The Iraq War:
Is it Good for the Jews—and Israel?
In the debate about the Iraq war, the role of Israel and, more broadly, of Jews has been, in the words of journalist Michael Kinsley, the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it. Indeed, our question—“Has the Iraq war made the world safer for Israel and the Jewish people?”—is on the minds of Jews everywhere. Yet the question made some of those we spoke with uncomfortable. “Why is this question even being asked?” they queried, since weapons of mass destruction, the war against terrorism, democratization of the Middle East and the supply of oil have an impact on the lives of all Americans, not just Jews. We believe that the Iraq war is of particular concern to Jews. The U.S. occupation of Iraq has fundamentally reshaped Israel’s neighborhood. It removed the threat that many believed was posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, but brought about an equally grave one: a determined insurgency that seeks to overthrow Iraq’s new government and may destabilize the entire Middle East. Furthermore, Israelis and Jews elsewhere fear being blamed for the war. American Jews are in the curious place of being both overwhelmingly against the war—70 percent disapprove, according to the American Jewish Committee’s December 2005 survey—and subject to conspiracy theories. Numerous articles and books about the lead-up to the war have highlighted the role of the influential Jewish policymakers and public intellectuals who were among the war’s most ardent proponents. And some prominent non-Jewish Americans have talked up the “Jewish angle.”Among them are conservative commentator and former presidential contender Patrick Buchanan who, has insisted that the war’s central aim was “to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel.” Jim Moran, a Democratic Congressman from Virginia, claimed: “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should.” In March, two highly respected professors—John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University—ignited a polemical conflagration with an essay in the London Review of Books in which they argued that the “Israel Lobby” undermines American interests for the benefit of the Jewish state. “Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical,” the professors wrote. The opinions to follow on these pages are so divergent that one can be forgiven for wondering if our commentators are talking about different wars being conducted in parallel universes. Their passion is evident: Whether Iraq will emerge as a functioning democracy that is a model for its neighbors or a failed state that is a magnet for terrorists, the stakes are high for people around the world, Jews included.
—Evan R. Goldstein and Nonna Gorilovskaya
David Frum
“[T]he hatred toward the United States today by the terrorists is an extension of [their] hatred of Israel.”
So wrote journalist Robert Novak on September 12, 2001, even as the ruins of the World Trade Center still smoldered. Within minutes of the 9/11 attacks, loud voices were raised to blame Israel and the Jews for this new danger upon the world.
At the same time, as the terror war has proceeded, polls have captured rising sympathy and support for Israel, not only in the United States, but in Europe, as publics have come to understand better the implacability and irrationality of Islamic extremism. The 2006 Pew global public opinion survey noted a remarkable surge in support for Israel in both France and Germany since 2004.
For those who want to blame the Jews for global terrorism, Iraq has become a powerful new rhetorical device. Saddam Hussein threatened Israel; some of the war’s planners and supporters were Jewish; QED [quod erat demonstrandum translates from Latin as “which was to be demonstrated”]. And as the Iraq war has proven more difficult than expected, the QEDs have sounded louder and shriller.
The distinctively Jewish interest in Iraq, however, is the same as the distinctively Jewish interest in the larger war on terror: Quelling the implacable irrational nihilistic hatred behind jihadism. For that interest to prevail, wide change is going to have to come to the Arab and Muslim world—and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was an essential, indispensable element of this change. What is good for the Jews in the war on terror? The same thing that is good for all the citizens of all the democratic world.
David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, is a columnist for National Review Online and co-author with Richard Perle of An End to Evil: What’s Next in the War on Terror.
Matthew Yglesias
An interesting fact about the Iraq war is that one of the earliest formulations for regime change in Baghdad by American neoconservatives came in the form of a [1996] memo to then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called “A Clean Break.” It hypothesized that toppling Saddam could lead to a Hashemite Restoration in Iraq, which would, among other things, make Palestinians more accommodating to Israeli interests, moderate Hezbollah and establish a philo-Semitic regime in Mesopotamia. Equally interestingly, Netanyahu himself was not nearly so foolish as to consider this a good idea and, clearly, nothing of the sort resulted from the United States’ eventual decision to adopt a regime change policy.
Eliminating an advanced Iraqi nuclear weapons program would have enhanced the security and advanced the interests of Jews living in Israel, the United States and, indeed, of most people around the world. But as is now universally acknowledged and as was, in fact, clear from the International Atomic Energy Agency and other reports before the invasion, there was no such program to eliminate. Instead, the primary effect of the war has been to broaden and deepen the appeal of Islamic radicalism in a manner unlikely to enhance anyone’s safety. Fundamentally, Jewish interests do not seriously diverge from those of non-Jews in this matter, and it’s unlikely that anyone, with the possible exception of the government of Iran, is happy that events have unfolded in the manner they have.
Matthew Yglesias is a blogger and staff writer at The American Prospect.
Edith Everett
Iran is a much bigger threat than Iraq to both the United States and to Israel. Here we are in the United States, very thin in manpower, overspent in dollars and using up the good will and resolve of the American public to do anything of any consequence. We are in an extremely untenable position. Iran sees us as a toothless tiger. They don’t have to pay much attention to us; they neither fear us nor respect us.
If the United States was to choose a military option [in regard to Iran], given our compromised position, I worry that all eyes would be focused on Israel. The United States, loath to engage personally in a military option, could try to pressure Israel to do so. That’s a matter of grave concern.
Many Americans supported the war, frightened by the specter projected by the White House of a terrorist under every bed. In addition, many Jews supported the war because they thought it would be beneficial for Israel. Saddam is gone, but we now have a proliferation of terrorists, a lawless society and poor prospects for disengagement in a meaningful way.
I believe that Jews were not more supportive of the war than the general community. I wonder, however, if we put the possibility of conscription on the table whether pro-war advocates would vote the same way. When it comes to sending your own children into conflict as opposed to those of other people’s, somehow votes change. Interestingly, most Israeli youngsters serve in the military as a matter of fulfilling their responsibility to the security of their country. Not so in the United States. It’s something to think about.
By the way, my son served a tour of duty as an army officer in Iraq.
Edith Everett is a board member of the American Jewish Committee who made news recently when she asked Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman to “take a message” to President Bush to stop linking Israel and Iran.
Joshua Muravchik
“Is it good for the Jews?” seems to me an odd question to ask about the war in Iraq, but it is in one sense easy to answer.
The war against terrorism is good for the Jews and for all Americans and for Europeans and even for Arabs and other Muslims who have often been victims of terrorism. It is, in short, good for everyone except the terrorists. It is a war to drag the entire human race to a more civilized plain of behavior, just as were the campaigns to stamp out slavery or human sacrifice.
The war in Iraq was launched as a front in the war against terrorism. Was it the right choice at the time? Analogous questions have been debated unceasingly about America’s strategic choices in World War II (attacking North Africa to reach Europe’s “soft underbelly”) and Britain’s in World War I (the central front versus Gallipoli and such). About Iraq, I have never been sure. I was not in a position to make the choice, and once the choice was made, I supported it because I supported the larger war of which it was part. I would do so again without a moment’s hesitation.
Will the war in Iraq prove to be a beneficial battle in the war against terror? That depends entirely on whether we win or lose there. The war has become a momentous showdown between jihadism and America. If the jihadists win, they will be strengthened and energized all over the Muslim world, and terrorism will mushroom. If, on the other hand, we win, jihadism will be widely repudiated and will lose the aura of invincibility it has built up through victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and through many western retreats.
That will be good for everyone except the terrorists, the Jews included.
Joshua Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is writing a book profiling Middle Eastern democrats.
Peter Beinart
The war in Iraq has weakened Israel’s security. If Saddam in fact had had a nuclear weapons program one might say that the benefit of getting rid of him was so great for Israel’s security that even the chaotic postwar consequences are worthwhile. A nuclear Iraq would have represented an imminent threat. But Saddam, with no nuclear weapons program, didn’t represent much of a threat. He didn’t have the conventional weapons capacity to do much to Israel.
The postwar situation has produced a training ground and safe haven for jihadists in Sunni Iraq that could be a very serious problem for Israel. They may return to other parts of the Middle East and launch attacks against Israel and Jewish targets in the Diaspora as well. I think that represents a great threat to Israel and to Jews.
In addition, the war has empowered Iran. It has weakened America’s leverage in trying to convince Iran not to develop nuclear weapons and it has weakened America’s military options vis-à-vis Iran because Iran can retaliate in Iraq. And if Iran is stronger Hezbollah is stronger and to some degree the rejectionist element amongst the Palestinians—Islamic Jihad and Hamas—are stronger because they have a more powerful patron.
Similarly, the United States is weaker. Historically, the best hope for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is when America is strong. We saw this with Camp David [in 1976]. Once Sadat became pro-American, America had leverage with both the Israelis and the Egyptians and was able to move them to make a deal. After the Gulf War, when America was in a uniquely strong position because of the collapse of the Soviet Union and our victory in the Cold War, we had a lot of leverage over the Israelis, but also a lot of leverage over the Palestinians because they had no other benefactors. Now, because our position has grown weaker in Iraq, it has weakened us vis-à-vis the Palestinians. And clearly we have less leverage over a government run by Hamas.
Peter Beinart is editor-at-large at The New Republic and the author of The Good Fight: Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.
Shibley Telhami
Israel has proven effective at deterring and defeating Arab states but not at confronting non-state actors. Non-state groups, especially dangerous trans-national groups like Al Qaeda proliferate where there is no state authority; they didn’t exist in Iraq before the war but now thrive with the ability to knock on the door in Lebanon and the Palestinian areas. They are far more threatening than nationalist militants like Hezbollah or Hamas.
Nor has the Iraq war had much impact on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The outcome on that front has been largely a function of local events that were unrelated to the Iraq war. One wonders, nonetheless, whether the enormous financial and diplomatic resources deployed in the Iraq war could not have yielded something good for both Israel and the Arabs if deployed for peacemaking and for fighting Al Qaeda.
As for what’s good for “the Jews,” I suspect that the answer depends on which Jews? As was reflected in the war debate, Jews have not been united on what interests are at stake or on how these interests might be served. But one thing is clear: The war has not been good for Americans, all Americans, including the millions who are Jews.
Shibley Telhami is Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and the author of The Stakes: America and the Middle East.
Matthew Brooks
If you remember, Saddam Hussein was paying the families of suicide bombers $25,000 and the fact that is no longer happening is a tremendously positive development. Saddam Hussein was a particularly destabilizing force in the region. He gave support to terrorist regimes, not just in the Palestinian Territories but also to Hezbollah and others. Removing him and bringing democracy to that part of the world sends a very, very powerful message to the leaders of some of the other rogue nations. We saw the direct benefit of that from Muammar el-Qaddafi and his decision to abandon weapons of mass destruction and his past support for terrorism. So there is no doubt that the war in Iraq has made Jews safer in Israel, has made the Middle East more stable, and has been a crucial blow to the terror networks of Al Qaeda and the other radical elements that are fomenting violence and terror around the world.
Matthew Brooks is the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Norman Solomon
The Iraq war has made the world less safe for everyone. It has exacerbated existing hatreds and created new ones, inside Iraq and throughout the region and the world. Safety in the Middle East and elsewhere is not enhanced by increasing the levels of deadly violence inflicted for political goals. On the contrary, the cycles of violence are becoming only more horrific. Any Jewish leaders, whether in Israel or the United States, who support the Bush administration’s mendacious rationales for the U.S. war effort in Iraq are helping to feed the flames of conflagrations that threaten to engulf Jews and everyone else.
What would be best for Israel, for the Jewish people and for the rest of humankind would be effective opposition to what the Nuremberg tribunals unequivocally condemned—the launching of aggressive war. “We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it,” said Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, representing the U.S. government at the International Conference on Military Trials, when World War II finally ended. He added that “no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.”
Norman Solomon is the author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us.
Kenneth R. Weinstein
I do not view the Iraq War as a Jewish issue. Many of the proponents of the war in the United States were indeed Jewish; but then again so were many of the war’s leading opponents. And every Israeli strategist I know would have preferred action against Iran rather than Iraq.
The war did achieve one main aim: it eliminated a dictator who obsessively hated the United States and Israel, who aimed SCUD missiles at major Israeli cities, and who did not hesitate to support Palestinian and other terrorist groups.
The success of the three different Iraqi elections held after Saddam’s ouster has had an undeniable effect in other countries in the Middle East. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, which ousted the Syrian army, would never had occurred had the Lebanese not seen the courageous example of millions of Iraqis emerging from voting booths with ink-stained fingers.
The Iraq war is part of the Bush administration’s democracy initiative in the Middle East, which has helped lead to some glasnost in the Arab world, with reform being the buzzword from Egypt to Kuwait. Arab elites are increasingly turned to introspection rather than conspiracy theories that place Israel, the Jewish people and the United States at the center of all their ills.
To be sure, had the Iraq war been implemented more effectively the benefits would have been greater, with more moderate voices and forces for modernity in the Arab world being more willing to stand openly with the United States and with Israel, as the only real democracy in the region.
One downside to the war has been that it has given the opportunity for anti-Semites and their allies to declare that Jewish influence in America poses an obstacle to American national security. This unfortunate claim needs to be squarely refuted so that American Jews, like Americans of all stripes, can speak freely on critical issues facing the nation without their loyalty being questioned.
Kenneth R. Weinstein is the CEO of the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based public policy research organization.
Arthur Waskow
The worldwide Jewish community is far less physically safe and far less morally and ethically whole than it was before the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
In America, hundreds of billions of dollars, more than 2,500 lives, and about 10,000 maimed human beings have been poured into the gluttonous fire of this war. The war has spawned and trained thousands of new terrorists, not diminished their numbers or power.
The war has encouraged the concentration of power and wealth that has always been dangerous to the Jewish people— whether its name was Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Rome, the Inquisition or Tsar Nicholas. A president who nullifies a law against torture, though passed by an overwhelming majority of Congress, just by waving the wand of “national security.” Who does the same to the legal and constitutional requirement of warrants to authorize the invasion of our homes, papers, and [personal] effects.
As for the Jews of Israel, now there are thousands of people in the world who are both full of rage against America and Israel, and trained to turn their rage into violence. Israeli and American Jewish energy that could have been devoted to making peace with the Palestinians and the whole Arab world has been thrown away.
No community rooted in moral values can be strong if it abandons them. Three years into an illegal, immoral, lie-based, destructive and self-destructive war, no single “major” Jewish organization has called for a deadline to be set, after which our sons and daughters must be brought safely home.
Arthur Waskow is a rabbi and director of the Philadelphia-based Shalom Center. He is also the co-author of The Tent of Abraham: Stories of Hope & Peace.
Abraham H. Foxman
It depends on how the war turns out. It depends on how the growing Shiite threat to Israel and the West is handled. It depends on whether there is a serious effort to sustain forces of democracy and reform in the region.
From Israel’s perspective, the longstanding strategic threat of a massive military attack from the east led by Iraq through Jordan no longer exists because of the war. Now, however, there is a challenge to Israel coming from a growing Shiite bloc centered in Iran, possibly buttressed by a Shiite-dominated Iraq and in coordination with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. All of this is manageable if the West gets it right regarding Iran’s nuclear aspirations. If not, then this emerging Shiite threat, magnified by changes in Iraq, could make past concerns about an invasion of Israel from the east pale in comparison.
Jewish interests involve not only the well-being of Israel but the strength of democratic institutions and the need to counter and undermine the international terrorist menace. The fact that the United States has made the democratization of Iraq the cornerstone of its policy is a worthy goal, as is its concomitant goal of pushing regimes throughout the region in a democratic direction. Natan Sharansky’s thesis that democratic governments make for peaceful neighbors is well taken.
Here, too, however, there are caveats. In the final analysis, will a truly stable and democratic system emerge in Iraq or will extremism and sectarianism rule the day? As the Hamas victory demonstrated, elections in themselves, without building a moderate civil society, one with independent courts and press and a vital role for nongovernmental organizations, can lead to even more dangerous regimes than the autocrats of old.
So, it all depends.
Abraham H. Foxman is national director of the Anti-Defamation League and author of Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism.
|
