There’s a growing controversy over the role of a group in the Administration that is generally described as “neoconservative” and “strongly pro-Israel”, and which is pushing for war with Iraq. The leading figures are Perle and Wolfowitz – like the majority of neoconservatives, both are Jewish. Criticism of this group naturally raises the spectre of anti-Semitism, leading to a good deal of consternation about how, if at all, their role can legitimately be discussed Kevin Drum at Calpundit asks

What I’d like to see are some reasonable guidelines for discourse, guidelines that suggest which lines of attack on neoconservatism are reasonable and which ones aren’t, and what kinds of criticism of Israel are legitimate and which ones aren’t. If there were any consensus on this, it would make both criticism and defense of neocon theology a lot easier and a lot less polemical. It would make it a lot easier for me, anyway.

I begin with the observation I’ve made in my own defence against accusations of anti-Americanism

A government, even a democratically-elected one, is not the same as the country it governs. Both citizens and non-citizens can oppose the policy of a government without being hostile to the country it governs

With this point in mind, it’s easy to see that “pro-Israel” is not a very accurate description of the neoconservatives. Most people in most Western countries are pro-Israel in the sense of supporting Israel’s right to exist within secure boundaries and hoping that Israelis and Palestinians will reach a peaceful settlement of their differences. What distinguishes the neocons is not their support for Israel, but their support for the Likud Party, its leader Ariel Sharon and its policy of aggression. A few neoconservatives are unconditional supporters of whatever Israeli government holds office, but the majority are active partisans for Likud, and welcomed the failure of the Barak-Clinton peace initiative (due to a piece of unconscionable bungling on Arafat’s part).

The worst thing about the Perle-Wolfowitz group is not their support for war with Iraq per se, but their advocacy of a strategy in which an American-controllled, but nominally democratic Iraq is supposed to pressure the Palestinians and their supporters into a peace with Israel on terms acceptable to Likud. These haven’t been spelt out, but Sharon’s past performance shows that it will mean a Bantustan-style state with Israel annexing much of the West Bank and probably maintaining some sort of hegemonic right to intervene.

This policy is wrong, and it’s doomed to failure. Hence, it’s bad for Israel.

More importantly in the short run, of all the conflicting agendas that will emerge following an American conquest of Iraq, this is the one that will do most to ensure a disastrous outcome. The idea of a democratic Iraq involves a lot of wishful thinking, but, as Daniel Drezner argues, it might just be possible given a strong US commitment to nationbuilding. The idea of a democratic, pro-Likud, Iraq is a chimera.

Until the prospect of war with Iraq came up, I avoided commenting on the Israel-Palestine situation since it’s complex, emotionally charged and didn’t directly involve Australia. But Australia is now involved and our troops are likely to be enmeshed in attempts to implement a disastrous policy.

My final point is the converse of all the others. Suppose that instead of pursuing the policy he’s actually adopted, Bush had acted first to impose on both Sharon and Arafat a peace settlement along the lines of the Clinton-Barak plan, with US peacekeeping forces to ensure that both sides adhered to the settlement, then demanded international support for the removal of Saddam as a quid pro quo. Would anyone in the Arab world or in Europe have resisted him? I doubt it.

Update Ken Parish and Gary Sauer-Thompson both have useful, and independent, contributions on this topic. As Ken notes the BlogGeist is at work
Update 15/3Maybe Bush is attuned to the BlogGeist. He announced a new (but v sketchy) initiative on this topic today.