United States officials approach their Middle East policies from a
pragmatic and realistic perspective which forcefully promotes the
goal of a stable Middle East. In pursuit of this stability, U.S.
foreign policy has therefore been based upon four cornerstones: the
preservation of a continued flow of large quantities of cheap Gulf
oil; the protection of the State of Israel; the containment of
Communism as introduced by foreign powers (the Soviet Union in past
years); and the curbing of movements potentially threatening
stability, especially Islamic fundamentalism and (historically)
radical leftist ideology.
Such are the premises underlying all U.S. policies in the Middle
East.
Also, it is no secret that U.S. foreign policy and its national
interests are determined by domestic political parameters. To
understand this modus operandi, it is important to note that in the
post-Cold War era, there is a lack of rationalism and of clear-cut
consensus in formulating U.S. foreign policies. These policies are
domestic objective derivatives, based on the democratic nature of
the American political system, which is a pluralistic society with
strong minority influence. In this set-up, pressure groups and
lobbyists are pivotal in affecting the decision-making process,
which in turn becomes selective and responsive to the needs of the
former. Within this context, the American Jewish community plays a
seminal role in defining American national interests; the rationale
behind this is that the American Jewish community is very involved
politically, and most generous in terms of contributions to
political campaigns, be it on the local, state or national
levels.
Furthermore, charitable organizations are most prominent in the
American Jewish community and their voting behavior, with
90-percent participation in elections, is among the highest of all
the minority groups.
The domestic Jewish influence on larger national interest gives
U.S. foreign policy the image of being inextricably connected with
pro-Jewish forces. Let us look at these four.
The Politics of Oil
Almost 40 percent of the world's oil is located in areas under the
rule of Arab states. This figure acquires disproportionate
importance when one considers two other factors: that much of the
remainder of the world's oil resources are inaccessible, and that
the growing world economy is increasingly becoming more dependent
upon foreign oil, rather than searching for viable alternative
energy sources.
The sheikdoms of the Arabian Gulf, where much of the oil is
located, suffer from several severe problems. The existence of two
powerful regimes in the Gulf (Le., Iraq and Iran) poses threats to
the leadership of the sheikdoms which seek out military help from
larger powers and, in this case, from the United States. The
relationship plays itself out with the United States ensuring the
survival of authoritarian regimes, with it receiving cheap oil and
selling them expensive military equipment. Needless to say, many of
these regimes suffer from lack of popularity with their populace.
The general disclaimer put out by these governments is the danger
from Iran or Iraq; however, this usually tends to hide the fact
that some of these regimes have very little legitimacy and are only
the heirs of colonialist monarchical systems.
The Protection of Israel
Ever since the creation of Israel, the United States has supported
it to the generous extent of $140 billion. Such a staggering figure
is disproportionately larger than that received by any other u.s.
ally. Analysis of this unwavering support has often tended to spark
conspiratorial theories of pro-Israeli/Jewish influence in
Washington. Although this influence is considerable and is in no
way to be disregarded (as we shall see later), one must not
overlook the important strategic role Israel plays for the United
States. Due to Israel's strategic location at the doorway to Asia,
strong U.s.-Israeli relations ensure safe passage through the Suez
Canal, including the dozens of oil tankers that pass through it
daily. Such a situation also means that America can ensure the
continuation of the status quo - a status quo which is in its
economic and military interest."
The Containment of Communism
Particularly during the Cold War period, the United States fought
desperately to maintain control over the region. Their dominance
was threatened most especially during the rule in Egypt of Gamal
Abdel Nasser from 1954-1970, who at times would flagrantly turn
away from the West and seek support in arms from the Soviet Union.
With the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, the United States was
able to impose unthreatened hegemony in the region, a privilege
never before seen in world history. Such domination of the
incredible resources of the Gulf in many ways means the United
States can do what it wants. This results in an American arrogance
and a readiness to destroy all possible threats to its hegemony.
Iraq, through its invasion of Kuwait, was the first victim in
1990-1991, and it looks like it will be the next one if America
assesses it as a continued threat. The message seems to be this:
"Woe to the country that attempts to stand in our way." In making
an example of Saddam Hussein, U.S. interests in the region are well
served for a long time to come.
Curbing Islamic Fundamentalism and Radical Leftist
Ideology
The United States was caught off guard and greatly embarrassed by
the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, and the prolonged hostage
crisis that ensued. The U.S. government, after losing such a
powerful and wealthy ally, swore never again to be so unprepared.
The strategy formulated since then (in the case of Islamic
fundamentalism) takes the form of an impressive propagandist
campaign, seeking to portray Islam as the "new communism," the next
great threat to disrupt world order. The mullahs and imams who are
said to preach that doctrine, fit well into a stereotypical image
which Western audiences, largely ignorant of Islam, believe
unquestioningly. Vehement anti¬Western sentiments, combined
with military capacity, support this image. In portraying Islam as
irrationally passionate, the United States seeks to justify its
containment policy of Iran and its support for the virtual
liquidation of Hamas, which exists in opposition to the
U.S.-brokered Arab-Israeli peace process.
United States Middle East Policy and the Peace Process
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has never been the same since the
historic handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin on the
White House Lawn in September 1993. Arafat's calculations in coming
to the table were the following: lacking the financial backing of
the oil states after the disaster of the 1990-1991 Gulf War, Arafat
thought he could rely upon the goodwill of Yitzhak Rabin and the
evenhanded shepherding of the
Clinton Administration to gain a mutual acceptance of the "Land for
peace" concept. This strategy had been circulating around the
region since Israel occupied territories from Egypt, Syria and
Jordan after the Six-Day War of 1967.
Unfortunately, for reasons which are not entirely his own fault,
Arafat's calculations came to nothing, as the current morass
indicates. Because the Oslo Accords in substance agreed to very
little (basically to negotiate real issues of the conflict later
on), the peace process is basically stuck, while Israel is creating
facts through its settlement policy, bypass roads and the
cantonization of the West Bank.
Perhaps most devastating of Arafat's miscalculations was his
assumption that the United States, as co-signer of Oslo, would at
least pretend to be an honest broker. Unfortunately, nothing has
been further from the truth. Even with the abusive Netanyahu (whom,
I might mention, President Clinton does not like), American policy
with respect to Israel has not changed, remaining unwavering in
providing military, financial and moral support. Arafat was able to
accept the Oslo Accords because he knew they were based upon United
Nations resolutions 242 and 338, essentially calling for "Land for
peace." Yet, Israel has ignored this underlying tenet of the Oslo
Accords and Big Brother, the United States, has turned a blind eye
to Israel's failure to implement U.N. resolutions.
Since the signing of Oslo, Israel has expropriated more land for
settlement building than during any other time in history. Over 50
percent of the West Bank and 35 percent of Gaza are now reserved
for settlements, leaving the Palestinian Authority in charge of
a• meager 3 percent. While this massive expropriation
continues to take place, the United States remains silent. Instead,
we now hear Netanyahu talk of the need for Palestinians to lower
their expectations, as though there was never an agreement signed
between the PLO and the Israeli government. Israel, quite simply,
wants both the land and the peace - a situation Palestinians cannot
tolerate or accept. Yet, every time a U.N. resolution condemning
Israel comes up, it is vetoed by the United States, sparing Israel
the international condemnation it deserves. America has used its
veto at the United Nations over 60 different times in the
protection of Israel, more than all other vetoes for other states
combined. Former Israeli foreign minister, David Levy, before he
resigned, called on Palestinians to "refrain from attempts to
transfer the disputes and the negotiations onto the world stage."
The Americans echoed this with their own complaint calling for
"Palestinians to stop running to the U.N."
Yet, the United Nations and the international arena seem the only
place where the Palestinians have any power. Many people in the
West forget, or simply do not know, that Israeli practices in the
occupied territories are illegal, according to international law
and the Fourth Geneva Convention. Furthermore, the United Nations
resolutions call upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied
territories, stop its settlement policy and permit the return of
the Palestinian refugees who were the victims of the Zionist
conquest in 1948, and many of whom still live in refugee camps with
no certain future, nor any government to protect their
rights.
The Peace Process, the Palestinians and the Future
Idealists hope that the remains of Oslo might be salvaged if a
certain accountability were enforced upon the parties. But that is
exactly what the process lacks. In contrast to its original aims of
building trust which will develop a momentum for peace, the peace
process has destroyed Palestinian hopes. Today, the situation in
the West Bank and Gaza is worse in all aspects of life than it was
when Oslo was signed. Palestinian annual income is less than half
its figure for 1993, a consequence of the severe closure and
collective punishment imposed by Israel. On top of destroying the
already weak Palestinian economy, the closure has had other
disastrous effects. Palestinians are not free to move in areas both
inside Israel and throughout the West Bank (creating new
Bantustans), limiting economic opportunities and access to family
members, etc. People are not allowed to go to hospitals or get the
medical treatment they need. East Jerusalem suffers economically,
as well as culturally, as it is gradually cut off from the West
Bank and annexed to Israel. If it were not for the European Union
funding the economic "resuscitation" of Palestinian areas, the
Palestinian economy would quite simply collapse.
Is there then any hope that things will change, that the United
States will put its foot down and demand Israel to stop its
settlement policy, abide by the Oslo Accords and not in any way
prejudice or prejudge the final-status negotiations? However moving
this demand (from Palestinians as well as moderate Israelis), the
cry has gone unheeded. The major and final indication that things
would not change was Netanyahu's and Arafat's visit to Washington
early in 1998. President Clinton's talks with them predictably
brought no breakthrough to the stalled peace process, which means,
in effect, that it was a complete failure from the point of view of
Palestinian interests. In contrast for Israelis, no progress on the
peace front simply means Israel continues to enjoy the advantages
the stalemate has brought: cantonization of the large centers of
restless Palestinians, combined with unimpeded financial assistance
from the U.S. Palestinians simply cannot comprehend the unlimited
depths of U.S. support for Israel, even under the leadership of an
irresponsible prime minister like Netanyahu. The latter even
thwarted Clinton with a quick trip to see the Clinton-basher, Jerry
Falwell, just before his limousine showed up at the White House. In
all senses, Israel under such leadership should be considered
nothing less than a liability to American interest. Yet, the
American administration remains meek when confronted by the savvy
Netanyahu and, like a player in a dreadful charade, it ignores the
absurdity of the real situation of the Palestinians.
The continuation of this performance is largely contingent upon two
issues which I have already mentioned: U.S. strategic interests
with respect to oil, and access to the East. Here, I wish to dwell
briefly on the influence of pro-Israeli lobbies in the U.S. House
and Senate, not to mention Clinton's inner cabinet. Although it is
easy to over-exaggerate such claims with conspiratorial theories of
Zionism, a close study reveals the immense power such lobbies are
able to exert upon politicians. AIPAC (American Israeli Public
Affairs Committee) is the largest and strongest foreign lobby in
Washington with an annual budget of over $20 million. Its strength
brought the Federal Elections Committee in 1988 to investigate,
then later to punish it as a political committee that violated
election laws on donations. Its power is purportedly so widespread
that an AIPAC president was once forced to resign when he openly
boasted that any congressman or senator would lose his seat in the
next elections if he attempted to oppose AIPAC's policies.
The picture gets more pessimistic when we take a look at Jewish
irLfluence inside Clinton's inner cabinet. Before becoming
Secretary of Defense, William Cohen was for 18 years senator from
Maine. During his tenure, he accepted $162,462 in campaign
contributions from pro-Israeli political action committees. The
State Department Head of Near Eastern Affairs, Martin Indyk, who
was U.S. ambassador to Israel, was a former high-level AIPAC
official. Madeleine Albright was asked in October 1997 whether
Israeli settlements were legal, to which she bluntly replied "yes."
Later on that evening, the State Department attempted to sanitize
her comment by saying that settlements were "legal in Israel, but
against international law." Clearly, a pro-Israeli leniency
characterizes many high-powered American officials, including
National Security Council Director Sandy Berger, and Vice-President
Al Gore.
Conclusion
This characteristic pro-Israeli tendency, along with the continued
geographic and military role of Israel in promoting U.S. interests,
provides a recipe for one of the strongest international relations
seen throughout history. It is hard to know how long this can
continue. The United States adopts a double standard with Israel on
human rights, on United Nations resolutions, on the existence of
weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, such abuses increase
international resentment, especially anti-American sentiments in
the Middle East. Although the United States is accountable on a
moral level, questions of morality and integrity remain a footnote
to history unless accompanied by the mobilization of political
power which could compete with American might.
This said, U.S. policy might also backfire. As happened in the case
of the Shah of Iran, it seems to be only a matter of time before
some form of movement (secular or religious) mobilizes enough power
to overthrow the monarchies in the Gulf.
With respect to the peace process, while the United States supports
Arafat as representative of the moderate strain of PLO politics, it
continues to back Israel in every possible fashion. The risk is
that Arafat will start to lose credibility with his people, what
with the worsening conditions for Palestinians and Israel's
complete denial of their right to self-determination. Indeed, many
Palestinians perceive Oslo as becoming the tool through which
Israel sought to grab more land, and rermanently eliminate the
possibility of an independent Palestinian state. With no single
party commanding a degree of credibility among Palestinians, the
door is left wide open for alternative movements and popular
vigilantism to take their turn at changing the status quo.