Israel's Election: Not Our Problem

Next week's Israeli election will, no doubt, be viewed as delivering a blow, perhaps fatal, to the peace process. Powerful showings by both the Likud and the ultra-right Yisrael Beiteinu parties will be read as an indication that Israel has decided to embrace extremist ideology with a vengeance.

That may be true. But it's really not our business. As Americans, our job is to promote policies that are best for America. Israel, a country that values its special relationship with the United States, is in no position to ignore the American government's wishes.

That is especially true when the president is remarkably popular both in this country and throughout the world. No matter who heads Israel's next government, it is President Barack Obama who holds 51 cards in the deck.

Israelis understand that. The last prime minister who went head-to-head with the president of the United States was Yitzhak Shamir. When President George H. W. Bush demanded a settlements freeze as a condition for aid, Shamir said "no." Within months he was out of office, replaced by Yitzhak Rabin with the furtive help of the Bush administration. Not surprisingly, Rabin quickly reversed Shamir's policy.

Israeli politics are not as simple as they appear. The Israeli voter tends to see no inconsistency between voting for a right-winger and simultaneously favoring the two-state solution.

Next week, many Israelis will vote for the right out of fury at Hamas and the desire to have leadership that will stand up to it.

That does not mean that they like the settlers or that they do not want the West Bank returned to the Palestinians. They simply want security. When they believe--and U.S. persuasion can help here--that they can have a deal that provides security, they will give up the West Bank and its settlements. Despite what the extremists say, a not-very-timid IDF will remove the settlers in days if not hours. That is because Israelis understand that retaining the West Bank ensures the loss of either Israel's Jewish identity or its democratic form of government (or both), within a generation.

Also not simple in Israeli politics is determining which of the candidates will be most amenable to diplomacy and which will dig in and say "no" to any ideas the United States will offer.

Certainly, Avigdor Lieberman, the Russian-born and raised leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party, will oppose peace moves. His answer to the "Arab problem" is making Arabs' lives in Israel so miserable that they flee. He is a modern incarnation of Meir Kahane, whose party was so racist that it was banned from participating in Israeli elections. His current plan--to make every Arab sign a loyalty oath--is a prelude to "ethnic cleansing," and everyone knows it.

But Lieberman is not going to be prime minister. The next prime minister will be Binyamin Netanyahu, Tzipi Livni, or Ehud Barak. Netanyahu is the farthest right of the three, but not significantly so. During the Gaza war, each of them emphatically supported military action and expressed little sympathy for the Palestinian civilians who were killed, including hundreds of kids. Simply put, all three are hawks.

It is easy to compare Barak and Netanyahu because each of them served as prime minister. Although Barak is famous for the "offer" he made to Arafat at Camp David (Palestinians say there was no offer), he proudly touts the fact that he made no territorial concessions to the Palestinians during his term in office.

Barak even refused to live up to withdrawals to which Israel had previously agreed. Not so with Netanyahu. He actually withdrew from territory and agreed to yield more at the Wye River Summit in 1998 (it was his agreement to do so that caused his government to collapse).

It can be argued that a right-wing prime minister like Netanyahu has a more difficult time resisting the United States than a prime minister perceived as moderate like Barak or Livni.

Golda Meir--along with Yitzhak Shamir--was the most inflexible leader Israel ever had. But she consistently managed to outfox President Nixon (to the detriment of both Israel and the United States) by looking and sounding moderate. Her right-wing successor, Menachem Begin, did not have Meir's advantage. When President Carter applied pressure, he caved (to the benefit of Israel and the United States).

Dovish types prepared to go into mourning over the coming right-wing victory should bear this history in mind when the election results come in next week. Things aren't always what they seem.

We might be closer to peace today if Netanyahu had kept his job in 1999, rather than losing to Barak. After all, President Clinton knew how to handle Netanyahu while he was thoroughly snowed by Barak. He "treated me like a goddamn wooden Indian," Clinton said of Barak. Clinton was referring to Barak's penchant for acting as if he, not Clinton, was the leader of the Free World.

But in Clayton Swisher's The Truth About Camp David--the best book about why Camp David collapsed--Clinton's press secretary Joe Lockhart recalls that Clinton vehemently disliked Netanyahu: "Netanyahu was one of the single most obnoxious individuals you're likely to meet. . . . He would open his mouth and you would have no confidence that anything that came out of it was the truth."

To put it politely, either Netanyahu or Barak would start out hobbled in dealing with President Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It is no surprise that official Washington is hoping (against hope?) for Livni.

But, as I said, the Israeli election is not our business, just as our election wasn't theirs. (They preferred McCain while Americans, overwhelmingly, did not.)

Obama, Clinton, and Mitchell need to keep doing what they are doing, regardless of who wins. That is to push hard to re-start the diplomatic process with the goal of ending the occupation and achieving Israeli security and a viable, contiguous and independent Palestinian state. Determined American leadership can produce that result. If it can't, or won't, the fault will not lie with the new Israeli prime minister. It will be ours. (As for Lieberman, he should simply be ignored, as we ignore and boycott the extremists on the Palestinian side.)

But a president cannot do the job alone. He needs the American people behind him, and he needs Congress. Unfortunately, Congress tends to view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not so much as a problem but rather as a cash cow for fundraising. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, tend to come together as one when it comes to telling the pro-Israel community what it thinks we want to hear (and will reward).

That has changed some in recent years thanks to efforts by organizations like Israel Policy Forum and our allies.

Last week, Representatives John Olver (D-Mass.), Lois Capps (D-Calif.), and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), along with sixty-one of their colleagues, wrote to President Obama urging immediate action by the United States to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Judging from our phone calls to Capitol Hill, a clear majority would have signed the letter but feared antagonizing the lobby. In that context, sixty-four is a good number--especially when, in writing to Obama, we are preaching to the converted.

Next week we will be gathering co-sponsors for H. Res. 130, a resolution offered by Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) and thirty-one original cosponsors, offering strong support for George Mitchell's efforts to resolve the conflict.

Israel Policy Forum has joined with J Street, the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism, Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v' Shalom, Churches for Middle East Peace, and the Arab American Institute to push the resolution. If you want to know if your representative is a co-sponsor, just e-mail us. You can then call the Capitol at 202-225-3121, ask for your Representative, and urge him or her to back Obama and Mitchell by co-sponsoring H. Res. 130. As President Obama told me,"You can't expect me to respond to you if I can't hear you." Let's make sure he hears us loud and clear.

He's on our side. But a little reinforcement can only help.

MJ Rosenberg is the Director of Israel Policy Forum's Washington Policy Center

Comments

[Artos]

Wasn't Rabin assassinated by a right wing fanatic.

[Melissa Rossi - Huffpost Blogger]

Ah, Mr. Rosenberg,
I see you have amended this post so it no longer reads "As Americans, our job is to promote policies that are best for America, and for Israel" -- deleting the "and for Israel" in the REPOSTED version. Certainly your sentiment -- as previously expressed in its entirely -- elicited many questioning responses, among them my post, here on huffpo -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-rossi/this-just-in-israel-is-in_b_164805.html. I guess the question remains -- have you amended your thoughts on that matter?

[SergeantRoss45]

God bless you Ms. Rossi for keeping it real.

[Giovanni Piccirillo]

Thanks! That was needed. He will not reply

[RevMetheus]

Headline this morning: Gaza Militants Fire Rockets Despite Truce

Any other country in the world it would read as:

Terrorists Fire Rockets Into Israel

We know terrorists dont do what the law tells them, and yet somehow both we and Israel hold a country and a government responsible when terrorists attack them. Its absurd.

[RevMetheus]

I was OK until your second paragraph.

"That may be true. But it's really not our business."

Yes, as long as we send them aid, it IS our business. What does Israel do for us in return for this aid? They complain that we dont do enough for them.

Boo F'n Hoo.

[brisa]

Since the two main belligerents in the Middle East conflict are stuck in a "perpetual violence demands perpetual retribution cycle", perhaps the world would be better off if a giant. expanding sink hole developed in Jeruselum and swallowed Eretz Israel.....Palestinians, Israelis and all.

At last...an end to the primary motivation for terrorism...genuine and false flag.

[pconn]

The US subsidizes Israel to the tune of $billions a year in foreign and military assistance. Our soldiers die fighting their wars. Our presidential candidates must campaign in Israel. Our Congress and Senate are subject to the meddling influence of Israel's lobby in a giant kickback scheme of political contributions to those who demonstrate their obeisance to Israel, who then continue the cycle of exorbitant tributes to the Zionist state.

How is it that Mr. Rosenberg can possibly conceive that Israel's domestic politics are none of our business? The US pays for Israel.

Independent Jewish state? Shrill, ungrateful, demanding welfare state is closer to the truth.

For the $trillions paid to Israel, we've obtained nothing more than arrogance of the type demonstrated by Mr. Rosenberg's commentary, and continuing demands (dare I call it blackmail) for yet more and more of our nation's wealth.

And lest I forget, our obsequious posturing and blind tribute to the racist, militant, murderous Zionist apartheid regime has purchased also the animosity of much of the world. We're not hated because we're free. We're hated because we provide the financing and the armaments facilitating Israel's illegal, inhumane occupation Palestine.

Israel is doing to Palestine what Germany did to Poland in the 1940s. And the US is financing and arming the aggressors.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/GazaHolo/index.html

If your loyalties lie with Israel, you're free to leave the States; just surrender your US citizenship at the border. No man can serve two masters.

[jamilk99]

So Mr. Rosenberg, "As Americans, our job is to promote policies that are best for America, and for Israel."??? How about when America's interests collide with Israel's interests. Our job is to promote America's interests PERIOD. The Israelis can promote their own interests and they should start doing it with their own money and without or tax dollars.

[Tyler Westbrook]

"As Americans, our job is to promote policies that are best for America, and for Israel."

WRONG and treasonous.....

I Pledge alligance to the flag (and Israel)......

No way, This writer is Offensive to Americans whom believe in Human Rights.

This American teaches my children Zionism is Racism, and to stand fast against State Terrorism.

I teach my children to stand against Genocide in all its forms.

I have been there, and KNOW what is up.

Occupation is a crime.

[JacksonJones]

Zionism is no more and no less than the quite simple, and surprisingly controversial (for liberals) notion that the Jewish people, like all other peoples, has the right to self-deterination. It is not a racist idea in the slightest regard. Teaching that they don't, on the other hand, is racism in most cases.

[RevMetheus]

No, its the idea that the Jewish people deserve their own country, where they are above all other races and religions. THAT is racist.

[jamilk99]

It's the notion that they have a God-given right to have their own country even if that means taking away the country of another people - the Palestinians. The Palestinians are no less-deserving of a country of their own than the Jews.

[betz55]

The election of Bibi will solidify the world against apartheid Israel, he is using the euphmism 'natural growth as the tactic to expand the settlements.

Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied territories violates over 30 UN Security Council resolutions since 1968. It's all about 'security' for Israel ? Total BS. The Palestinians have the same right to 'security' from apartheid, belligerent, aggressive Israel too. The Palestinians aren't bulldozing anyones houses, the Israeli's are.

Cut the billions of dollars we give Israel each year, we need the money here at home, not financing 'security' of our biggest welfare client, Israel..

I will be proud of the day when Obama puts the interest of America before the interest of Israel and not be crucified for it. It's a damn shame that American politicians are selected, not on their commitment to the best interests of America, but by vowing to put the interests of a foreign nation, Israel, first. The oath of allegiance that I said everyday in school was not to Israel, or any country but America.

Tie all aid directly to the end of the illegal settlements end the "natural growth" tactic which Bibi will use to increase the number of settlers in the West Bank.

Did Congress ever ask us if we want our money given away to Israel? Why don't we put it to a vote?

[mulegino]

This is the classic case of overplaying your hand. You hold cards worth billions (courtesy of American taxpayers), and yet, make the outrageous statement that it is "our" job to do what is best for Israel?!!!
No, "our" job is the following:

engage, as citizens, in a particpatory democratic replublic, and elect a congress and a president who will:

establish justice (for our own citizens, not Israel's or any other nation)

provide for the common defense (of the U.S., not Israel)

promote the general welfare (of the U.S., not Israel)

insure domestic tranquility (in the U.S., not in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, or the occupied territories)

and ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity (which decisively means not mortgaging the rights and freedoms of our own citizens to the interests of a foreign power)

[justice2all]

As Americans it is not our job to promote what is best for Israel. I'm yet to see how Israel's actions are promoting what is best for America. Sending Israel 'aid' is a waste of our tax dollars. All it does is further diminish America's standing in the world as an 'honest broker for peace.'

I however think the following statement you made is very correct: "Unfortunately, Congress tends to view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not so much as a problem but rather as a cash cow for fundraising"

[whasup]

I have to agree with the many that say as Americans, our job is to promote what is best for America, period.

I also think what needs to be amended in regards to Israel is that Israel must recognize a state for the Palestinians, if peace will ever come to the Middle East. Israel, like every other respected and recognized nation, must have clearly defined borders.

No longer should we allow Israel to get what it will not recognize of others, that every nation or state has the right to defend itself.

[shivadas]

I agree that Israel is not "our problem". Please find your billions in aid elsewhere Mr. Rosenberg.

[nochaos]

It's AMAZING that electing a right-wing prime minister in response to all the terrorism by Hamas and other terror groups against Israel is deemed a reason to worry about Middle East peace. There was and is NO CHANCE of Middle East peace as long as the Gazan Arabs and others won't even recognize Israel's right to exist. Even if the biggest left-wing dove were elected ..it would not matter!!

[chaos4700]

Considering it doesn't seem to matter who the Palestinians elect either, Israel simply continues to colonize the West Bank and strangle the Gaza Strip, it seems to me that Israel is the biggest roadblock we have to the spread of democracy in the Middle East. We'll see how keen Jewish Israelis are on their democracy if the changing demographics play themselves out and they eventually find themselves a minority in their own "inherently Jewish" country.

[Rog49Thomas]

A couple of corrections to the following sentences.

As Americans, our job is to promote policies that are best for America, and for Israel. And Israel, a country that values its special relationship with the United States, is in no position to ignore the American government's wishes.

First correction: "As Americans our job is to promote policies that are best for America." Full stop.

Second, I believe you've mixed up the order in the second sentence.

It should read. "And America, a country that values its special relationship with Israel, is in no position to ignore the Israeli Government's wishes.

Which is why it is very critical to the USA who wins the election in Israel