Israel-Palestine: Petraeus' Intervention Shakes Up US Policy?

I'm not a big fan of General David Petraeus' interference in US foreign policymaking, given his challenge to (and potential undermining) of his President on an issue such as Afghanistan, but Mark Perry in Foreign Policy offered a tale where Petraeus' manoeuvres may lead to a significant --- and, I think, productive --- re-alignment in US foreign policy.

To be blunt, if you take a charitable interpretation of Petraeus' move (he was telling the US diplomats to get out of their dead end of caving to Israeli steps such as settlement expansion) rather than the cynical one (he was again seeking to expand his authority), this may open up a prospect --- limited but visible --- of the US staking out a position where it can challenge Israel's unilateral obstacles to the peace process.

Israel: Obama Shows His Teeth, Netanyahu Steps Back?

On Jan. 16, two days after a killer earthquake hit Haiti, a team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command (responsible for overseeing American security interests in the Middle East), arrived at the Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


The team had been dispatched by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving the issue. The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late."

The January Mullen briefing was unprecedented. No previous CENTCOM commander had ever expressed himself on what is essentially a political issue; which is why the briefers were careful to tell Mullen that their conclusions followed from a December 2009 tour of the region where, on Petraeus's instructions, they spoke to senior Arab leaders. "Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling," a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding." But Petraeus wasn't finished: two days after the Mullen briefing, Petraeus sent a paper to the White House requesting that the West Bank and Gaza (which, with Israel, is a part of the European Command -- or EUCOM), be made a part of his area of operations. Petraeus's reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged  in the region's most troublesome conflict.

[UPDATE: A senior military officer denied Sunday that Petraeus sent a paper to the White House.

"CENTCOM did have a team brief the CJCS on concerns revolving around the Palestinian issue, and CENTCOM did propose a UCP change, but to CJCS, not to the WH," the officer said via email. "GEN Petraeus was not certain what might have been conveyed to the WH (if anything) from that brief to CJCS."

(UCP means "unified combatant command," like CENTCOM; CJCS refers to Mullen; and WH is the White House.)]

The Mullen briefing and Petraeus's request hit the White House like a bombshell. While Petraeus's request that CENTCOM be expanded to include the Palestinians was denied ("it was dead on arrival," a Pentagon officer confirms), the Obama administration decided it would redouble its efforts -- pressing Israel once again on the settlements issue, sending Mitchell on a visit to a number of Arab capitals and dispatching Mullen for a carefully arranged meeting with the chief of the Israeli General Staff, Lt. General Gabi Ashkenazi. While the American press speculated that Mullen's trip focused on Iran, the JCS Chairman actually carried a blunt, and tough, message on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that Israel had  to see its conflict with the Palestinians "in a larger, regional, context" -- as having a direct impact on America's status in the region. Certainly, it was thought, Israel would get the message.

Israel didn't. When Vice President Joe Biden was embarrassed by an Israeli announcement that the Netanyahu government was building 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem, the administration reacted. But no one was more outraged than Biden who, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, engaged in a private, and angry, exchange with the Israeli Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, what Biden told Netanyahu reflected the importance the administration attached to Petraeus's Mullen briefing:  "This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace." Yedioth Ahronothwent on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism." The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American  lives.

There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA, the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S. military. While commentators and pundits might reflect that Joe Biden's trip to Israel has forever shifted America's relationship with its erstwhile ally in the region, the real break came in January, when David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. Maybe Israel gets the message now.

Comments

[Thomas Mathew]

Very illuminating post.Hope U.S will ignore the pro-Israeli lobbies and change its policies which will save the lives of not only Americans but others as well who would be the victims of terrorists whose agenda will be weakened once the Palestine conundrum is resolved

[Catherine]

RE The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM’s mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) “too old, too slow … and too late.”

I found it really hard to believe that this could have come as a surprise to Mullen or the White House (with the possible exception of Mitchell, who's relatively new on the scene). I've known all this for quite some time and I just watch TV! :-)
As for the Washington's spat with Israel, it will soon pass and the lovers will kiss and make up as they always do.

[Dave]

Quoting Catherine -- "As for the Washington’s spat with Israel, it will soon pass and the lovers will kiss and make up as they always do."

*********

I don't think so. Obama and Co. has a philosophical distaste for dealing with Likud. Obama would rather deal with a left-leaning Israeli government. He wants Labour to follow through on its threats to break up the coalition if no progress is reached later in the year (September, if I recall correctly). I'm sure of it. I'm sure Obama wants to see new elections.

Obama and Biden don't like the diplomatic and political realities there and want to frame their own.

[Bijan]

@Dave and @Catherine -

I fall in the middle between your statements. While I do think the Obama administration will not just let the recent events pass, I think it will only be more diplomatic language with a relatively harsh tone, which, will likely amount to little to no action taken by any parties.

What I am more anxious to see are statements by the PA, Hamas and more so actions by Palestinians. Given recent statements by the Arab League it may appear Abbas has little room to manouvre to be able to retain some level of credibility not only at home, but in the region and within his own party.

[Bill]

As much as I defend Israel this new settlement move was beyond any tolerance anyone can accept mine included. It is about time the US stop holding hands and ask Israel to act like real allies and stop the nonsense. The need to pull out of the occupied territories then make sure the Pals know if they want to continue with "removing Israel entirely" they will get wiped out with US backing. I am sick and tired of this issue in which both sides don't seem to want peace. I am sick and tired as millions die elsewhere everyone fixates on this issue!!! What about Darfur, Somalia, Burma, North Korea, and the hundereds of millions of poor across the globe? Agghhhhh!!!!! Kudos for Petraeus for saying what some many refuse to admit!!!

[Dave]

Quoting Bill -- "As much as I defend Israel this new settlement move was beyond any tolerance anyone can accept mine included."

*****

If it had been decided that the new apartment blocks were to be built for Israeli citizens of Arab descent only, then the White House wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.

[Catherine]

Yesterday Wasgington took its first step in walking back the insult (one day after the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC raised the alarm over the US-Israel spa)t:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100315/usa/mideast_israel_us_diplomacy_politics_2

I also think that the Obama admin would love (and perhaps is now trying to provoke?) a crisis that leads to the fall of the Israeli cabinet and new elections, but that wouldn't change the nature of the relationship between the 2 countries nor the role AIPAC plays in guaranteeing the continuity of that relationship. That's what I meant by them kissing and making up as usual in my earlier post. Maybe it'll take longer this time around, but it's bound to happen. The Obama admin doesn't have the guts to stand up to AIPAC and all domestic political players who are in line with or pressured by AIPAC.

Lobby group AIPAC raises alarm over US-Israel spat: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100315/usa/mideast_diplomacy_us_aipac_lobby_2

[Bill]

Dave,

Come on? You know I defend Israel however some things are beyond being able to defend. This is one instance. By the way did you catch the uproar over the synagogue being reopened in the old jewish section of Jerusalem. The Pals are having a field day whith it and frankly they are showing just how intolerant they are. Most of the Pal leaders view it as an attack?? WTF?

Thx
Bill

[Dave]

Bill,

Are you speaking of the synagogue in Cairo?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100314/wl_africa_afp/egyptreligionjudaismheritage

[Dave]

Oh, okay - I just read an article on that one. This incident and the vandalizing of Jewish shrines there years ago shows that there is nothing to negotiate. Nothing has changed. The Arabs have forfeited any claims they might have had to govern that city.

[Henry]

Western educated Arabs, friends of the US, and terrorist leaders have been telling us for many years that our blind support for Israel is doing our country great harm. Now General Petraeus has endorsed that view. Maybe eyes are finally starting to open.