for political and economic reforms, and extremism and terrorism – are inextricably linked.

Such bold statements are rarely qualified. In effect, they are guided by a central premise: that ending the Arab-Israeli conflict is prerequisite to addressing the maladies of the Middle East. Solve it, and in doing so conclude all other conflicts. Fail, and instability – even war – will engulf the entire region.
The major problem with this premise is that it is not true. There have been dozens of conflicts and countless coups in the Middle East since Israel’s birth in 1948, and most were completely unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

.... In addition, as tragic as the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has become, it has not spilled over to destabilize the Middle East. There have been two Palestinian Intifadas, or uprisings, including one that lasted from 2000 to 2005 and claimed the lives of 4,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis – but not a single Arab leader had been toppled or a single regime destabilized as a result. It has remained a local conflict, contained in a small geographical area. Yet the argument of linkage endures to this day, and with powerful promoters. Why does it persist? And why has it been accepted among top policymakers as if it is factually correct?

Read the rest in the Times.

[RonaldH]

It seems to me that this article definitively blows the linkage argument out of the water. It is nice to have this bullet in our guns for debating purposes, but it is unlikely to quiet the noises made against Israel by the likes of Baker, Hamilton, Brezinski, and Scowcroft. That is because the attacks made against Israel are not based on facts and reasonable analysis. They are based on the dislike, by many people, of the Jewish state. When the emotion of hate is the starting point, 'facts' and 'analysis' can easily be invented to rationalize the conclusion that Israel is the root of all problems. Hate can not be cleansed away by a really good article. We can use it, however, to double our efforts to stand strong on behalf of Israel.

[Michael D. Ballantine]

To give a list of all the problems in the middle east which are not related to linkage seems a bit daft. That's like saying my wife isn't leaving me because I have been sleeping with the neighbor. She's leaving me because on TV there is sex and violence. Or she is leaving me because I snore loudly. She is leaving me because I lost my job. She is leaving me because I had sex with the neighbor end of story.

linkage is much the same. Certainly there are loads of unrelated problems in the Middle East which will not be resolved with or without a Palestinian state. Only a blind man would say that the problems in Israel don't impact the US relationship with the other Arab countries. What is everyone supposed to do? Drink coffee, sit down and pretend the elephant isn't in the room? There are refugees creating all kinds of problems in Lebanon that the Iranians are exploiting. Palestinians live in all the other Arab countries and they agitate. All of the feudal monarchs need to whip up their people's nationalist fervor by pointing to the hated Israelis. That is just Machaivelli. These things are going on everyday or do you just read the journals that say what you like?

US foreign policy is hypocritical to begin with. Supporting the continuing ghettoization of the Palestinians, simply makes it obvious. How can the US demand democratic movement of its Arab allies when it doesn't demand the same of Israel? I know Israel is the freest democracy in the middle east and a great friend of the US. Israel is a Jewish state, that makes it a theocracy, not a democracy. What would happen if Israel were faced with a true Arab majority? I bet Democracy would go right out the window.