Israel's Major US Lobby went after the Democratic Party and it didn't Go
Well
MIDDLE EAST MONITOR
02/13/2020
By Nasim Ahmed | @Nasimbythedocks | -
( Middle East Monitor ) - The latest clash in the American civil war over
Israel, which pits liberal progressives against right-wing reactionary
nationalists, ended with an apology at the weekend by the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee. Better known as AIPAC, the anti-Palestinian group
issued a full apology for posting an advertisement accusing the Democratic
Party of anti-Semitism. It has finally realised that its vilification of US
lawmakers critical of the Zionist state is actually self-harming.
"Radicals in the Democratic Party are pushing their anti-Semitic and
anti-Israel policies down the throats of the American people," the lobby
group had said on Facebook. "America should never abandon its only
democratic ally in the Middle East." It urged its supporters to sign a
letter of protest and not "abandon Israel".
AIPAC's fury was provoked by the insistence of senior Democrats that the
annual $3.8 billion aid given by the US to the Zionist state should be
conditional upon a change in Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.
Would-be presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is one target of AIPAC's ire.
The Vermont senator, who is Jewish, has been the most powerful proponent of
leveraging US aid to get the Israelis to respect international law.
Sanders is not alone amongst Democrats in expressing growing frustration
over Israel's annexation policy. Elizabeth Warren, another leading
presidential contender, has also backed this idea in reply to a question
about withholding aid to Israel if it continues building settlements in the
occupied West Bank and moves further away from a two-state solution: "All
options are on the table," she insisted. Likewise, Pete Buttigieg, another
would-be candidate, echoed his colleagues' views when asked about
withholding US aid to Israel.
There seems to be a new mood in the US concerning Israel. Not since 1991
when George H W Bush refused to give Israel $10 billion in loan guarantees
that it requested to resettle Soviet immigrants, until the Israelis froze
settlement growth in the West Bank, have US politicians been as outspoken
about penalising the Zionist state for its unlawful behaviour. On the rare
occasions that this has occurred, such as when Senator Rand Paul
(Republican, Kentucky) attempted to block bipartisan security aid to Israel
in 2018, members of Congress were not subjected to the kind of excoriation
that was witnessed over the weekend.
It would seem that Americans have forgotten the time when the least they
expected from their politicians and Presidents was global leadership in
punishing rogue behaviour of the kind that has been a consistent feature in
Israel. Furthermore, to be able to do this without being accused of
"anti-Semitism". Would AIPAC have considered President Dwight D Eisenhower
an anti-Semite for threatening to withhold US aid in 1956 unless Israeli
troops withdrew from Egypt within a 36-hour deadline? Or President Gerald
Ford, who did something similar by halting new arms sales to Israel which
had the effect of forcing a partial Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai in
1975?
Likewise, one suspects Americans would have been outraged if President Jimmy
Carter, who forced Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 1977 with a threat to
cancel future arms sales, had been labelled an anti-Semite by a lobby group
like AIPAC. Carter, who would go on to describe Israel as an "apartheid"
state, also threatened to withhold aid during the Camp David talks that led
to Israel leaving the Sinai completely. Some degree of impartiality was
maintained even under President Ronald Reagan, who in 1982 banned new sales
of cluster bombs to Israel for six years after it was determined that that
it was using them in Lebanon in violation of America's Mutual Defence
Assistance Agreement with the Zionist state.
In the three decades since George Bush Senior refused to give Israel the
loan guarantees, no serious threat has been issued by any US President
despite Israel's acceleration of its colonial-expansionist policies.
Instead, the Zionist state has acquired a unique status in Washington. It is
viewed with the kind of awe one normally associates with religious
fundamentalists, whose notion of the sacred is filled with a zeal that
defies common sense.
AIPAC has apparently realised the self-harm that its advertisement has
caused. The pro-Israel lobby group has been the most effective force in
making and maintaining Israel's bipartisan status immune to political
changes on Capitol Hill. However, Israel's policies and the death of the
two-state solution, to which liberal supporters of Israel clung desperately
in the hope that the Zionist project could be redeemed, have made this an
impossible task.
A growing number of progressive Democrat representatives no longer want to
remain silent over the cost of America's abiding loyalty to Israel. Their
outspoken views, which in all likelihood would have been quite normal under
previous administrations during the Cold War, reflect a growing chasm in US
politics as far as Israel is concerned.
The image of the Zionist state as a liberal democracy, crafted painstakingly
over many years, has taken a battering. In the decades in which Israel has
enjoyed reverential status in Washington, it has managed to empty the
Palestinian cause of any moral and legal considerations, and divorced it
from normal laws governing the behaviour of democratic states. At the same
time, it has asserted for itself an ethno-religious identity at odds with
secular liberal and democratic values while overseeing the longest military
occupation in modern history which denies millions of people their basic
rights. It is no wonder that liberal Democrats in the US are turning their
backs on Israel.
A typical pro-Israel American now belongs to the Republican Party, or the
far right, often now one and the same. Paradoxically - given that it was
far-right ideology which was behind the Holocaust - Israel might be losing
the support of progressive liberals, but it is gaining support on the right
and far right, not only in the US, but also around the world in places like
Hungary and Brazil, for example. According to a 2018 survey carried out by
the Pew Research Centre, nearly eight in ten US Republicans (79 per cent)
sympathise more with Israel than they do with the Palestinians. This was a
29 per cent increase from 2001. On the other hand, sympathy for Israel
amongst the Democrats has declined to just 27 per cent.
These changes in social attitudes are now reflected in Congress through the
election of representatives like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. This has made
AIPAC's task of preserving Israel's status as a bipartisan issue more
daunting than ever before.
AIPAC's "unequivocal apology to the overwhelming majority of Democrats" whom
it admitted were "rightfully offended" by being labelled anti-Semites,
demonstrates that the pro-Israel lobby is fighting a losing battle.
Americans now "know too much" about Israel and its occupation to stay firmly
on the fence. With attitudes towards the Zionist state hardening on both
sides, Israel is unlikely to remain a bipartisan issue much longer. Instead,
it will come to represent the dividing line between liberal democracy and
ethno-religious fundamentalism, something with which no self-respecting
Democrat would ever wish to be associated.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not
necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
Via Middle East Monitor
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
