Does "Pro-Israel" Mean Anything?

Watching Barack Obama in Israel it became clear that he knows the Arab-Israeli issue well. Those who hoped he would make some gaffe that would hurt his candidacy were disappointed. He knows the ins and outs of the issue the way President Bill Clinton did. He feels no need to rely on sound bites about "our democratic ally" or Israel's obvious "right to defend itself." Maybe it's because he is so close to the Chicago Jewish community, which has backed him since the start of his career, but he can talk about Israel with fluency and comfort. He does not have to memorize talking points.

The Israelis -- not an easy group to impress -- were impressed. Why wouldn't they be? They have enough confidence in the rightness of their cause to assume that Obama's knowledge of their country and its problems can only redound to their country's benefit. They are not afraid that anyone who understands the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will automatically oppose them.

It is only here in the United States that pro-Israel advocates insist that politicians rely on canned talking points to show their devotion to Israel. It is as if they believe -- and perhaps they do -- that thinking about the Middle East can only lead to anti-Israel conclusions. They demand that politicians mouth pieties and, all too often, that demand is met.

There is a real irony here, one which most of us who deal with this issue in Washington confront daily. It is that the politicians who are most deft at spouting memorized "pro-Israel" talking points tend to care about Israel the least. The ones who speak from the heart and the head, who study the issue, and try to come up with ways to break out of the deadly status quo are the ones who care the most. This includes Jewish politicians, many of whom pretend that they care deeply but only discovered Israel when they decided that playing the Jewish card would help them politically.

Think about it. There is no political downside to simply going with the crowd on the Middle East. A politician knows that all they have to do is say that they are for Israel, and against the Palestinians, and they will be deemed a "staunch supporter" of Israel and the campaign money will flow their way.

In short, supporting the status quo is the path of least resistance. It is the default position for every politician, easy and risk-free. But it is also the one that only adds to Israel's security problems--and America's declining strategic position in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, many in the pro-Israel community seem not to understand this. They believe that the status quo--and specifically the last eight years--have been good for Israel when, in fact, they have been disastrous.

Eight years ago, as President Clinton was preparing to leave office, Israelis and Palestinians were closer to an agreement than ever before. Israel had experienced three years that were virtually terror-free, thanks to Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation. The Clinton-engineered peace treaty with Jordan had eliminated the threat from the east, especially given that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had been neutralized and defanged by sanctions. The Syrians then, as now, were considering just how much peace and normalization they were willing to offer Israel in exchange for the Golan Heights, but the border itself was quiet.

The eight years that followed were some of the bloodiest in Israel's history. A second intifada took over a thousand Israeli lives (and three times as many Palestinians). Following its conclusion, and the end of Arafat's reign, the U.S. demand for elections in the West Bank and Gaza brought Hamas to power. With the United States abandoning the role of Middle East "honest broker," Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were intermittent and fruitless. Today, in the summer of 2008, Israelis see a new frightening form of terrorism manifested by two attacks by bulldozer in the streets of Jerusalem. And then there is the utter destabilization produced by the Iraq War, which has moved Iraq into Iran's orbit, facilitating Iranian trouble-making and making it more of a threat to Israel than ever before.

This is not a status quo anyone should seek to preserve, let alone celebrate. Politicians who endorse it serve neither America's nor Israel's interests. Pro-Israel? No way.

The next president, whether Obama or McCain, needs to get back to where negotiations left off in 2000 and help wrap up the deal. It is not going to happen without U.S. leadership and it's up to the next president to provide it.

The problem he will face is that his political advisors are going to warn that it is way too risky to take on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. They will argue against doing it in the first year of a new administration ("You don't need that kind of fight in the first year"). They will warn against doing it in the second year ("What? In a Congressional election year?") and certainly not in the third or fourth years when a president runs for re-election.

The cynics will always find an excuse not to touch this issue and it all comes down to political expediency. That is because there is no solid argument against U.S. leadership; the argument against it all comes down to the perception that it is politically dangerous to take on the status quo lobby.

This is no different than the arguments against doing anything about any of the major problems that confront the country. Name an issue and I'll show you a special interest that wants to preserve the status quo. No matter if it's immigration, health care, energy, the deteriorating economy, or whatever, the forces of inertia usually prevail. The path of least resistance, no matter what the issue, is doing nothing.

We've had enough of that.

The next president will confront an Israeli-Palestinian situation in which, unlike the days prior to the first Bush and Clinton administrations, mainstream Israelis and Palestinians are almost in full agreement about what peace will look like. If George W. Bush can repeatedly endorse "two states, living side by side in peace and security," his successor can make it happen.

The best news that came out of Obama's trip is when he said, repeatedly, that he will press for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement "starting from the minute I'm sworn into office." Unlike Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and a host of other more complex issues, this is one that can be wrapped up quickly. All it takes is the will.
************
MJ Rosenberg is the Director of Israel Policy Forum's Washington Policy Center.

Comments

[LindaMilazzo]

Mr. Rosenberg:

This statement you make: "They [the Israelis] have enough confidence in the rightness of their cause" is very concerning to me. It's the Israeli government's persistent righteousness about its cause that perpetuates the oppression of the Palestinians. Thankfully, after reading the many comments to your post - most of which are critical of US/Israel policy toward the Palestinians, it's becoming ever more clear to me that Americans are less often falling prey to American and Israeli media propaganda regarding the Israel/Palestine debacle. It's not difficult to see the preferential treatment the US gives Israel and the US's continued dismissal of the suffering of the Palestinians.

The truth of Apartheid in Palestine is being revealed more and more to Americans. As a result, a new paradigm between Israel and the United States will be demanded by Americans - and AIPAC, which has ruled the pockets of American politicians for far too long, will lose its hold on the purchased politicians who make American middle east policy. That time can't come a moment too soon for Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, and the world.

[Johnz52]

It is time for the U.S. to cut its "special relationship" with Israel. The Cold War is over. Israel does not offer the U.S. anything but hampering a fair U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, spying (Pollard), pandering of political influence (AIPAC) and oh yes, 34 dead Americans and 171 wounded servicemen with the terrorist attack upon the USS Liberty.
Israel is a rogue country in violation of international law for 60 years. Israel refuses to give up any land they have illegally taken and yet faults the Palestinians for not accepting the U.N. partition of Palestine. Israel refuses to join the IAEA, sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty and allow inspections of their nuclear facilities. Iran has done this and more and yet Israel is aching to bomb innocent Iranian civilians, the same way they have done to Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. So far this year the IDF has killed over 500 Palestinians while only 12 Israelis have died due to defensive tactics by Palestinians. That is way above the 3:1 ratio that Rosenberg uses in his article, Israel has bombed U.N. observers and killed journalists with immunity claiming these incidents were "tragic mistakes." If the U.S. is interested in promoting freedom and democracy it is time to sever all ties with Israel until they return to the Green Line, dismantle ALL settlements in the West Bank, allow Palestinians the right to return and sign the IAEA treaty.

[GZLives]

n the past year, the security forces in both the West Bank and Gaza have carried out large-scale, arbitrary arrests of political opponents, the Palestinian human rights group Al Haq said in an 85-page report.

More than 1,000 people were detained by each side, Al Haq estimated, even before a roundup of some 200 Fatah supporters in Gaza over the weekend, following a bombing that killed five Hamas members.

An estimated 20 to 30 percent of the detainees suffered torture, including severe beatings and being tied up in painful positions, said Al Haq director Shawan Jabarin, citing sworn statements from 150 detainees.

"The use of torture is dramatically up," added Fred Abrahams, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, a US-based group that is releasing its own report on abuse later this week.

[demigod]

The problem is that when you DO study the Middle East honestly and without prejudice, you ARE led to anti-Israeli positions. There is no way you can believe in justice and honesty and American values, and not see that land was stolen from the arabs to create the state of Israel, there is no way you cannot see that America supported the taking of land from its inhabitants and given to people from oceans away, on the basis of religion and old stories from the bible. It is truly outrageous what we have done, but we continue to be amazed and intolerant of the arab reaction to this crime. We have never been an honest broker in this, we were instrumental in the original violation, and we perpetuate it today. We call Israel a democracy to feel better about what we have done, but it is no democracy at all. We show ourselves holocaust films to feel better about it, but the two events have no relation to each other. We are in the grip of the zionist delusion, and the world hates us for it. That is the truth.

[davefoc]

One of the themes above is that AIPAC is controlling American Israeli policy . AIPAC is obviously a key player in the development of the hawkish US Israeli policies but it is not the only significant interest group affecting US Israeli policy.

About 75% of Israeli aid l is military (about $3billion) which is reason enough for interest groups to push for it. But weapons given to Israel also generates demand for weapons in other places and Israel is willing to sell weapons in places that the US won't. Altogether the conflict in Israel creates a nice chunk of change for the US weapons builders and nice pork for congress to dole out.

And maybe more importantly a significant segment of the US fundamentalist religious groups have taken Israel on as a cause. A significant portion of US religious television programming is dedicated to promoting a one sided view of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

Maybe the least important of these groups but still important are the Jewish voters who on average tend to favor a continuation of US .military giveaways to Israel.

Although, none of the groups mentioned above could control US Israeli policy, working together they are successful at producing US policy that strongly favors Israeli hawks. They are so powerful in the US that any real change in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will need to be initiated by Israel. The status quo is firmly entrenched in the US and there appears to be no way to change that.

[Samnite]

When I taught a class using President Jimmy Carter's book Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid, I had one Jewish woman who could not understand the problem because "God have given the land to us!"

Man am I glad God gave them land in the Middle East and not here in Chicago.

[PaulUK]

I think he was having a sly joke as he gave the Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians the oil.

[CSE]

The disheartening aspect of any "turbulent" or "controversial" situation is that politicians do bend their thinking first and foremost to re-election. The maintenance of a seat is high mantra for party control and party machinations with neatly packed generalized talking points in an easily digestible box lunch rarely reflect overall public good of late.

To be truthful, the available cast of presidential candidates was dismal from the outset - and the remaining candidates appear even less appealing. I see no selflessness in either candidate that indicates an "America first" stance. It would be refreshing to see someone stand in the face of special interests and speak to why such pandering to these interests are not in the best interests of the future of THIS nation.

Unfortunately, this appears to be what George Bush's administration believed it was doing - and amazingly the electorate gave them an additional term. It wasn't just the religious right or the free market/no tax crowd, it was a significant portion of the population that actually perceived Georgie and his minions to be ruggedly American - while obviously ignoring Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and Libby, et.al.

[PaulUK]

If I may, let me recount a conversation I had with an American woman while she was over here which I feel illuminates the attitude of Americans to Israel. We were discussing healthcare systems of the USA and the United Kingdom and she was bewailing the fact that she could not get health insurance due to a pre-existing condition. The issue of SCHIP came up and its vetoing on the grounds of cost, I suggested that perhaps instead of giving Israel thirty billion dollars of military aid use the money to fund SCHIP. her reaction was "No! We have to give Israel that aid!" I must admit that I was a little surprised by this attitude.

[yappnmutt]

every american politician has been cowered into not supporting the palistinians because if they do millions of dollars of campaign donations flood their opponents' coffers. anyone daring to oppose the israeli american lobby have lost their jobs because of it. its not a matter of the path of least resistance. its a matter of political survival.

you are the first usa columnist to realize that the current path of israeli policy vis a vis the palistinians is ultimately the wrong path for israel but the solution is not in the america. it is in israel where the population has been for a two state solution for a generation and the leaders of israel, with the exception of rabin(look what he got for his courageous efforts), have been de facto opposed.

[Brattlerouser]

It looks like the rest of my post got deleted. What I meant to say is Rosenberg forgot to include Israeli aggression. That plays a significant role too. Unfortunately we never hear about it in the MSM. It goes both ways.

[liberalloons]

Their aggression is mostly their retaliation. How are they suppose to act? They are surrounded by hostile enemies who attack them consistantly and without mercy.

[Rog49Thomas]

What I find very interesting is that the folks on the front lines (those in Israel) have a fairly wide ranging debate - which frankly would not be tolerated in our country. And when one recognizes that Israelis have had multiple 9-11's, the difference with the USA is even more striking.

Another key issue is that technology is changing the military dynamic in the Middle East as shown by war in Lebanon. This suggests that new thinking and new initiatives are required - to provide true security and justice for not only Israelis but also their Arab neighbors.

[arvay]

Thank you for a brave essay.

AIPAC presents us with an irksome problem. It is a very powerful "Jewish lobby" (I mean, this isn't the NRA or PETA) that distorts our Mideast policy. But whenever Americans say that, or object to its influence, there's a loud and intellectually dishonest outcry. Non-Jews are accused of anti-Semitism and Jews are accused of being "self-hating."

The intimidation usually works. And political punishment falls on any lawmaker who deviates.

But increasingly Americans, Jews and non-Jews alike, are starting to stand up to this group. There's that "J Street" organization, for example, representing Jewish people who know that AIPAC is nuts and want a realistic, conscience-based solution in the Mideast. Non-Jewish progressives also are finding their courage and saying what's obvious.

The policies that AIPAC pushes are not only fascistic and anti-peace, they actually represent the greatest threat to the Israeli people. Endless war and insurgency. Israel is the most unsafe place for Jewish people in the world. More dangerous than Tehran. That's AIPAC's legacy.

It's a lobby, like the NRA or the Greek anti-Turkish lobby. Americans have the right to oppose it, and if we stand together, its scurrilous attacks will fall to the ground harmlessly.

[Brattlerouser]

>>> Today, in the summer of 2008, Israelis see a new frightening form of terrorism manifested by two attacks by bulldozer in the streets of Jerusalem.

[Dap]

Dear Mr. Rosenberg,

Outstanding essay/post, enough said, Agape.

[mommamia526]

I just read, somewhere, today, that the highest unemployment rate is in...GAZA...Used to be better before the displacement of jews, with greenhouses and other businesses, where not only Palis found employment but people form as far away as the Himalayas.

[Mogamboguru]

After the IDF have destroyed almost everything of what existed in manufacturing or farming capabilities in GAZA, it's a real wonder that there is still even anything LEFT resembling at least the torso of an employment-sector in GAZA.

Don't blame the Palestinians for their miserable fate. This lies completely in other, very heavy hands.

[GZLives]

"After the IDF have destroyed almost everything of what existed in manufacturing or farming capabilities in GAZA,"

When you need to straight out lie Mogamboguru, it just indicates you have NO argument, and nothing to add aside from misinformation to deliberately prevent people form knowing the actual facts.

"The greenhouses, left behind by Israel as part of a deal brokered by international mediators, are a centerpiece of Palestinian plans for rebuilding Gaza after 38 years of Israeli control. The Palestinian Authority hopes the high-tech greenhouses will provide jobs and export income for Gaza's shattered economy.

During a tour of Neveh Dekalim, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia implored Palestinians to leave the structures intact, even as people scavenged through debris elsewhere in the settlement.

"These greenhouses are for the Palestinian people," he said. "We don't want anyone to touch or harm anything that can be useful for our people." His plea did little good.

Qureia also urged Palestinians to stop looting synagogue buildings.