So now that the New Hampshire primary is over, let’s get back to the issues, shall we?
This interesting article appeared in the LA Times yesterday, written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the controversial authors of the critique of American foreign policy in the Middle East entitled, The Israel Lobby. It undertakes to show that unequivocal support of Israel by the leading presidential candidates, as well as their silence about Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinians, while it attempts to wrest more and more West Bank land from them, undermines peace in the region.
U.S. presidential candidates aren’t doing the Jewish state any favors by offering unconditional support, say Mearsheimer and Walt. And that statement would seem to apply to all Democratic candidates, except possibly Kusinich. Hillary Clinton, a front runner, is particular at fault here. McCain is an obvious syncophant as far as Israel’s right wing is concerned.
According to Mearsheimer and Walt,
Once again, as the presidential campaign season gets underway, the leading candidates are going to enormous lengths to demonstrate their devotion to the state of Israel and their steadfast commitment to its “special relationship” with the United States.
Each of the main contenders emphatically favors giving Israel extraordinary material and diplomatic support — continuing the more than $3 billion in foreign aid each year to a country whose per capita income is now 29th in the world. They also believe that this aid should be given unconditionally. None of them criticizes Israel’s conduct, even when its actions threaten U.S. interests, are at odds with American values or even when they are harmful to Israel itself. In short, the candidates believe that the U.S. should support Israel no matter what it does.
Such pandering is hardly surprising, because contenders for high office routinely court special interest groups, and Israel’s staunchest supporters — the Israel lobby, as we have termed it — expect it. Politicians do not want to offend Jewish Americans or “Christian Zionists,” two groups that are deeply engaged in the political process. Candidates fear, with some justification, that even well-intentioned criticism of Israel’s policies may lead these groups to turn against them and back their opponents instead.
Mearsheimer and Walt contend that the trouble would arise on many fronts if the candidates who do not conform. “Israel’s friends in the media,” they say “would take aim at the (nonsupporting) candidate. Campaign contributions from pro-Israel individuals and political action committees would go elsewhere.” They also contend that Jewish voters who live in states with many electoral votes would increase their weight in close elections. In short, a candidate seen as insufficiently committed to Israel would lose some of their support. Likewise, any Republican who alienates the pro-Israel subset of the Christian evangelical movement, would lose a significant part of his GOP base.
Even suggesting that the U.S. adopt a more impartial stance toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can get a candidate into serious trouble. Howard Dean proposed such an idea during the 2004 campaign and was subsequently criticized by prominent Democrats, including Sen. Joe Lieberman, who accused him of “selling Israel down the river.”
Regardless, Mearsheimer and Walt assert that our Democratic candidates for the next presidency are no friends of Israel, as “they are facilitating its pursuit of self-destructive policies that no true friend would favor.”
The key issue here is the future of Gaza and the West Bank, which Israel conquered in 1967 and still controls. Israel faces a stark choice regarding these territories, which are home to roughly 3.8 million Palestinians. It can opt for a two-state solution, turning over almost all of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians and allowing them to create a viable state on those lands in return for a comprehensive peace agreement designed to allow Israel to live securely within its pre-1967 borders (with some minor modifications). Or it can retain control of the territories it occupies or surrounds, building more settlements and bypass roads and confining the Palestinians to a handful of impoverished enclaves in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel would control the borders around those enclaves and the air above them, thus severely restricting the Palestinians’ freedom of movement.
The second option would lead to an apartheid state. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently proclaimed that if “the two-state solution collapses,” Israel will “face a South African-style struggle.” He went so far as to argue that “as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished.” Jimmy Carter’s admonishment would thus be fulfilled. The candidates are too scared to follow this line of reasoning, even if it is taken by the Israeli PM.
One would certainly expect Hillary Clinton to be leading the charge here. After all, she wisely and bravely called for establishing a Palestinian state “that is on the same footing as other states” in 1998, when it was still politically incorrect to use the words “Palestinian state” openly. Moreover, her husband not only championed a two-state solution as president, but he laid out the famous “Clinton parameters” in December 2000, which outline the only realistic deal for ending the conflict.
However, that is not what Hillary Clinton is saying now. Nor do we find the other leading candidates, Obama and Edwards, even commenting on the possibilities of Annapolis. The position of all of the candidates is silence. Even Barack Obama, who expressed some sympathy for the Palestinians before he set his sights on the White House, has had little to say about their plight.
In short, the presidential candidates are no friends of Israel. They are like most U.S. politicians, who reflexively mouth pro-Israel platitudes while continuing to endorse and subsidize policies that are in fact harmful to the Jewish state. A genuine friend would tell Israel that it was acting foolishly, and would do whatever he or she could to get Israel to change its misguided behavior. And that will require challenging the special interest groups whose hard-line views have been obstacles to peace for many years.
So why are Israel’s friends saying nothing? Is it because they fear that speaking the truth would incur the wrath of the main organizations comprising the Israel lobby?
“With friends like them, who needs enemies?,” say Mearsheimer and Walt.
