Why green lines and red lines don’t belong together
It is misguided to make any comparison between red lines and green lines when discussing the important issues facing America with respect to the Middle East. To suggest that green lines ought to garner the same attention as red lines in American presidential races is to not fully understand American issues and policies.
Anyone making a comparison between red lines and green lines makes a false case of equivalency that the moral implications of red lines and green lines are of the same or similar weight.
One misstep these arguers maintain is that the obligations for America to demand red lines and green lines are the same. Israel, for the past 64 years, has been an essential ally militarily, economically and politically in the Middle East. Israel remains the only true projection of American interests in the region. Israel as a democratic entity has minority representation in Parliament, freedom of the press, and respect for women’s and gays’ rights. It has demonstrated globally in Haiti, Japan and elsewhere its emphasis on humanitarianism. To say that America has an obligation to determine its chief ally’s policy is unfair to Israel. As an ally, we ought to openly respect that Israel has the right to determine its own fate. On the other hand, Iran has no such record on democracy, has no such history of friendship with America. In fact, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has often voiced his belief in America inventing 9/11 and claimed in his speech to the U.N. “the American empire…is reaching the end of its road.” The country brutally suppresses its dissidents, aggressively censors free speech and even has the highest per capita execution rate in the world.
The threat of a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat to American interests. It enables the largest state sponsor of terrorism to operate behind one of the world’s most devastating weapons. Its proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas would have the freedom to act without fear of retaliation knowing it has the backing of Iran. Furthermore, it would spur a nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region. The Saudi king has repeatedly claimed that if Iran were free to have nuclear power then it would also pursue nuclear capability. Other countries would follow suit. The claim that “the green line is as important as the red line” is counter-factual and unsupportable.
To say American presidential candidates ought to be discussing Israel’s policies with the same fervor it is discussing Iran’s nuclear ambitions is misguided. Calling on green lines would be alienating the only ally in the region by disrespecting its right to determine its own policies. Calling on red lines would be saying that America will not tolerate a nuclear Iran to allow its terrorist proxies to operate freely, spur a nuclear arms race and enable one of the world’s largest theocracies led by one of the world’s most tyrannical leaders to have access to one of the world’s most devastating weapons. Green lines and red lines don’t belong in the same discussion.
“Calling on green lines would be alienating the only ally in the region by disrespecting its right to determine its own policies.”
Israel certainly has the rights to self-determination and self-governance. That being said, Palestinians also have the rights to self-determination and self-governance, rights which the Israeli government has denied them. While I understand this article was primarily a comparison of the importance of the Israeli-Iranian and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, it is concerning that someone who is so well versed in these issues does not recognize the use of Israeli power to marginalize its Arab population. If I am mistaken and the author does recognize this, it is even more concerning that he considers this marginalization to be so trivial.
Israel does not have freedom of the press. A year or two ago, criticism of settlements was outlawed.
Iran is a democracy.
Pakistan is just as big a sponsor of terrorism, but we haven’t seen Al Qaeda going nuclear.
Israel is a destabilizing force in the region, and is a gigantic liability to American interests.
Israel is not America’s only ally in the region; we’re close to Jordon, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.
Obviously, these statements need qualifiers and expansion, but they serve to illustrate that your “yay Israel!” argument is pretty naive.
I also like this line: The claim that “the green line is as important as the red line” is counter-factual and unsupportable.
People are dying because of Israel’s policies now. Israelis are dying. Palestinians are dying. A people are oppressed, and hateful, violent thoughts are fostered with every passing day. Right now.
Do you know how many countries have nuclear bombs? Do you know how many times those nuclear bombs have spread to the hands of people who shouldn’t have them? The SOVIET UNION had nukes for 40 years. I can’t imagine any state that should be trusted less with nuclear bombs; Iran is as innocent as a kitten by comparison. For 40 years the U.S. and the USSR stood on the brink of total annihilation. Nothing happened. No nukes went anywhere. Pakistan and India have been embroiled in their own nuclear Cold War for 20 years. Where is the mass destruction? What about North Korea, which went nuclear a few years ago?
We also have no evidence (yet) that Iran is working on a bomb. All we have evidence for is that they want nuclear power. A nuclear bomb-armed Iran would be bad, but it’s not necessarily going to happen, and even if it did, let’s not forget which country kicked off this nuclear arms race in the Middle East (here’s looking at you, Israel). To say that Iran shouldn’t have nukes because of the nuclear arms race it would spark is hypocritical if you do not also condemn Israel for pursuing and acquiring the same. But I digress.
The point here is that the green line is way more important than are any red lines, or at least, any red lines for the foreseeable future. The plight of the Palestinians has been ongoing for decades. DECADES. For longer than you have been alive, for longer than your parents have been alive, a people has been pushed around by different powers and used as a pawn in regional politics. The idea that a nuclear Iran is more important than is this gaping abscess in the Middle East is patently absurd.