Is Americans’ support of Israel unshakeable?
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Apr 19, 2007, 00:25
Without the United
States, Israel could not survive. Washington supplies this minute wealthy
country with economic, military and strategic aid and virtually gives it carte
blanche to behave as it pleases.
One after the other,
US presidents and senators pay annual obeisance to the American-Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and pledge their allegiance to the special
relationship between the two countries. To do otherwise is tantamount to
political suicide.
In February,
presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton stood up in front of the AIPAC
crowd to proudly state, “Israel’s cause is our cause.” In earlier times, her
husband had actually vowed to grab a rifle, get in a trench and fight and die
were Israel attacked.
Not to be outdone, in
March, Senator Barack Obama made his pilgrimage to AIPAC where he gave a speech
promising to work towards ensuring Israel’s military supremacy in the region.
House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, whose family has an Israeli soccer field named after it, was dubbed ‘the
AIPAC Girl’ after she bowed to pressure from the lobby to drop a provision of
the Iraq funding bill requiring President Bush to get permission from Congress
before launching a war on Iran.
As long as the US is
on its side, Israel is untouchable. It has never been censored for its nuclear
weapons programme because Washington readily accepts Israel’s policy of nuclear
ambiguity, even though the US invaded Iraq ostensibly to find non-existent
weapons and is sabre-rattling against Iran, which denies it has any intention
of manufacturing nukes.
As long as the status
quo is maintained, Israel’s security is assured. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is
free to snub Arab peace initiatives, and has no real accountability for his
treatment of the Palestinians or the decimation of Lebanon.
But what happens if
America one day decides to view its support for Israel as more of a liability
than an asset? That isn’t as outrageous as it appears at first sight.
Until recently any
mention of the Israel lobby’s power to dictate US foreign policy was
practically taboo. Then in March 2006, the London Review of Books published a
work by two American professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, titled The
Israeli Lobby.
Lobby influence
Its main thrust was
the lobby has too much influence over the executive branch; it questioned the
perception of Israel as David aggressed by Goliath and cast aspersions on
Israel’s loyalty towards the United States.
The article elicited
a firestorm just as the authors later said they had anticipated. The lobby
mobilised and did its best to get the two intellectuals written off as ‘anti-Semites.’
Then in April 2006,
another professor Tony Judt was invited to write an op-ed for the New York
Times concerning Walt and Mearsheimer’s essay on condition he included mention
of his own Jewish ancestry.
In his piece, broadly
supportive of opening up the debate, he questions why “the uncomfortable issues
raised by Walt and Mearsheimer” were thoroughly aired in Israel but not in the
United States.
“It was an Israeli
columnist in the liberal daily Haaretz who described the American foreign
policy advisers Richard Perle and Douglas Feith as ‘walking a fine line between
their loyalty to American governments . . . and Israeli interests,’” wrote
Judt.
“It was Israel’s
impeccably conservative Jerusalem Post that described Paul Wolfowitz, the
deputy secretary of defence [now head of the World Bank] as ‘devoutly pro-Israel.’
Are we to accuse Israelis, too, of anti-Zionism?” Judt asks. The lobby’s wrath
was a given and Judt was pilloried as a self-hating Jew.
In October, a talk
that Judt was due to give at the Polish Consulate in New York was abruptly
cancelled after Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League -- a Jewish advocacy
group -- telephoned the consul-general.
The danger for the
lobby is overreach. Since 9/11 Americans have become more politically savvy
about issues related to the Middle East and, in this Internet age, there may
come a day when they will no longer believe American and Israeli interests are
one and the same.
When and if that day
comes, the lobby may be viewed as a hostile entity within, promoting wars for
Israel’s sake for which young Americans inevitably end up as cannon fodder. It
doesn’t help that AIPAC officials were accused of passing on secrets to Israel
gleaned from a Pentagon employee.
Some American Jews
are concerned about an anti-Semitic backlash that could undermine America’s
support for Israel, prompting the American Jewish Committee (AJC) to ask
President Bush to quit threatening Iran for the sake of Israel’s security.
Their fears may be
well founded. Memories of the Holocaust are fading and with them the collective
guilt experienced by the West is diminishing. It’s conceivable that Americans
will open their eyes to an Israeli Goliath and wonder why it’s being propped up
with their tax dollars.
That day may be a
long way off. It may never happen. But, in the meantime, Israelis would be well
advised to grab the Arab peace initiative with both hands.
Linda
S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes
feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor