There Ain’t No Good Guy, There Ain’t No Bad Guy

"There Ain't No Good Guy, There Ain't No Bad Guy, There's Just You and Me and We Just Disagree"

Those lyrics by Dave Mason are excellent advice for a loving couple that ends up splitting up.  But I'm not sure that is quite what Benjamin Netanyahu's aide, Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington and foreign relations chief of Netanyahu's Likud party, had in mind when he spoke to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish organizations yesterday.

Shoval admitted that there were some things that the new Israeli and new American governments didn't see eye to eye on.

"Shoval said that both Netanyahu and Obama were pragmatic leaders willing to work together.  But he conceded there were likely to be differences, such as on Jerusalem, an Arab peace plan, relations with Syria, settlements and Gaza, where Israel launched an offensive in December to quell Hamas rocket fire."

Is that all - is there anything left to agree on?

Yes, Mr. Shoval said that Obama's administration "appeared to accept that Iran, as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan, 'come before the Palestinian-Israeli problem, and rightly so.'"

I suspect that Mr. Shoval is only half right.  Yes, if the new Israeli government doesn't mature its views, there will be disagreements on a host of matters relating to American national security.  But there are also fundamental differences on Iran as was evidenced in the last months of the Bush Administration where Israel could not get US support for either a US bombing campaign or an initial Israeli sortie against Iran (that would undoubtedly require the US to step in to protect Israel from Iran's retaliation).  But there is no evidence that the current administration has decided to fall into the trap of previous administrations in sequencing conflict.  Remember the "Baghdad then Jerusalem" strategy which argued that once the US had successfully conquered Iraq, it could devote itself to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.  Ironically, the Iranians used to make that argument during the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, back when we were supporting Saddam.

The United States has no choice but to deal with all the threats to American national security simultaneously.  Yes, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran are all vitally important.  So is securing Israel's security through a peace agreement with 22 Arab states and securing America's moral position in the Muslim world through the creation of a Palestinian state where Palestinians can finally live in freedom.  Fortunately for all of us, these issues are all linked.  Israel's security, as so many Israeli prime ministers have conceded, is ultimately tied to divesting Israel from the occupied territory. And that is what will get Israel into a normal relationship with 22 Arab states, advancing American national security interests by light years throughout the region.

So back to Shoval's points of disagreement - Jerusalem, an Arab peace plan, relations with Syria, settlements, and Gaza.  The honesty and directness of such an admission has to be appreciated.  He told the Jewish gathering that "[o]f course there will be disagreements, perhaps even confrontations."

But maybe if the United States sticks to its moral standards and national security interests, those disagreements - rather than leading to confrontations - will lead to better understanding and greater cooperation.  We don't do Israeli leaders any favors by simply supporting the most extreme positions they present.  And if there is a fundamental disagreement on basic issues of national security, we should have honest debates and discussions about it.  If Israel thinks it should keep the West Bank forever and we think it should be part of a Palestinian state, we need to make it clear. Israel does us a favor by being so blunt about its interests and we should return the favor. We should have Shovals in our administration as well willing to speak to Israeli audiences about what is important to the United States and why.