The Israel lobby's powerful influence on U.S. Middle East policy
has, for the most part, been largely negative. The lobby - working
with Israel itself - has altered U.S. Middle East policy in ways
that are in neither the American nor the Israeli national interest.
To make that case, I will focus on the lobby's influence on U.S.
policy towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Unable to Pressure Israel
It has been the official policy of every U.S. president since 1967
to oppose the building of settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip. President George W. Bush, for example, has repeatedly
requested that Israel halt settlement building. Yet no president
has been able to put meaningful pressure on Israel to stop
expanding the settlements. The seriousness of this problem is
illustrated by what Israel did in the occupied territories between
the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993 and the outbreak
of the al-Aqsa intifada in September 2000. During that seven-year
period, when the Clinton administration was committed to creating a
Palestinian state and finally settling the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict, Israel confiscated 40,000 acres (16,200 hectares) of
Palestinian land, built 250 miles (400 kilometers) of connector and
by-pass roads, doubled the number of settlers and built 30 new
settlements.
Former President Bill Clinton, like his predecessors and his
successor, could not use America's considerable leverage to halt
this building spree. In fact, the Clinton administration
effectively supported Israel's actions by protecting the Jewish
state from criticism at the United Nations, giving it more foreign
aid than any other country, and giving it unconditionally.
The fundamental reason that current and past presidents have been
unable to put pressure on Israel to stop building settlements is
the lobby. As Haaretz senior political commentator Akiva Eldar
stated in a recent U.S. TV interview, "The administration doesn't
want to use its leverage, because the administration doesn't want
to confront the political lobby... You can say this about this
administration, when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's
purely domestic. Israel is not part of American foreign policy.
Israel is a domestic policy."
Not in the U.S. National Interest
Nevertheless, Israel's policies in the occupied territories are not
in America's national interest. There is an abundance of survey
data and anecdotal evidence which shows that U.S. support for
Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West
Bank, and U.S. support for Israel's efforts to colonize those
territories, angers - if not enrages - a large percentage of the
population in the Arab world.
As past events have shown, this anger has helped fuel terrorist
activities against the U.S. both at home and abroad. It is
important to note that Washington's support for Israel's policy
towards Palestinians is not the only cause of America's terrorism
problem, but it is a major cause. Specifically, it motivates some
individuals to attack the U.S.; it serves as a powerful recruitment
tool for terrorist organizations; and it generates sympathy and
support for terrorists among huge numbers of people in the Arab
world.
A critically important issue when talking about the U.S.' terrorism
problem is the matter of how U.S. support for Israel's behavior
towards the Palestinians relates to the events of Sept. 11. It is
commonplace to hear Israel's supporters say that Osama bin Laden
did not care much about Palestinians until recently, and he only
seems to care now because it is an effective recruiting device.
They also maintain that the events on 9/11 had nothing to do with
Israel and those involved in the attack despised the U.S. because
of its political and cultural values, not its Middle East
policies.
This line of argument is frequently purveyed by key figures in the
lobby like Robert Satloff from the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz and Dennis Ross of
the Washington Institute, who said that bin Laden was merely
"trying to gain legitimacy by implying that this attack on America
was about the plight of the Palestinians."
A Cause of 9/11?
These claims are simply not true. It is clear from historical
records that bin Laden has been deeply concerned about the plight
of the Palestinians for a long period of time. That concern was
reflected in his public statements throughout the 1990s, well
before 9/11. Consider what Max Rodenbeck, the Middle East
correspondent for The Economist, wrote in a review of two books
about bin Laden, one of which was a compilation of his speeches:
"Of all [the] themes, the notion of payback for injustices suffered
by the Palestinians is perhaps the most powerfully recurrent in bin
Laden's speeches."
Regarding the actual attack on 9/11, we know from the work of the
bi-partisan 9/11 Commission that U.S. support for Israel was a
major cause of what happened that fateful day. Understandably, it
was not the only cause, but it was a key cause. For example, the
9/11 Commission notes that bin Laden wanted to make sure that the
attackers struck the U.S. Congress building in Washington, D.C.,
because it is the most important source of support for Israel in
the U.S. The Commission also reports that bin Laden wanted to move
up the date of the attacks twice because of events involving Israel
- even though doing so would have increased the risk of
failure.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, consider what the 9/11
Commission Report said regarding the motives of Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed (KSM), who it describes as the principle architect of the
attacks. "By his own account, KSM's animus towards the U.S. stemmed
not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his
violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring
Israel."
It is hard to imagine more compelling evidence of the role that
U.S. support for Israel played in inspiring the 9/11 attacks. In
short, the unique relationship between Israel and the U.S. is
helping to fuel America's terrorism problem, not solve it.
Alternatives without Two States
What about Israel's interests? Has U.S. support for its policies in
the occupied territories been good for the Jewish state, or would
it have been better served if the U.S. had pressured it to stop
building settlements and allow for the creation of a viable
Palestinian state?
It is difficult to see how there can be a meaningful two-state
solution. The root of the problem remains Israel's control of large
portions of the West Bank. It shows little interest in giving that
land to the Palestinians. There is little public or elite support
for the Clinton Parameters of December 2000, which are the only
realistic basis for creating a viable Palestinian state.
Furthermore, there is little reason to think that this situation is
going to change any time soon. The U.S. is not going to apply
pressure on Israel to leave the West Bank, and Israel is likely to
continue building roads and settlements there, while the U.S.
continues to support it unconditionally.
This discussion raises the obvious question: What does Israel's
future look like in the absence of separate Jewish and Palestinian
states living side-by-side? Given present circumstances, there are
three possible alternatives, all of which involve creating a
"Greater Israel" - an Israel that effectively controls both the
West Bank and Gaza.
In the first scenario, Greater Israel could become a democratic
bi-national state in which both Palestinians and Israeli Jews
enjoyed equal political rights. This solution has been suggested by
a handful of Jews and a growing number of Palestinians. However,
the practical obstacles to this option are daunting, and
bi-national states do not have an encouraging track record.
Moreover, this option means abandoning the original Zionist vision
of a Jewish state, since the Palestinians would eventually
outnumber the Jews in Greater Israel. There is little reason to
think that Israel's Jewish citizens would voluntarily accept this
solution, and one can also safely assume that individuals and
groups in the lobby would have virtually no interest in this
outcome.
Second, Israel could expel most of the Palestinians from Greater
Israel, thereby preserving its Jewish character through an overt
act of ethnic cleansing. Although a few Israeli hardliners have
advocated variants on this approach, to do so would be a crime
against humanity, and no genuine friend of Israel could support
such a heinous course of action. It is worth noting that there are
almost 5.2 million Palestinians in the lands that would comprise
Greater Israel, and they would surely put up fierce resistance if
Israel tried to expel them from their homes. This form of ethnic
cleansing would not end the conflict; however; it would merely
reinforce the Palestinians' desire for vengeance and strengthen
those extremists who still reject Israel's right to exist.
Apartheid: The Likely Outcome
The final alternative, which is the most likely, is some form of
apartheid, whereby Israel continues to increase its control over
the occupied territories, but allows the Palestinians to exercise
limited autonomy in a set of disconnected and economically crippled
enclaves. Israelis and their American supporters invariably bristle
at the comparison to white rule in South Africa, but that is the
future Israel faces if it incorporates those territories while
denying full political rights to an Arab population that will soon
outnumber the Jewish population between the Jordan River and the
Mediterranean.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said as much when he proclaimed earlier
this year 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."
Similarly, Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon said that "the
occupation is a threat to the existence of Israel." Other Israelis
- including former Prime Minister and current Defense Minister Ehud
Barak - as well as former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and
Archbishop Desmond Tutu - have warned that continuing the
occupation will turn Israel into an apartheid state.
Of course, the apartheid option is not a viable long-term solution
either, because it is morally repugnant and because the
Palestinians will continue to resist until they get a state of
their own. This situation will force Israel to escalate the
repressive policies that have already cost it significant blood and
treasure, encouraged political corruption and badly tarnished its
global image.
These three possibilities are the only alternatives to a two-state
solution, and no one who wishes Israel well should be enthusiastic
about any of them. Unfortunately, the lobby has made it impossible
for U.S. leaders to use the leverage at their disposal to pressure
Israel to cease building settlements and allow the Palestinians to
have their own state. In short, the lobby has pushed policies
regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that are in neither
country's interest.
Furthermore, the aforementioned policies are certainly not in the
Palestinians' interest. Indeed, Israel's treatment of the
Palestinians in the occupied territories is fundamentally at odds
with widely accepted notions of justice and decency. Imagine if the
roles were reversed and a powerful Palestinian state was taking
land away from Jewish inhabitants and brutalizing them in the
process. There would rightfully be a storm of protest in the U.S.
and across Europe. Tremendous pressure would eventually force that
Palestinian state to cease exploiting Jews and permit them to have
a state of their own. But when Israel colonizes the West Bank and
effectively turns Gaza into a giant prison for Palestinians who
live there, the U.S. government not only does not protest, it backs
Israel unreservedly. Most Americans offer hardly a word of protest
about Israel's actions.
Treating Israel as a Normal Country
It is in the best interest of the U.S. to end its "special
relationship" with Israel and treat it as a normal country. The
U.S. should treat Israel the way it treats other democracies like
Britain, France, Germany, and India. Like all countries, Israel
sometimes pursues misguided policies, and its interests are not
always the same as America's. Thus it makes no sense to back the
Jewish state no matter what it does. Of course, when Israel acts in
ways that are consistent with U.S. interests, Washington should
back it. But when Israel behaves in ways that harm U.S. interests,
Washington should distance itself from Israel and use its
considerable leverage to get it to change its behavior.
Regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the U.S. should act as
an honest broker. In other words, Washington should pursue an
even-handed policy towards the two sides. In particular, the U.S.
should make clear to Israel that it must abandon the occupied
territories and allow for the creation of a viable Palestinian
state on those lands. It should be told that the U.S. will oppose,
not tolerate, Israel's expansion in the West Bank.
Finally, the U.S. should not abandon Israel. On the contrary, the
U.S. should defend Israel's right to exist within its pre-1967
borders with some minor modifications, and if Israel's survival is
threatened, the U.S. should come to its aid.