JustASC

The Anti-Defamation League is scolding Gen. David Petraeus for describing “a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel”  as (in ADL’s words) “impeding the U.S. military mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in dealing with the Iranian influences in the region.” 

ADL makes it sound as if Petraeus singled out the Arab-Israeli conflict and the U.S.-Israel relationship as an impediment to the war effort, when what he did was list it as only one of ELEVEN “cross-cutting issues that serve as major drivers of instability, inter-state tensions, and conflict” in his area of command. That’s an important difference.

I undersand why the ADL doesn’t want it put out there that the U.S.-Israel relationship stirs anti-American passions in the Muslim world, or that “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments” in the region, as the general says. But that doesn’t mean Petraeus is wrong for stating the undeniable. 

From the ADL statement:

The assumptions Gen. Petraeus presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee wrongly attribute “insufficient progress” in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and “a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel” as significantly impeding the U.S. military mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in dealing with the Iranian influences in the region. It is that much more of a concern to hear this coming from such a great American patriot and hero.

 The General’s assertions lead to the illusory conclusion that if only there was a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. could successfully complete its mission in the region.

Petraeus doesn’t reach that conclusion. But is he responsible for those who would? 

Gen. Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the U.S. and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived U.S. favoritism for Israel. This linkage is dangerous and counterproductive.

It may be both dangerous and counterproductive, but again — is it untrue? Can ADL really deny that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a source of regional tension, or that it foments anti-American sentiment and extremisim in the Muslim world? 

Read the text of Petraeus’ remarks . It’s far more subtle than the ADL makes it sound. Before he even raises the issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict (again, among 11 other factors leading to instability in the region), he describes the “Most Significant Threats” to U.S. interests in the region. The A-I conflict is not among them:

The most serious threats to these interests lie at the nexus of militant groups, hostile states, and WMD. Across the AOR, al-Qaeda and its Associated Movements are fueling insurgencies to reduce U.S. influence and to destabilize the existing political, social, and economic order. Meanwhile, some countries in the AOR play a dangerous game of allowing or accepting terrorist networks and facilitators to operate from or through their territory, believing that their own people and governments will be immune to their threat. Efforts to develop or acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems magnify the potential dangers of the marriage between some states and their militant proxies. Indeed, the acquisition of nuclear arms by hostile states or terrorist organizations would constitute a grave threat to the United States, our allies, and the countries of the region and would likely spark a destabilizing arms race.

Instead of criticizing Petraeus for telling the truth, the ADL should have applauded  him for correctly prioritizing America’s (and Israel’s) challenges: militant Islam, support for terrorism, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.