Since 1948, when the United States recognized the state of Israel, twelve US presidents have shaken the hands of Israeli leaders and pledged "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part." Sadly, this once happy marriage is in trouble. It's time for the US to reconsider its commitment to Israel.
During the last week of May, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, making visible the cracks in the US-Israel marriage that had long been apparent to diplomatic observers. First, President Obama clarified US policy "The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."
Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected these remarks preferring the nebulous 2004 position taken by George W. Bush: "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." (The lines of '49 and '67 are virtually identical.)
Several days later, former President Carter observed that Obama had in fact expressed longstanding US policy: "U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 of Nov. 22, 1967... has been widely acknowledged by all parties to be the basis for a peace agreement. Its key phrases are, 'Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,' and 'Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.' These included the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, plus lands belonging to Lebanon, Egypt and Syria."
If you haven't been following the tortured course of US-Israel relations, you might wonder why the sudden acrimony in a 63-year-old marriage? Politics.
For many years, Democrats and Republicans agreed that while Americans might disagree about domestic matters, when it came to our relations with Israel we set our differences aside and presented a united American front. That changed with the advent of George Bush II.
Dubya's political Rasputin, Karl Rove, promoted the permanent political campaign, and believed that every policy decision had an important political component. Rove recognized the political significance of US-Israel policy.
Although Jews constitute only two percent of the American population, they have a disproportionate political impact: "Pro-Israel interests have contributed $56.8 million in individual, group and soft money donations to federal candidates and party committees since 1990...In contrast, Arab- American and Muslim PACs contributed slightly less than $800,000 during the same (1990-2006) period." In 2006, Jewish sources accounted for 60% of Democratic fundraising and 35% of Republican. Rove observed that a shift in Jewish contributions would have a significant political impact.
Since the 1967 war, Israel witnessed the growth of Orthodox Zionist Judaism many of whose adherents believe their religious beliefs give them the right to build a "Jewish state" on land occupied by Palestinians. As a consequence, there are now more than 650,000 Israelis in East Jerusalem and settlements across the green line, the 1949/1967 proposed border. Settlers and Orthodox Zionists overwhelmingly vote for Likud, Netanyahu's Party.
In parallel, the US saw a rebirth of Christian Zionism led by Evangelicals such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. This movement sees the restoration of the ancient state of Israel -- incorporation of lands beyond the Green line -- and Jewish occupation of Jerusalem as key elements of Biblical prophecy that will lead to the second coming of Jesus and the Rapture. Christian Zionists and Dispensationalists overwhelmingly vote for Republicans.
On May 24th, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to Congress and couched the border dispute in religious language, noting that the land beyond the green line is part of the "ancestral Jewish homeland... In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers." "Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel."
In July of 2000, US President Bill Clinton met with then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and tried to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The trio reached a tentative agreement on the sticky issues including borders and then Arafat backed away. Since then relations have deteriorated.
While Palestinians share responsibility for the present state of affairs, the increasing intransigence of Israeli leaders is a special problem for the US because of our 63-year "marriage."
The US is in the position of a husband who, after a long relationship, finds that he and his wife have grown apart. Is it better to separate and face lives of painful isolation or should the couple stay together for "appearances"? That's the dilemma America faces. Our marriage with Israel no longer works. The policies of the current Israeli government are detrimental to the best interests of the United States.
Carlo Strenger: Netanyahu Is Driving Israel Towards Dark Times
Alon Ben-Meir: Killing the Peace in the Name of Peace
Why not mutually benefit from this "marriage" unless some are disturbed by the fact that tiny Israel is also the nation-state of the Jewish people...??
The USA is shamefully using and at the same time backstabbing Israel.
It's time for Israel to get a divorce from the rapidly demographically changing, decaying and dying USA!
Do you mean such problems as islamization, illegal immigration, crime, moving jobs to China and India,etc..? I hope that USA can deal with such problems without Israel.
Wake up, it's 2011 not 1911. Who needs what was once the USA!
At the moment Israel may not be totally secure, but it is strong militarily and prospering. It is definitely stronger than the Palestinian people.
Both sides in this sad conflict have legitimate reasons to not trust each other based on past history.
But if they do not find the courage to step forward and say enough is enough, there will be more suffering for the ordinary Israeli and Palestinian.
Hamas use of violence is wrong, but so is the building of settlements until there isn’t a possible two state solution. One goal is through violence, the other is to push a group of people out of their homes.
The sad thing is in their fight for a secure Israel they are slowly turning into the people that pushed them out of the different countries all these years.
Israel, do not let this conflict change you and turn you into the people who have persecuted you throughout history. Do not treat people of different religious beliefs the way others have treated you, Israel is better than that.
Since 1948 Israel has shown the world it is strong militarily, now is the time to show the world that it is Israel who wants peace.
Regardless, violence only leads to further violence and inhospitably, Palestinians need to have their own state and settlers need to stop settling, at least that much is clear.
The UN passed General Assembly Resolution 181 as a recommendation to Britain to partition Palestine. (Whether this was at all legal is another question.) Britain refused to enforce the resolution. It was rejected by the Arab League and the actual Palestinian reaction was mixed. The Yishuv (Israel before it was Israel) prima facie accepted the resolution as a step to the conquest of the whole of Palestine. Since Britain wouldn’t enforce the resolution and the Arabs didn’t agree with it, Israel—despite requests for negotiation—declared unilateral independence. This was against both the letter and the spirit of the resolution. The UN had in fact rescinded 181 as unworkable and agreed to send a UN mediator. That mediator was subsequently assassinated by the Israelis.
You may argue as to whether Israel had a right to declare independence or not. What you can’t do is say that it was doing so in fulfillment of UN resolutions. It simply wasn’t.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/gres186.htm
The British responded to the German-Turkish offer with the Declaration of Balfour in November 1917.
So, as you can see, Israel was recognized by the World long before the UN.
The Arab colonizers and imperialists were trying to prevent the implementation of the World decision to restore Israel but they failed in 1948.
But I'll indulge you on the German/Turkish thing. If you're talking about something more substantial than Weitzman's trip to Gibraltar, I'm all ears.
A lean Break by Richard Perle.Perle chaired a study group that included Douglas Feith and David Wurmser that produced a strategy paper for the incoming Likud Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". The paper's main recommendations revolved around steering Israel away from Socialist principles, making efforts to become more self-reliant, "nurturing alternatives to Arafat's exclusive grip on Palestinian society", and working more closely with countries such as Jordan and Turkey. It also stated the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq should be a key objective for the Israeli state, advocated armed incursions into Lebanon, and suggested Arab states should be challenged as undemocratic. Perle has on occasion been accused of being an Israeli agent of influence. It has been reported that, while he was working for Jackson, "An FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy," writes Paul Findley (They Dare To Speak Out, Chicago, Ill, Lawrence Hill Books 1989)."He came under fire in 1983 when newspapers reported he received substantial payments to represent the interests of an Israeli weapons company."
Tell us how its done illegally and differently than all other lobbies.
You hit the nail on the head.
no common sense. just an inflated sense of their own morality
Some people may not be adept at verbal Chosmky-esque gymnastics but they have enough sense to know that people who celebrate 9/11 and idolized Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini are not to be trusted.