Israel's fear: withdrawal from Iraq will destabilize Jordan

March 16, 2007
The prime minister woke up very early on Tuesday. His speech to the convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) a live video speech began at 4:00 A.M., Jerusalem time. Olmert reported for it with the slightly puffy eyes of someone who had rolled out of bed not long before, but he was made up and smiling as though nothing was weighing on his good mood. With nearly Sharonesque humor, he even made a point of greeting, without a blink, "my good friend" who was there in the hall, Defense Minister Peretz. Only a few hours were to elapse before he and his friend were to discover that the personal conclusions of Judge Eliahu Winograd were awaiting them just around the corner.

No one had prepared the delegates to the convention for what happened after Olmert's polite opening words: The prime minister splashed with one foot, then the other and then submerged himself up to his pate in the muddy waters of the debate that is splitting American society. The government of Israel, he said, is officially asking: Don't pull out of Iraq.

Olmert had already done this in the past, with a lower profile, when he visited the White House in November and congratulated President George W. Bush for the impressive success of the U.S. in the war. At that time many people assumed that he was paying Bush back for the support he gave Israel during the Lebanon War, and in face of the Hamas government and the Iranian threat. His words sounded like a bit of the usual Olmert improvisation.

There was some anger, and some wondering, but the wave passed. That won't happen this time, because this week it was clear that Olmert's comments were an intentional, planned step. "Those who are concerned for Israel's security, for the security of the Gulf states and for the stability of the entire Middle East, should recognize the need for American success in Iraq, and responsible exit." That is, not quickly, not now.

The next day Olmert justified his position at a meeting with a delegation from the American Jewish Committee. It doesn't matter why you went in there, he told them. Whatever happens, it won't affect Bush's future. But if you leave now, in the existing circumstances (he didn't say "as losers"), America will lose its authority in the region. And this will be bad for the Israelis and also for the Arabs.

Olmert did not tell them about the assessment document he had received recently, which warned of the implications of an American exit from Iraq for Jordan, a country perceived by Jerusalem as a strategic asset, the stability of which is a supreme Israeli interest. An American withdrawal now, before Iraq stabilizes, would have immediate repercussions for the domestic situation in Jordan, and this is liable to be dangerous. According to the Israeli assessment, the Jordanian king's last visit to Washington was aimed at talks with the Democratic legislators who are pushing for the withdrawal from Iraq.

And what are the chances that Iraq will stabilize? In Israel there is hope for the rise of a Saddam equivalent, a general who will impose order and quell the violence. Unlike the Saddam of the past decade, it would be best if he were pro-American, of course.

Foreign Minister Livni, who spoke at AIPAC the day before Olmert did, said similar things about Iraq, but they were swallowed up in a half-sentence: "In a region where impressions are important, countries must be careful not to demonstrate weakness and surrender to extremists... it is true for Iraq." Defense Minister Amir Peretz, who conversed on Monday with a number of senators and on Tuesday met with U.S. Defense Secretary Gates, related negatively to the possibility of a rapid exit. "This is an internal American issue," he made a point of stressing, just as Olmert himself said in his speech that he does not want "to enter American politics" before doing exactly that.

In any case, the Israeli position, as explained by a senior person at the Defense Ministry, is not a political position at all but rather, "the expression of a position on the professional aspect only," as though it were clear to everyone exactly where the border between the two runs. The trouble is that this is a "professional" position that does perhaps line up with the position of Bush and his administration, but is contrary to the position of most of the American public. Two thirds believe that the war was a mistake, and more than half want a rapid withdrawal of forces. The decision to express this position in public is not trivial and without a doubt will play into the hands of conspiracy-mongers who want to blame the pro-Israel lobby for dragging America into a war that they think is unnecessary.

"I don't think that it is proper to intervene in this debate," believes opposition leader Netanyahu. "I hope that [Olmert] has very good reasons for saying what he said," commented the advisor to a senator from the Democratic Party with evident sourness. Israeli diplomats who do in fact understand the strength of the sentiment have consoled themselves with the fact that no senior Democrat has come out publicly against Olmert's remarks.

This item is one part of my print edition weekend column, written with Aluf Benn in Tel Aviv.