Secretary Gates at JINSA, Part I: Israel
[This is the first of a three-part series covering the speech delivered by Secretary of Defense Gates to JINSA on October 15, 2007.]JINSA was pleased this week to present the 25th Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. His after-dinner remarks were a thoughtful exposition on four crucial issues – the U.S.-Israel relationship; Iran; Iraq; and the nature of jihad vs. democracies and democratic interests. See our website for full coverage of the event, but we would like here to share some of his remarks and our observations.
[This is the first of a three-part series covering the speech delivered by Secretary of Defense Gates to JINSA on October 15, 2007.]
JINSA was pleased this week to present the 25th Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. His after-dinner remarks were a thoughtful exposition on four crucial issues – the U.S.-Israel relationship; Iran; Iraq; and the nature of jihad vs. democracies and democratic interests. See our website for full coverage of the event, but we would like here to share some of his remarks and our observations.
Since the creation of Israel, and even before, there has been no small amount of discussion about what our relationship with the Jewish state should be. And no small amount of ink has been spilled about what our interests are – whether strategic, political, moral, or some combination thereof… In 1967, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Lyndon Johnson why he supported the Jewish state, even though its population represented only a fraction of the entire Middle East. And President Johnson replied: Because it is right. It was right to stand by Israel during its darkest hours when it fought for its very survival. And today, with the new threats and challenges our nation faces in the region, it is even more important to maintain and bolster our partnership.
As one looks around the broader Middle East today – wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an ambitious and fanatical theocracy in Iran, a malignant terrorism, and more – some might believe that our bond with Israel is more a hindrance to stability in the region, an irritant for already tense relationships. In some respects, I think that view is borne of frustration, the outcome of a decades-long attempt to bring a lasting peace to Israel and the Middle East. And yet, despite ongoing violence perpetrated by militant, jihadist organizations – as well as the strident posturing of Iran – progress has in fact been made… just a few months ago, the Arab League sent its first-ever envoy to Israel… history does offer some degree of hope for relations among the governments of the Middle East. Some degree of hope that Israel will not forever be watching its back.
Underlying the “Walt/Mearschiemer” belief in the power of the “Jewish lobby” is the idea that the U.S. relationship with Israel has no value to America. The only way to understand it is to believe a group of people made our government do what it had no other reason to do. Secretary Gates aimed a sharp arrow at that nasty insinuation and we are grateful for his expression of the intrinsic moral value of the relationship.
“Because it is right” is a good reason; if there were no other, that one would suffice. But there are many others – including Israeli military and intelligence capabilities that have protected and assisted American service personnel in the long war. A small nitpick.
A larger one is Dr. Gate’s reference to the “Arab League envoy to Israel.” Two Arab League members with diplomatic relations with Israel sent emissaries there to discuss a potential U.S.-sponsored peace conference, but the League itself and the two countries were quite specific that it was not a League mission.
The distinction is important because Dr. Gates attributed “ongoing violence” against Israel to “military, jihadist organizations as well as the strident posturing of Iran” and “frustration” with an unsuccessful peace process. Ongoing violence against Israel is, simply, the result of the Arab states (and Palestinians) failing to accept the legitimacy and permanence of Israel in the region. Israel is entitled to “frustration,” the Arabs are not. A real Arab League envoy would have helped, and the United States should make it clear that the burden is on the Arabs to fulfill UN Resolution 242 in order to make progress.