Jonathan Tobin, the editor of JNS.org, replies to critics of the Morocco-Israel deal who complain about it being a crass “quid pro quo.” His report is here: “In praise of diplomatic quid pro quos,” December 14, 2020:
The news was greeted with jubilation by friends of Israel and the approximately 1 million Israelis who trace their roots back to Morocco. An agreement announced last week by the White House made Morocco the fourth Muslim country in the last few months to agree to normalize relations with Israel. For Israelis and those who care about the way the boycotts and long siege of the Jewish state have fallen apart, it’s a welcome step. Along with the accords signed with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan, transforming the already warm under-the-table relationship with the North African kingdom into a permanent and public relationship is more than good for Israel. It not only strengthens the stability of the region, it serves as a major blow to rogue Islamist nations like Iran, and its terrorist proxies and allies, and constitutes another diplomatic triumph for the Trump administration in its last months in office.
But for President Donald Trump’s critics, the prospect of his imminent departure from the White House has not moderated their unwillingness to reject anything he does as wrong, no matter how right it might be. Thus, the reaction to the agreement with Morocco from the foreign-policy establishment and many liberal pundits was dismay rather than happiness about another development that disproved the belief that Israel would never have normal relations with the Arab world until it somehow satisfied Palestinian ambitions. Which is to say that short of Israel agreeing to its own destruction, it would never happen.
This is not just resentment from Obama administration veterans like former Secretary of State John Kerry who were exposed as incompetent. Kerry’s infamous 2016 prediction that normalization would never happen should never be forgotten and remains a testament to the stubborn foolishness of three decades of American diplomats and foreign-policy experts who believed that the only way to peace was by appeasing the Palestinians and pressuring Israel. The return to power of individuals who subscribed to this idiocy in the incoming Biden administration probably means that the United States will not be helping to facilitate more such agreements.
Or it may not be out of the question that some of those who once insisted, like John Kerry, that normalization of ties between Israel and Arab states could only come after the creation of a Palestinian state, will have been chastened by the last few months that have proven them so wrong, and having recognized this new reality that they once said was impossible, they may be willing to promote more such agreements.
But the common thread throughout a blizzard of negative commentary and Twitter contempt for normalization between Morocco and Israel was something different. The critique of the agreement was that it was a crude “quid pro quo” that should not be confused with progress towards peace. Even worse, some denounced the deal for shortchanging American interests in favor of those of Israel. Arguments about Jewish manipulation of U.S. foreign policy have become increasingly legitimized in the last few years. However, in this case, it’s not just anti-Semitic radicals like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) using them. Instead, it’s become a theme taken up by otherwise respectable liberal journalists, newspapers like The Washington Post, websites like Bloomberg news or think tanks like the Atlantic Council.
Part of the problem is that the phrase “quid pro quo” has become something of a term of abuse since the Democrats used it as the main argument for their partisan attempt to impeach Trump last winter over his talk with the president of Ukraine. Hence, the mere use of the term to describe the arrangement was a signal to liberals on Twitter that normalization between Morocco and Israel had to be a bad thing.
This is absurd. After all, all agreements between nations are rooted in self-interest, even if the ultimate goal is altruistic.
The history of international agreements is very largely one of “quid pro quo.” Each member of NATO commits to coming to the defense of other members of the group, who in turn have committed to coming to the defense of that member. Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt, giving up the Sinai in exchange for Cairo’s commitment to a peace treaty. The U.S. signs endless trade deals with other countries, giving preferential treatment to the goods of those states that do the same for American products. The entire system of international agreements is based on what states give, and what they get, in return. Yet, as Tobin says, some critics of the Morocco deal criticize its “quid pro quo” essence. But why? The U.A.E. had the same kind of deal with Israel. In exchange for normalization of ties, Israel agreed to “suspend” its extension of sovereignty over part of the West Bank, and not to oppose the sale of F-35s to the U.A.E. Had this “quid pro quo” not been offered, there would have been no normalization. Given the amazing flourishing of business ties in just the first few months, between the U.A.E. and Israel, and the human ties, too, that have resulted, wasn’t that quid-pro-quo arrangement worth it?
In the case of Morocco, as with the other three nations that have normalized relations with Israel recently, the North African country was being asked to stick its neck out and risk the inevitable abuse from Islamists and their left-wing allies that comes with giving up support for the Palestinians’ futile century-old war against Zionism. Even more to the point, it makes the kingdom more of a target for terrorism.
Morocco’s normalization of ties with Israel came at a cost. Few Moroccans – unlike the Emiratis — approved of the normalization, which meant it was important for King Muhammad VI to achieve a diplomatic success, something that could be shown to his people as a major achievement. And he did: he obtained American recognition of the Western Sahara as belonging to Morocco. That has been the chief goal of Moroccan foreign policy for more than four decades.
This is being represented by Trump’s critics as a grievous concession to tyranny and imperialism, as well as an insult to the United Nations. It’s also a recognition of reality. The territory—approximately the size of Britain—is a sparsely populated strip of desert adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean that used to be owned by Spain. When that former imperial power gave it up in 1975 once Spain embraced democracy after the death of dictator Francisco Franco, Morocco staked a claim to land that they considered had been stolen by Europeans. It was opposed by a small nationalist movement called the Polisario that, with the help of Algeria, waged a bloody and unsuccessful war against Morocco for 16 years before agreeing to a ceasefire in 1991. That left Morocco in charge of almost the entire country….
The claims by Trump’s critics about his supposed concession to Moroccan “tyranny and imperialism” ring hollow. Morocco’s monarchy is relatively benign, certainly when compared to the Algerian regime which supports the Polisario movement in the Western Sahara. The Western Sahara has fewer than 600,000 people and cannot possibly survive as an independent state. The choice is between it becoming part of the Western-leaning Morocco or of it becoming part of the despotic police-state in Algeria, run by a self-perpetuating military junta.
In recognizing Morocco’s claim to the Western Sahara, the Trump administration has recognized that Morocco — which already controls almost all of that territory – is never going to surrender it. The Americans have simply recognized a reality, and one that favors the West, given Morocco’s privileging its ties to America and France. The Polisario Front, which has just renewed its war with Morocco, hopes to take over the Western Sahara; it is supported, tellingly, by Algeria, which in turn is supported by the likes of Cuba, Venezuela, and the Palestinians. Unlike Morocco, none of these are friends of the west.
The Trump administration, unlike its predecessors, believed that some Arab states were ready to promote their own national interests even if that meant ignoring the demands of the Palestinians. These states were showing signs of no longer regarding the Palestinian issue as central to the Arabs; some clearly had tired of the constant Palestinian requests for diplomatic and financial aid. The Gulf Sunni states had further recognized the value of cooperation on security matters with Israel against the shared menace of Iran, which then led several of them – the U.A.E., Bahrain — to the recognition that the Jewish state had much to offer them in economic development as well.
The transactional approach – you get something, I get something in return – the quid pro quo, is not to be despised. It has made possible the normalization agreements that Israel has recently made with four Arab states. Appeals to abstractions, to “justice” or “fairness,” do little in such matters, but the offer of a concrete benefit can work, and indeed just has worked — with the U.A.E., Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco — wonders.
Infidel says
So what do the Israel-hating Dems want? That we now dedicate our non-existent ‘resources’ to liberating the Saharawi people? When we’ve done such bang-up jobs in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Let the Arab League or the OIC decide how to deal w/ the Spanish Sahara. In the meantime, if the US endorsing Moroccan claims helps them w/ recognition of Israel, so be it: there’s no reason all Arab countries need to be hostage to the whims of the Palis
Clive Delmonte says
US foreign policy since 1945 has been catalog of disasters. Remember Batista in Cuba, Marcos in the Philippines, the Shah of Iran, General Diem in Vietnam, Arafat in “Palestine”, (I could go on) ? Any of us could have done better on our own.
James Howard says
“There can be no peace on earth until Islam is removed from the world.” Winston Churchill 1942.
Islam is pure evil. The Kiran is a book of pure evil. So-called rogue Islamic states are doing their evil best to live up to Mohammad’s example. Terrorism will continue unabated until THE HORROR is removed FROM THE ROOT. The Kaaba. All Islamic literature. It is all terrorist. These treats are all Tkiyya. Muslim lies for the good of Islam.
Bikinis not Burkas says
100% looks like you have done your research, shame that politicians won’t. All they have to do is read Quran 8:12
Kepha says
Uncle Kepha’s farewell to President Trump:
Mr. President, thank you for your service. If you win the GOP nomination again in 2024, you have the votes of the Mrs. and me–and no holding of the nose while doing it, but crawlig to the polling place even if ill (I am not counting on the Democrats to put forth anyone remotely decent, moderate, or capable enough).
So we bid farewell to a “fascist” president who merely engaged in repartee with a hostile media rather than silencing anyone; and hwo merely asked and begged American industry to start making our own PPE and ventilators in response to the c19 crisis rather than taking it over. We bid farewell to a president who, because of his decision to enforce immigration laws passed by both houses of Congress with bipartisan support got accused of “family separations” and “kids in cages” which in fact were the work of the Obama administration enforcing the same laws. We say farewell to a “warmonger” who got us talking with NorK, brokering peace between Israel and four more Arab states (while geniuses such as Hatchetface Kerry and Shrillary Shroooooo assured us such was impossible), and could well have gotten our troops out of Syria had not some disgusting little underlings from State and DoD not refused to carry out orders. We bid farewell to a president whose judicial appointments faced an utterly disgraceful witch hunt by Democratic members of the House and Senate.
The Trump admin did well in this quid pro quo. Who were the Saharwi Liberation Front, but a creature of Cold War era Soviet policies, and supported by a vicious Algerian regime? The sole raison d’etre for such a Saharwi state would’ve been to give the SOviets a naval base on the North Atlanti, which, after 1991, would’ve left a penniless kelptocracy scratching its head in bewilderment as to why the USA wouldn’t want to take it over (I recall the shock and horror of Communist VN when the USA informed them that we weren’t interested in returning to Cam Ranh). As for Israel and Morocco, yes, there are lots of Moroccan-Israelis, the country still has a remnant of its Jewish community, and in WWII, Muhammad V told the occupying Germans (and Vichy French) that Moroccan Jews were his subjects and under his protection. The two countries had been playing footsie for some time before Trump entered the White House.
Yes, Mr. Trump, thanks for exposing how wrongheaded and self-interested our self-proclaimed “best and brightest” really are. All the best to you.
gravenimage says
What’s Wrong With a Quid Pro Quo?
……………..
You have to pay Muslims to not murder Jews…and even then its a pretty uncerain proposition.
Daniel Triplett says
Right. It’s like classic mob-style extortion “protection”/tribute/jizya payments. If you pay me, with land concessions, fighter planes, etc, I won’t kill you. Seems like that’s the only thing Israel gets in return — Muslims will pretend not to dislike them anymore with taqiyya, yet Muhammad and Allah require them to hate Jews. If everyone wants an honest and legitimate “peace” agreement, why can’t the players speak openly about the motivating doctrine that has required 1400 years of hatred and enmity toward the Jews? Is this a deceptive hudna? Why don’t we ask them, on camera, at the “peace agreement” signing? Will the Arabs openly reject the directives of the Koran and Sunnah, and call Allah and Muhammad wrong? Of course not.
Dajjal says
Gravenimage nailed it but I have another way of saying it: If you want to buy a friend, go to a pet store that sells puppies.
Dan says
I’d add one thing. With Chian so active in the Southern Hemisphere, making great strides in both Africa and South America, the shipping lane between Gibraltar and the Indian Ocean becomes vital to US, and European interests.
Dan says
*China
Infidel says
You mean b/w Gibraltar and the Atlantic Ocean? B/w Gibralter and the Indian Ocean, you have the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea and finally the Indian Ocean