[Maas]

AIPAC Is the Only Explanation for America's Morally Bankrupt Israel Policy

The official name for Israel's latest assault on Gaza is "Operation Protective Edge." A better name would be "Operation Déjà Vu." As it has on several prior occasions, Israel is using weapons provided by U.S. taxpayers to bombard the captive and impoverished Palestinians in Gaza, where the death toll now exceeds 500. As usual, the U.S. government is siding with Israel, even though most American leaders understand Israel instigated the latest round of violence, is not acting with restraint, and that its actions make Washington look callous and hypocritical in the eyes of most of the world.

This Orwellian situation is eloquent testimony to the continued political clout of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the other hardline elements of the Israel lobby. There is no other plausible explanation for the supine behavior of the U.S. Congress--including some of its most "progressive" members--or the shallow hypocrisy of the Obama administration, especially those officials known for their purported commitment to human rights.

The immediate cause of this latest one-sided bloodletting was the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli hikers in the occupied West Bank, followed shortly thereafter by the kidnapping and fatal burning of a Palestinian teenager by several Israelis. According to J.J. Goldberg's reporting in the Jewish newspaper Forward, the Netanyahu government blamed Hamas for the kidnappings without evidence and pretended the kidnapped Israelis were still alive for several weeks, even though there was evidence indicating the victims were already dead. It perpetrated this deception in order to whip up anti-Arab sentiment and make it easier to justify punitive operations in the West Bank and Gaza.

And why did Netanyahu decide to go on another rampage in Gaza? As Nathan Thrall of the International Crisis Group points out, the real motive is neither vengeance nor a desire to protect Israel from Hamas' rocket fire, which has been virtually non-existent over the past two years and is largely ineffectual anyway. Netanyahu's real purpose was to undermine the recent agreement between Hamas and Fatah for a unity government. Given Netanyahu's personal commitment to keeping the West Bank and creating a "greater Israel," the last thing he wants is a unified Palestinian leadership that might press him to get serious about a two-state solution. Ergo, he sought to isolate and severely damage Hamas and drive a new wedge between the two Palestinian factions.

Behind all these maneuvers looms Israel's occupation of Palestine, now in its fifth decade. Not content with having ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in 1948 and 1967 and not satisfied with owning eighty-two percent of Mandatory Palestine, every Israeli government since 1967 has built or expanded settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem while providing generous subsidies to the 600,000-plus Jews who have moved there in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Two weeks ago, Netanyahu confirmed what many have long suspected: he is dead set against a two-state solution and will never--repeat never--allow it to happen while he is in office. Given that Netanyahu is probably the most moderate member of his own Cabinet and that Israel's political system is marching steadily rightward, the two-state solution is a gone goose.

Worst of all, the deaths of hundreds more Palestinians and a small number of Israelis will change almost nothing. Hamas is not going to disband. When this latest round of fighting ends, the 4.4 million Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza will still be Israel's de facto prisoners and still be denied basic human rights. But they are not going to leave, mainly because Palestine is their homeland, but also because they have nowhere to go, especially given the turmoil in other parts of the Middle East.

Eventually another ceasefire will be negotiated. The dead will be buried, the wounded will recover, the tunnels now being destroyed will be rebuilt, and Hamas will replenish its stockpile of missiles and rockets. The stage will then be set for another round of fighting, and Israel will have moved further down the road to becoming a full-fledged apartheid state.

Meanwhile, U.S. politicians and policymakers continue to back a brutal military campaign whose primary purpose is not to defend Israel but rather to protect its longstanding effort to colonize the West Bank. Amazingly, they continue to support Israel unreservedly even though every U.S. president since Lyndon Johnson has opposed Israel's settlements project, and the past three American presidents--Clinton, Bush and Obama--have all worked hard for the two-state solution that Israeli policy has now made impossible.

Yet as soon as fighting starts, and even if Israel instigates it, AIPAC demands that Washington march in lockstep with Tel Aviv. Congress invariably rushes to pass new resolutions endorsing whatever Israel decides to do. Even though it is mostly Palestinians who are dying, White House officials rush to proclaim that Israel has "the right to defend itself," and Obama himself won't go beyond expressing "concern" about what is happening. Of course Israelis have the right to defend themselves, but Palestinians not only have the same right, they have the right to resist the occupation. To put this another way, Israel does not have the right to keep its Palestinian subjects in permanent subjugation. But try finding someone on Capitol Hill who will acknowledge this simple fact.

The explanation for America's impotent and morally bankrupt policy is the political clout of the Israel lobby. Barack Obama knows that if he were to side with the Palestinians in Gaza or criticize Israel's actions in any way, he would face a firestorm of criticism from the lobby and his chances of getting Congressional approval for a deal with Iran would evaporate.

Similarly, every member of the House and Senate--including progressives like Senator Elizabeth Warren--knows that voting for those supposedly "pro-Israel" resolutions is the smart political move. They understand that even the slightest display of independent thinking on these issues could leave them vulnerable to a well-funded opponent the next time they're up for re-election. At a minimum, they'll have to answer a flood of angry phone calls and letters, and, on top of that, they are likely to be blackballed by some of their Congressional colleagues. The safer course is to mouth the same tired litanies about alleged "shared values" between Israel and the U.S. and wait till the crisis dies down. And people wonder why no one respects Congress anymore.

To be sure, the lobby's clout is not as profound as it once was. Public discourse about Israel, U.S. policy toward Israel and the lobby itself has changed markedly in recent years, and a growing number of journalists, bloggers and pundits--such as Andrew Sullivan, Juan Cole, Peter Beinart, M.J. Rosenberg, Max Blumenthal, Phyllis Bennis, Bernard Avishai, Sara Roy, Mitchell Plitnick, David Remnick, Phil Weiss and even (occasionally) Thomas Friedman of the New York Times--are willing to speak and write candidly about what is happening in the Middle East. Although most Americans openly support Israel's existence--just as I do--their sympathy for an Israel that acts more like Goliath than David is fading. The ranks of the skeptics include a growing number of younger American Jews, who find little to admire and much to dislike in Israel's actions and who are far less devoted to it than were previous generations. Pro-peace groups such as J Street and Jewish Voice for Peace reflect that trend and show that opinion among American Jews is far from unified.

Moreover, AIPAC and other hardline lobby groups could not convince the Obama administration to intervene in Syria, and they have been unable to convince the Bush or Obama administrations to launch a preventive strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. They have also failed to derail the nuclear negotiations with Tehran--at least so far--though not for lack of trying. Pushing the U.S. toward another Middle East war is a lot for any interest group to accomplish, of course, but these setbacks show that even this "leviathan among lobbies" does not always get its way.

But the lobby is still able to keep roughly $3 billion in U.S. aid to Israel flowing each year; it can still prevent U.S. presidents from putting meaningful pressure on Israel; and it can still get the U.S. to wield its veto whenever a resolution criticizing Israel's actions is floated in the U.N. Security Council. This situation explains why the Obama administration made zero progress toward "two states for two peoples": if Israel gets generous U.S. support no matter what it does, why should its leaders pay any attention to Washington's requests? Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry could only appeal to Netanyahu's better judgment, and we've seen how well that worked.

This situation is a tragedy for all concerned, not least for Israel itself. A Greater Israel cannot be anything but an apartheid state, and exclusionary ethnic nationalism of this sort is not sustainable in the 21st century. Israel's Arab subjects will eventually demand equal rights, and as former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned back in 2007, once that happens, "the state of Israel is finished."

Unfortunately, AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and assorted Christian Zionist groups continue to exhibit a severe case of tunnel vision. Because defending Israel no matter what it does is their main raison d'etre (and central to their fundraising), they are unable to see that they are helping Israel drive itself off a cliff. Similarly, those pliant members of Congress who cravenly sign AIPAC-drafted resolutions are not true friends of Israel. They are false friends who pretend to care but are really only interested in getting reelected.

Historians will one day look back and ask how U.S. Middle East policy could be so ineffectual and so at odds with its professed values -- not to mention its strategic interests. The answer lies in the basic nature of the American political system, which permits well-organized and well-funded special interest groups to wield significant power on Capitol Hill and in the White House. In this case, the result is a policy that is bad for all concerned: for the Palestinians most of all, but also for the U.S. and Israel as well. Until the lobby's clout is weakened or politicians grow stiffer spines, Americans looking for better outcomes in the Middle East had better get used to disappointment and prepared for more trouble.

Fully agree with it.

[Rich]

No its not. All modern societies and many pre modern ones are / were morally bankrupt in that they claim some sort of human universalism, which the large majority have not the slightest interest in living by. I remember when over a million Iraqis were murdered under sanctions did the average America give a fuck? Of course not. And all though partly influenced by Israel, cheap and stable gas supplies was a way good enough reason to murder a million Iraqis for most Americans. Not that most Americans were even aware of what was gong on, so little did value did they put on the lives of the other. Of course a lot of people a highly sentimental, like a bit of charity, civilised values blah, blah, etc etc. it just goes out of the window most of the time as soon it starts becoming in any significant way inconvenient. People like to think of themselves as moral but they are not. When I say people aren't moral I mean if you examine their behaviour and in particular their political behaviour they fail by their own moral standards.

A nation state discriminates on the basis of biological decent. Once you accept the nation state and its sovereignty you have pissed human universalism down the toilet.

[maz]

The pro-Israel right, and the pro-Israel left lobbies put on their WWF staged fights for show, but they put that all aside when the rubber meets the road and the IDF decides to start slaughtering Palestinian children and blowing up hospitals.

Does J-Street Stand With The Pro-Israel Community?

[Beren]

The whole Middle East policy of the US is broken, I wonder whether it could be worse or they can do anything about it. Their so called allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt) don't seem to care too much about them.

[wat0n]

The whole Middle East policy of the US is broken, I wonder whether it could be worse or they can do anything about it. Their so called allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt) don't seem to care too much about them.

American policy and credibility in the region went to toilet after the Syrian red lines debacle.

As Walt admits in his very article, the pro-Israel lobbies actually supported enforcing them but the Obama Administration had other plans in mind. He somehow believes AIPAC has so much power over American policy in the region as to influence its stance in the current round, yet it was somehow powerless to exert influence on Syria

[Beren]

American policy and credibility in the region went to toilet after the Syrian red lines debacle.

Plus Obama is an outgoing president, so nobody really cares about him anymore.

[Gletkin]

American policy and credibility in the region went to toilet after the Syrian red lines debacle.

American policy and credibility in the region went into the toilet when we decided to go into Iraq 11 years ago.
If nothing else we decided that Iranian-allied Islamists coming to power in Iraq was an acceptable outcome of our removal of Saddam.
Which now makes our foreign policy in Syria and Iraq very interesting indeed

[wat0n]

Plus Obama is an outgoing president, so nobody really cares about him anymore.

I wouldn't describe him as outgoing president just yet. I mean, this is the second year of his last administration after all...

American policy and credibility in the region went into the toilet when we decided to go into Iraq 11 years ago.
If nothing else we decided that Iranian-allied Islamists coming to power in Iraq was an acceptable outcome of our removal of Saddam.
Which now makes our foreign policy in Syria and Iraq very interesting indeed

I agree that the invasion of Iraq was bad strategically, but not enforcing your own red lines... I mean, seriously? If he wasn't going to do that, he shouldn't have set them to begin with. What the hell was he thinking?

[Gletkin]

I agree those "red lines" weren't worth stating to begin with. Obama may not even have had the authority to take unilateral action to enforce them to begin with.
Nevertheless, the geopolitical clusterfuck we've established with our previous anti-Saddam zealotry predates the redlines thing. The moment Iranian allies came to power in Iraq, with our own connivance no less, any future movement against Iran or Iran's friends on our part was compromised.

Now that I think about it, it's kind of funny. Recently, American netizens and columnists have taken Germany and S. Korea to task for supposedly being too close to Russia and China. One even daring to lecture them that they can't afford to be "neutral". But what have they to say for the American lives and treasure spent propping up Iraqi factions who have always been openly friendly with Tehran?

[wat0n]

I agree those "red lines" weren't worth stating to begin with. Obama may not even have had the authority to take unilateral action to enforce them to begin with.
Nevertheless, the geopolitical clusterfuck we've established with our previous anti-Saddam zealotry predates the redlines thing. The moment Iranian allies came to power in Iraq, with our own connivance no less, any future movement against Iran or Iran's friends on our part was compromised.

Now that I think about it, it's kind of funny. Recently, American netizens and columnists have taken Germany and S. Korea to task for supposedly being too close to Russia and China. One even daring to lecture them that they can't afford to be "neutral". But what have they to say for the American lives and treasure spent propping up Iraqi factions who have always been openly friendly with Tehran?

Indeed, strategically speaking toppling Saddam was an awful decision. I think we're in agreement here, this is much longer to undo than the red line fiasco, which will be undone during the next administration.

[Maas]

No its not. All modern societies and many pre modern ones are / were morally bankrupt in that they claim some sort of human universalism, which the large majority have not the slightest interest in living by.

I do believe that you can not use modern morals and apply them on the past, where animal cruelty was no biggy since slavery was alright as well. That kind of doesnt work one bit.

I remember when over a million Iraqis were murdered under sanctions did the average America give a fuck?

Yeah well.. that is AIPAC and co for you, to push that kind of suffering to the background of the news so Americans won't give a fuck. It would be radical different if the US instead of having AIPAC had hardline hawkish Saudi lobby groups.

People like to think of themselves as moral but they are not.

Well people got their moral standards that they try to meet. And than got some excuses why they kind of lowered them down. You know.. creep in to that grey area. But to go from one side of the spectrum to the other,... that's rather rich to say "people" are like that. Not everybody got the moral stomach to sweettalk ethnic cleansing, something the Jewish State does, and rather ignored by US politicians because them Jewish-American/Israeli lobby groups like AIPAC has that sort of power.

[Beren]

I wouldn't describe him as outgoing president just yet. I mean, this is the second year of his last administration after all...

Which means his presidency would be 60 years old and would have 20 years left, if it was a human being supposed to live 80 years. Polishing his legacy is the only thing he can do in the last two forthcoming years (Obama Signs Executive Order On LGBT Job Discrimination), especially if House Majority remains Republican. He'll be able to settle the Ukrainian crisis and finalise the TTIP free trade agreement perhaps, but I do doubt he can achieve anything significant in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter.

[Regulatory Capture 1]

American policy and credibility in the region went to toilet after the Syrian red lines debacle.

I'd say at least 40 years prior to Obama's Red-Line. The U.S has no credibility left anywhere in the world and that includes some of her European partners if the German Foreign minister is to be quoted. What credibility the U.S does have is military power and they fear that, otherwise a slaying the U.S would have faced its Ides of March moment a long time ago. Hopefully it will in a non-nuclear capacity, in the south China sea, in about 20 years with any luck.

[Maas]

American policy and credibility in the region went to toilet after the Syrian red lines debacle.

I'd say at least 40 years prior to Obama's Red-Line.

Indeed. The same ol same ol meme's are used.
They say "Israel has the right to defend itself", to than look the other way when they almost go on full ignore when Israel ethnically cleanses, steals, oppresses, censors, throw people in jail without a conviction for years, etc etc etc. As the article mentions,.. Israel has no such rights to do that, while Palestinians have every right to violently attack Israel over this.

That one thingy of Syria is not suddenly changing something about that for the worst.

[Beren]

I I agree those "red lines" weren't worth stating to begin with. Obama may not even have had the authority to take unilateral action to enforce them to begin with.
Nevertheless, the geopolitical clusterfuck we've established with our previous anti-Saddam zealotry predates the redlines thing. The moment Iranian allies came to power in Iraq, with our own connivance no less, any future movement against Iran or Iran's friends on our part was compromised.

It's not really the red line thing, he just meant to make Syria WMD-free and it seems he was successful in that matter basically. The real problem is that Obama is not really interested in the Middle East, he actually wants to pull out rather than to solve anything there. I think he really hates getting or being involved in Middle East affairs. The only exception might be the Arab-Israeli conflict, but he can't do much about it. He pressurised Netanjahu as much as he could, but it didn't work.