The Blue Voice

Sunday, July 30, 2006

The US and Israel: A bit of background

I'm glad to see that we've just had the first genuine piece of good news in the Israel-Lebanon War since it started with the Hizbullah raid of July 12. Israel has declared a 48-hour bombing pause. No thanks to the Cheney-Bush administration. But it can be a step toward a cease-fire. I don't want to get my hopes up. Israel has backed itself into a real political dilemman here. And they temptation to try to shoot their way out may be overwhelming.

Plus, this war has two sides (at least!). And Hizbullah is winning, to put the situation bluntly. They may decide it's in their interests to continue, although they have also called for a ceasefire. I should emphasize that Israel's bombing half is not a general ceasefire. See Israel agrees to 48-hour halt in IAF [Israeli Air Force] activity over south Lebanon to probe Qana strike by Ze'ev Schiff and Amos Harel Ha'aretz 07/31/06. I see that the article carries an ominous additional headline: "Residents will get 24-hour window to leave south".

Jimmy Carter has been deeply involved in what we call the Middle East "peace process" since his Presidency, although how much the current version deserves the name is certainly open to question. In his 1985 book The Blood of Abraham, Carter talked about the reasons for America's sustained support for Israel over the years, which he said "are not easily explained to non-Americans". He wrote:

There is no question that one of the most powerful political forces in America exists in the well-organized and often sharply focused efforts of politically active citizens whose unshakable support for the current policies of Israel's government, whatever they may be, is much more certain than the support of any single group within Israel itself.

And I would stress that there is nothing inherently wrong about Americans lobbying for support of Israel. A great deal of foreign policy is about which countries to support or oppose on which issues and to what degree.

And, as Carter's 1985 statement mentions, Israel's organized supporters in the United States don't necessarily reflect the variety of opinion actively expressed within Israel itself. Things have changed, also, since 1985. The most prominent pro-Israel lobbying organizations, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, have become more exclusively supportive of hardline rightwing policies within the Israeli political spectrum and less representative of American Jewish opinion.

For a more recent perspectives, see the controversial but valuable paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt 03/13/06 (there's a shorter version available from the London Review of Books); Breaking the silence by Juan Cole Salon 04/18/06; and, Deal Breakers by Michael Massing American Prospect 03/11/02.

If I seem somewhat obsessive about making these distinctions, it's because I'm aware of the many ways these issues can be demagogued.

Carter continues:

However, this is only part of the story; there is also widespread support for Israel among millions of U.S. citizens who are not Jews and who have no relationship at all with lobbying groups. Americans are repulsed by the highly publicized terrorist acts committed against innocent civilians. Memories of the Holocaust are still alive, and there is sympathy and some guilt because of the incredible silence in Washington during Hitler's persecution of the European Jews. Christians of all denominations feel a closeness to Israel because of our religious ties, and tiny Israel appeals to the fondness of most Americans for the underdog. The voices from Israel are heard often on news broadcasts, usually in a favorable context, but with the notable exception of Anwar Sadat no Arab leader has been effective in presenting the views of his people to the American public. Citizens from the heartland of the United States are satisfied that the common religious, ethical, political, and strategic commitments of the two nations are properly and intimately intertwined.

Carter notes that, in practice, American influence on Israel's decisions in times of crisis "is sometimes embarassingly slight". But he also stresses that the United States and Israel do not have identical interests:

In spite of these natural ties that bind the two democracies, the fact is that even under the best of interpretations, the interests of the United States and Israel are not completely compatible. The extent of this divergence has not yet been assessed publicly or addressed definitively by political leaders in either country. Since the founding of Israel, American presidents have been able to pursue a fairly wide range of objectives in the Middle East without having to acknowledge any clear conflict among them or to choose between them.

Some of the items he listed as American interest in the Middle Eastin 1985 are obviously obsolete now because of the end of the Soviet Union. But his list is still worth seeing:

• To prevent an Arab-Israeli war that could lead to a superpower confrontation.

• To protect the existence and security of Israel.

• To promote the prospects of permanent peace as a trusted mediator, especially between Israel and its neighbors, based on Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories and a just solution of the Palestinian problem, including self-determination for the Palestinians.

• To contribute to political, economic, and social progress and to enhance the human rights of all people in the region.

• To retain sound and mutually beneficial relationships with moderate Arabs.

• To ensure an uninterrupted flow of oil supplies to Western democracies.

• To prevent a serious escalation in armaments, particularly nuclear weapons.

• To minimize the influence of the Soviets in the Arab nations and prevent their domination of any part of the area.

The Iran-Contra scandal which broke later in that decade involved in significant part differing priorities between Israel and the US in Iran policy at the time.

Even under the Cheney-Bush administration, there has been a significant controversy with the Israelis over weapons sales to China. It's really a shame that our lazy American press didn't give this issue wider coverage.

In his most recent book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis (2005), Carter talked about the negative effects of Christian Right avid support for the Israeli settlement policy in the occupied territories:

It is the injection of these [fundamentalist/Pentecostal premillennial dispensationalist] beliefs into America's governmental policies that is a cause for concern. These believers are convinced that they have a personal responsibility to hasten this coming of the "rapture" in order to fulfill biblical prophecy. Their agenda calls for a war in the Middle East against Islam (Iraq?) and the taking of the entire Holy Land by Jews (occupation of the West Bank?), with the total expulsion of all Christians and other gentiles. This is to be followed by infidels (Antichrists) conquering the area, and a final triumph of the Messiah. At this time of rapture, all Jews will either be converted to Christianity or be burned.

Based on these premises, some top Christian leaders have been in the forefront of promoting the Iraqi war, and make frequent trips to Israel, to support it with funding, and lobby in Washington for the colonization of Palestinian territory. Strong pressure from the religious right has been a major factor in America's quiescent acceptance of the massive building of Israeli settlements and connecting highways on Palestinian territory in the West Bank. Some Israeli leaders have utilized this assistance while conveniently ignoring the predicted final plight of all Jews.

This has helped to bring about another dramatic departure from the American opposition to settlement activity that prevailed during the previous four decades, beginning when Dwight Eisenhower was president and extending through the terms of his successors, until 1993, when President Bill Clinton gave almost blanket approval to settlement expansion. President George H. W. Bush had been especially forceful in opposing specific Israeli settlements between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, even threatening to cut off financial assistance to Israel.

Although some encroachment on Palestinian territory can be accommodated in future peace negotiations [!?], current Israeli plans to retain far-reaching West Bank settlements and to expand a large enclave known as Ma'aleh Adumim from deep within the West Bank all the way into East Jerusalem will likely spell the death knell for prospects for the "road map for peace," the keystone of President George W. Bush's Middle East policy. This will be a tragedy for the Israelis and the Palestinians. (my emphasis)

posted at 10:58:00 PM by Bruce Miller

| +Save/Share | |