America's Israel

By Stephen Eric Bronner, Reader Supported News

01 March 14

merican foreign policy has undergone a qualitative change since Barack Obama took over the presidency from George W. Bush. It's not all rosy. Hundreds of drone strikes costing thousands of lives have taken place in Libya and Pakistan. Guantanamo is still open. Skeletal forces remain in Afghanistan and Iraq - and (as of 2011) more than one thousand American bases dot the planet. Without discounting the waste of resources and lives, however, there is a bigger picture. Pre-emptive strikes are no longer the first option, the defense budget has been cut, military action in Syria has been avoided, Iran has not been bombed and (for the first time in nearly thirty years) negotiations with its government are underway. There is less talk about an axis of evil and a war on terror - almost all of this to the chagrin of the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The government's policy of expanding settlements and its stalling of the peace process have been openly criticized by President Obama, who is detested by Israeli hardliners. Obama's administration has not provided Israel with a blank check, and it has not offered the type of uncritical support once given by neo-conservative policy planners in the Bush administration. A "framework" for peace is now on the table that focuses on the West Bank in endorsing a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Many will claim that this is all too little and too late. UN condemnations of Israel are still vetoed by the United States, $60 million in support for UNESCO was withdrawn in 2011 when Palestine was admitted to the organization, and the Obama administration remains unwilling to officially recognize Palestine as a state in its current form. Hamas is still considered a terrorist organization, its effective exclusion from the current peace process bodes ill, and -- above all—American military support for Israel in the event of an armed conflict is a forgone conclusion. That is unlikely to change. According to the Defense News (Gannett), published in August 2013, Congress has provided Israel with $3.175 billion in military aid in grants and loans per year until 2017. The money is considered well spent. With roots in cold war thinking, when Israel appeared as a bulwark against the seemingly radical Arab States and (supposedly communist) movements of national liberation in the Middle East, the belief still exists among most mainstream politicians in the United States, conservative and liberal, that unquestioning support for Israel is fundamental to the national interest.

Why? Complex feelings mixing compassion and guilt, constantly reinforced by the American media, linger about the Holocaust. That this terrible event is continually manipulated by Israeli media politicians is ignored, and few Americans have any idea about the trauma (nakba) experienced by the more than 700,000 Arabs expelled from their land during the war of 1947-1948 that produced the state of Israel. Zionist myths still persist that Israel is based on "a land without a people for a people without a land." Some also still believe in the ideological stereotypes that emanated from films like Exodus or characters like Tevye the Milkman. There is real fear of the impending pogrom supposedly being plotted by Arab barbarians at the gate. But Israel has now existed as a colonial power for twice as long as the tiny state that first appeared in 1948. It is a leading military power with a sophisticated army and an estimated stockpile of 300-400 nuclear weapons. The Israeli economy is not labor intensive and it is robust. Yet Israel is by far the greatest recipient of American foreign (military) aid, double the amount given Egypt, the second greatest recipient. Many justify this by insisting that Israel is the only democratic state in the Middle East - or better, the only non-Arabic and non-Islamic state in the region. But this is a questionable claim. Israeli democracy bears marked similarities to that of South Africa under apartheid - or even the American South prior to the Civil Rights Movement. Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is considered grossly inhumane by most of the world, That is particularly the case with the "open air prison" of Gaza where ironically, at the behest of the West, democratic elections were held in 2006, resulting in a resounding victory for Hamas.

American interests have been undermined geopolitically, economically, and morally by the country's seemingly unflinching support of Israeli policies. Closer relations with the main oil-producing nations has been rendered more difficult and American influence has obviously declined in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and the Arab "street." American identification with Israeli interests has also proven (at best) a moral embarrassment in the eyes of world. The reaction has mixed arrogance with defensiveness. Aggressive Zionist organizations in the United States like Campus Watch have attempted to squash debate and intervened in academic matters including tenure at various universities. Criticism of Israeli foreign policy has purposefully and demagogically been conflated with anti-Semitism. Just as distressing, Prime Minister Netanyahu has ostentatiously attempted to interfere with American foreign policy formation, especially on Iran, which he calls an "existential threat" in his frequent (and consistently unctuous) addresses to Congress. For good measure, the celebratory wielding of political influence by lobbies for Israel like AIPAC has made genuinely anti-Semitic believers in a world Jewish conspiracy jump for joy.

Is all this really in the American national interest? It may not matter. Former speaker of the House Tip O'Neill liked to say that in America "all politics is local politics." More is involved here than the oft-noted indifference to foreign affairs by the voting public (except, of course, when the United States is directly affected). The American political system is one in which political parties are weak and organized interests are strong. It is federal in nature and it is built on single-member districts in which the winner takes all. This means that each candidate is on his own. Money by itself is not the issue. Politically motivated Jews are organized, they mostly support Israeli policies, and they have a host of lobbying organizations. They vote, and their vote is particularly important in cities in large states with many electoral votes in presidential campaigns such as California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. Most of these states have any number of powerful liberal representatives, like Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) or Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) or Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ). But it would be more precise to say that they are liberal on virtually every issue but those that concern Israel. And that only makes sense. Arabs do not vote, and they lack strong lobbying organizations. There is no conspiracy at work: it is simply that, even were Jewish lobbies not to give a cent in donations, obvious political incentives exist for American politicians to support Israeli rather than Palestinian interests.

Local concerns trump the national interest in Congress and, if only for this reason, President Obama has been careful in pursuing his agenda in the Middle East. His office lifts his outlook beyond the local, but that is true only to a certain point. Other domestic and foreign policy issues exist for which he needs Congressional support, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict makes log-rolling and deal making on these other issues more difficult. President Obama can count on neither mainstream Democrats nor Republicans in developing a more radical policy for the Middle East (or for pressuring Israel through cuts in foreign aid) and he certainly cannot count on the Islamophobic far right that includes many Christian fundamentalists and members of the Tea Party. The only real hope for something more progressive is if his administration were pressured by the general public or a genuine social movement. More thoughtful liberal politicians might then change their views. Sympathy for Palestine has slowly been growing among the American public due to the publicity and work of organizations like US Campaign Against the Occupation, Code Pink, and supporters of Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS). But the critics remain in the minority. That is why expanding public debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so important; why demonstrations are necessary; why attacking the bigoted stereotypes and prevalent political myths is crucial; why disseminating information is not just an academic enterprise; and why - above all - it needs to be made clear that the American national interest will be served only when Israel is judged on its actions and treated as one state among others.

Stephen Eric Bronner is Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University, Director of Global Relations at its Center for Genocide and Human Rights, and the 2011 recipient of the MEPeace Award given by the Middle East Network for Peace based in Jerusalem.