Israel Lobby - So What ?

My comments on extracts from the article: The Israel Lobby - London Review of Books - 2006/3/23

Jews in Israel are a legacy of an historical injustice - just like Muslims in Europe [Muslim Emperial, Africans in France [French Colonialism] and England, Indians in Fiji [English Colonialism in Pacific], protestants in Northern Ireland [English Colonialism], whites in South Africa [English Colonialism], etc etc

The present has a responsibility to ensure that individuals that find themselves marginalised culturally due to race are integrated into the melting pot of their dominant culture through active intervention (both supportive and demanding).

We also have the responsibility to prevent more such problems developing in the future through growth of immigrant subcultures within existing nations

The Israeli state is legitimate morally, politically because a majority of people living within it's borders support it's continuation. This gives it more legitimacy than most others in the region who continue to oppress groups within their territory where there is a local geographic majority which deserves the right to determine it's own destiny (e.g. Kurds and Armenians in Turkey and Iraq, Some Sunni's in Egypt etc etc.)
The limits to this self determination can only be decided case by case - Singapore seperate from Malaysia ? Timor seperate from Indonesia ? West Papua ? Tasmania ?

As a state, Israel must seek the most support and negotiate the best deals that it can in relation to any issue, just as we all do...
The US has strategic interests in maintaining at least a kernel of western democracy in a region that may take a century to develop widespread support for this social concept.
The US feels a responsibility as the "leader of the free world" to continue the defence of a nation established by the west in an atmosphere of horror, shame and hope at the end of WWII.
The US has a large and powerful ethnic group that exerts influence on the US government through legitimate social influence.

The main points of the article The Israel Lobby are:

• the strategic value of Israel is overstated (so we have less self interest in supporting it);
• that the history and current behaviour of the Israeli state reduces or eliminates the moral justification for support;
• that the exertion of social, political and economic influence within the US in favour of Israel is somehow sinister (I wonder how it compares to the suppression of free speech by Muslim intolerance in virtually every country in which Muslims form a significant proportion - witness the recent "cartoon riots".)
• Everyone would be better off of the Israelis gave more concessions to the Palestinians
  

I argue that:

• the US national interest should continue to be based on its own definition of balance in strategic, economic, moral AND social considerations
• Israel should be pressured to allow a separate Palestinian nation state
• Israel should not rely on or allow large scale daily movement of non-citizens across its borders - until such time (50 years ?) as this movement can occur without extreme security risk on one hand, or oppressive surveillance on the other.
• The development of the wall, the removal of outlying settlements and the restriction of cross border family contact could all reduce the danger and tension over the next decade.
• Palestine should be encouraged to develop with strategic, economic, and social relations with states other than Israel (especially Egypt !). Otherwise, it will continue to define itself as a victim of "apartheid" rather than a nation responsible for its own fate.
• Hostile acts between states are easier to identify and respond to than acts that purport to be carried out by unauthorised individuals or renegade groups.

Some comments embedded in excerpts of the article The Israel Lobby:

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world."
[Embedded unstated implication:
Support for an ally and democracy is a dangerous policy - perhaps irresponsible - perhaps immoral ?
How would you react to "Unwavering support for Great Britain and democracy has inflamed Nazi Germany and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world"]

"This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.".
[Embedded unstated implication:
There are few shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, and these are the only considerations.
What about the following:

• growth of western style democracy will not be served by the extinguishing of the only state in the region with a well developed western democracy;
• the defence of a state against those that wish to eliminate it from the face of the earth is a direct moral imperatives esp considering the fact that that the west created it out of guilt for the previous attempt at genocide;
• perhaps the most powerful reason is nneither strategic or moral but social/ religious i.e. the US has a prominent and powerful jewish sub-culture which will support governments that protect "its own"]
  

"Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew [loaded term] foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest [which is what ?], while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies [Mossad, one of the best intelligence services in the world also shares intelligence back USA. i.e. not just one way support], and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
[As Jews including some Israelis were involved in US bomb development, it is hard to stop them. Also, possible sense that a "responsible western style government" should have the right to decide for itself re. atomic weapons cf. fundamentalist Iran]

Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation.

This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US backing. But neither explanation is convincing
[Does the following argument support this assertion ? Also ignores the most powerful and common reason for support - e.g. social/ religious / racial relationship]

One might argue that Israel was an asset during the Cold War. By serving as America’s proxy after 1967, it helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and inflicted humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria. It occasionally helped protect other US allies (like King Hussein of Jordan) and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more on backing its own client states. It also provided useful intelligence about Soviet capabilities.

Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated America’s relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to give $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an Opec oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. For all that, Israel’s armed forces were not in a position to protect US interests in the region. The US could not, for example, rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of oil supplies, and had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force instead.

The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again.

Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by ‘rogue states’ that back these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction. This is taken to mean not only that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press it to make concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead, but that the US should go after countries like Iran and Syria. Israel is thus seen as a crucial ally in the war on terror, because its enemies are America’s enemies. In fact, Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.

‘Terrorism’ is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups
[True and interesting statement. Esp give the interesting and successful invention of the suicide bombing tactic by Sri Lankans.]

The terrorist organisations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult
[Easier if we ditch any ally or group that is a terrorist target ? Is this a legitimate strategy for making ourselves safe ? Look at the case re Nigerian Miss World or Rushdie or slaughter of Christians in Indonesia or North Africa etc etc]

There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits.

As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons – which is obviously undesirable – neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming retaliation
[Now we ARE talking rubbish.
The KEY aspect of terrorism is to wage war outside of a responsible political structure THUS gaining the political benefit of terror while denying culpability BUT reminding those that are being terrorised that THEY are contributing to the "conditions" that create terrorism by their failure to capitulate.
See Sinn Fein, Palestinians, Tamils, Kashmiri's, Jemaah Islamiyah etc etc]

The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these states. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that desire.

A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders)
[So what.. so does any independent state. "Ally" does not mean "subject"]

Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.

Israel’s strategic value isn’t the only issue. Its backers also argue that it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel’s conduct has been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection, none of these arguments is persuasive. There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel’s existence, but that is not in jeopardy [Rubbish - 1948, 1967, 1973... Future nuclear Iran, etc] . Viewed objectively, its past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians.

Israel is often portrayed as David confronted by Goliath, but the converse is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists [Perjorative term, not inclusive of the national aspiration] had larger, better equipped and better led forces during the 1947-49 War of Independence, and the Israel Defence Forces won quick and easy victories against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 – all of this before large-scale US aid began flowing. Today, Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are far superior to those of its neighbours and it is the only state in the region with nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so. Syria has lost its Soviet patron, Iraq has been devastated by three disastrous wars and Iran is hundreds of miles away
[Trying to develop long range delivery systems with nuclear weapons as fast as possible to fulfil the apocalyptic vision of its current president and who knows how many citizens.]

The Palestinians barely have an effective police force, let alone an army that could pose a threat to Israel
[Do you mean take over or terror ? Plenty of resources for terror].

According to a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies, ‘the strategic balance decidedly favours Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbours.’ If backing the underdog were a compelling motive, the United States would be supporting Israel’s opponents.

That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships cannot account for the current level of aid: there are many democracies around the world, but none receives the same lavish support. The US has overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when this was thought to advance its interests – it has good relations with a number of dictatorships today.

Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a ‘neglectful and discriminatory’ manner towards them. Its democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own or full political rights.
[US shares this divisive issue with many many countries. e.g. democratic status of the US is undermined by the failure to allow Utah to continue as a separate state; or the Spanish to allow the Basques; etc.
I am usually in favour of partition as a strategy fro reducing long term conflict. I would suggest this policy for Israel (Palestine & Israel), Iraq (Sunni, Kurd, Shia), Yugoslavia (Muslim, Christian), Northern Ireland (Catholic, Protestant), Spain (Basque, Spanish) etc ...]