There have been dozens of conflicts and countless coups in the Middle East
since Israel's birth in 1948, and most were completely unrelated to the
Arab-Israeli conflict.
Many of these conflicts were long, bloody, and very costly...

Since the origins of so many regional tensions and rivalries are not
connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is hard to see how resolving it
would unlock

In addition, as tragic as the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has
become, it has not spilled over to destabilize the Middle East.

The New York Times July 8, 2009
Excerpt
'Myths, Illusions, and Peace'
By DENNIS ROSS and DAVID MAKOVSKY
Linkage: The Mother of all Myths

www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/books/excerpt-myths-illusions-peace.html?_r=1

Of all the policy myths that have kept us from making real progress in the
Middle East, one stands out for its impact and longevity: the idea that if
only the Palestinian conflict were solved, all the other Middle East
conflicts would melt away. This is the argument of "linkage."
Neoconservatives have always rejected it, given their skepticism about Arab
intentions and their related belief that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
cannot be resolved. While realists have been the most determined purveyors,
this myth transcends all others and has had amazing staying power here,
internationally, and in the Middle East. In fact, few ideas have been as
consistently and forcefully promoted - by laymen, policymakers, and leaders
alike.

One need not look too far for examples of linkage's pervasiveness. Note the
words of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in early 2008 when, standing next
to George W. Bush at a joint press conference following their talks in the
Sinai resort town of Sharm al-Sheikh, he recounted their conversation: "I
emphasize that the Palestinian question, of course, is the core of problems
and conflict in the Middle East, and it is the entry to contain the crisis
and tension in the region, and the best means to face what's going on in the
world, our region - I mean by that, the escalation of violence, extremism
and terrorism."

King Abdullah of Jordan made much the same argument during an interview with
an American television network in 2006: "I keep saying Palestine is the
core. It is linked to the extent of what's going on in Iraq. It is linked to
what's going on in Lebanon."

Not only Middle Eastern leaders see the Palestinian issue at the heart of
all other regional problems. Brent Scowcroft, former national security
advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, echoed this basic
point of view in an essay published in early 2007:

A Vigorously renewed effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict could
fundamentally change both the dynamics in the region and the strategic
calculus of key leaders. Real progress would push Iran into a more defensive
posture. Hezbollah and Hamas would lose their rallying principle. American
allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states would be liberated to
assist in stabilizing Iraq. And Iraq would finally be seen by all as a key
country that had to be set right in the pursuit of regional security.

Similarly, the Iraq Study Group, cochaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton,
placed special emphasis on the idea of linkage: "To put it simply, all key
issues in the Middle East - the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need
for political and economic reforms, and extremism and terrorism - are
inextricably linked.

Such bold statements are rarely qualified. In effect, they are guided by a
central premise: that ending the Arab-Israeli conflict is prerequisite to
addressing the maladies of the Middle East. Solve it, and in doing so
conclude all other conflicts. Fail, and instability - even war - will engulf
the entire region.

The major problem with this premise is that it is not true. There have been
dozens of conflicts and countless coups in the Middle East since Israel's
birth in 1948, and most were completely unrelated to the Arab-Israeli
conflict. For example, the Iraqi coup of 1958, the Lebanon crisis of 1958,
the Yemini civil war of 1962-68 (including subsequent civil wars in the
1980s and '90s), the Iraqi Kurdish revolt of 1974, the Egyptian-Libyan
Border War of 1977, the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, the Persian Gulf War of
1990-91 (including Iraqi Kurdish and Iraqi Shiite revolts of the same year),
the Yemeni-Eritrean and Saudi-Yemeni border conflicts of the mid-1990s, and
the US-Iraq War, begun in 2003.

Many of these conflicts were long, bloody, and very costly. The Iran-Iraq
War along lasted eight and a half years, cost in the hundreds of billions of
dollars, and took between six hundred thousand and one million lives. Yet
this conflict, like the others listed above, would have taken place even if
the Arab-Israeli conflict had been resolved.

Since the origins of so many regional tensions and rivalries are not
connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is hard to see how resolving it
would unlock other regional stalemates or sources of instability. Iran, for
example, is not pursuing its nuclear ambitions because there is an
Arab-Israeli conflict. Sectarian groups in Iraq would not suddenly put aside
their internal struggles if the Palestinian issue were resolved. Like so
many conflicts in the region, these struggles have their own dynamic.

In addition, as tragic as the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has
become, it has not spilled over to destabilize the Middle East. There have
been two Palestinian Intifadas, or uprisings, including one that lasted from
2000 to 2005 and claimed the lives of 4,000 Palestinians and 1,000
Israelis - but not a single Arab leader had been toppled or a single regime
destabilized as a result. It has remained a local conflict, contained in a
small geographical area. Yet the argument of linkage endures to this day,
and with powerful promoters. Why does it persist? And why has it been
accepted among top policymakers as if it is factually correct?

Reprinted by arrangement with Viking, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.,
from "Myths, Illusions, and Peace" by Dennis Ross and David Makovsky.