My question related specifically to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza that began in 1967 and which seemingly made an Israeli-Palestinian agreement impossible. It also was, as it is now, the primary source of Arab and Muslim anger against the United States.
The reason for my question was my fear that the power of the lobby was such that a president could not prevail against it.
Even matters that did not directly affect Israel like U.S. arms sales to allies like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, would meet massive resistance from Israel, the lobby and its huge chorus of supporters in Congress.
How, I asked Dine, could the United States get ever get Israel to actually yield occupied territory if it became clear that the Arabs were ready for peace, as in fact became the case after the 1993 Oslo agreement between Israel and the PLO?
Dine responded that although he hoped the day would come when Israeli leaders (and hence the lobby) would be ready for “compromise,” he did not think a president could make Israel do anything it didn’t want to do given the power of the organization he led and “our friends in Congress.”
But then he added a caveat: “Of course, if a president pushed hard enough, and told the American people that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was damaging U.S. interests and that he had a plan to end it, he would prevail.”
He elaborated: “By that I mean AIPAC would have no choice but to support him. We can never defeat a president who reaches over the heads of AIPAC and Congress and invokes his prerogatives as president of the United States or, even more, the national interest.
The logic behind Dine’s thinking was simply that American Jews would never allow themselves to be perceived as putting Israel’s interests over America’s because (1) that would be bad for Jews and (2) American Jews are Americans before they are anything else.
It is fine to strongly support the Israeli government even when it is at odds with the U.S. government – but only up to a point. The point is when that support clearly contradicts U.S. interests, as defined by the president.
That is why the lobby was so outraged when Reagan administration officials suggested the lobby’s opposition to an arms sale to Saudi Arabia represented the wrong answer to the question of “Reagan or Begin?” That little phrase – “Reagan or Begin” – won the battle for the administration.
That is why any criticism of the lobby that even hints at the lobby’s putting Israel’s interests above America’s produces such fury, hence the recent hysteria over the use of the term “Israel Firster.”
American Jews will not tolerate the suggestion that they are anything but good Americans. Fighting a president over a national security issue is simply not sustainable.
Although a president’s choice for Secretary of Defense is not in really a national security issue, it does get to the question of an American president and his security prerogatives. After all, the Department of Defense personifies U.S. national security. Once President Obama made clear that he would nominate Hagel, the game was over.
Of course, the lobby claims that it actually did not fight to prevent the naming of Hagel. That is just silly. As someone who worked at AIPAC, in Congress and the State Department for 20 years, I know more than most that, when it comes to the Israel issue, nothing happens without the lobby’s involvement.
AIPAC is, like most professional lobbies, highly protective of its role. Its associates and friends, widely quoted in the media as demanding that Hagel not be appointed, would never have been so aggressive without AIPAC’s go-ahead. That is how it works. It always has.
Frankly, I am surprised that the president went ahead over the lobby’s opposition. I am well-known for my belief that it could not be beaten, although I have always offered the caveat that it would be if a president fought back hard.
Obama did, and Chuck Hagel will almost surely be the next Secretary of Defense.
That is good news but far less significant than the implications for peace. As Dine told me all those years ago, if a president pushes for a peace agreement that advances U.S. interests while not harming Israel’s, he will prevail.
That means that he can insist on an end to the occupation and the creation of a viable Palestinian state in the lands Israel has occupied since 1967. As long as Israel’s security is not put at risk (and no president would put it at risk), the president will prevail. This is especially the case because an end to the occupation (with security guarantees for Israel and the new state) would advance Israel’s security not damage it.
The lobby will not be able to block a president determined to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on terms fair to both sides. It is like the father of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl, said: “If you will it, it is no dream.”
It is, as Obama demonstrated with Hagel, just a matter of will.
Anti-Semitism Revised:
We need a new working conceptualization of the use of the term ‘Anti-Semitism’, when used as a deliberate smear tactic by those hiding behind this tactic. The tactics used by William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Abe Foxman of the ADL, Bret Stephens and Danielle Pletka of AEI regarding Hagel all come to mind…
Just to get things rolling I suggest a 6 month moratorium on listening to anyone about any charge of ‘Anti-Semitism’ whatsoever.
Israelis and neocons regularly pretend they have (ridiculously convenient) issues with ‘Anti-Semitism’, portraying themselves as apparently confused that ‘Anti-Apartheid-ism’ or ‘Anti-Likud-ism’, or ‘Anti-Netanyahu-ism’ or ‘Anti-Neocon-ism’ is somehow a ‘globalized Anti-Semitism’
There is a simple solution to this problem…let’s take Israeli Apartheid as an example;
If Israelis and neocons define ‘Anti-Semitism’ as ‘Anti-Apartheid-ism’, then, using their definition – there needs to be much MORE of this ‘Anti-Semitism’ than less of it. There simply needs to be enough ‘disliking of Israeli apartheid’ and ‘dislike of Israelis practicing Apartheid’ sufficient to actually effectively stop it cold, to destroy it, by BDS or other means
I suggest a 6 month moratorium without anybody paying any attention to what any Israeli or Jew says regarding Anti-Semitism – or attempts by these groups to try to protect their Apartheid using such a transparent and silly manipulative trick like this (which Israeli politicians themselves are on record as saying they dredge up just about anytime they want to get their way). After this 6 month period everybody can pay as much attention to what Israelis or neocons say about ‘Anti-Semites’ as perhaps what blacks say about ‘racists’ or Palestinians say about ‘those people who are ethnic cleansing us’
Israelis and neocons don’t get to define ‘Stopping Apartheid’ as ‘Anti-Semitism – or else anyone stopping it has to put up with their convenient howls of ‘Anti-Semitism, whilst they laugh at such a ridiculous charade they are able to play on their opponents.
If stopping Israeli Apartheid involves ‘Stopping Jews conducting Ethnic Cleansing’ or ‘Disliking Jews conducting Apartheid’– then let’s have more of it rather than less of it.
If Israelis or other Jews define that as ‘Anti-Semitic’ – then again – the answer is ‘lets have more of it’, and without a care in the world.
PS: And won’t it be terrific not to have to read anything by or listen to the Tourettes-like imprecations and libels of Kristol, Abrams, Foxman, Stephens and Pletka for the next 6 months and have that suffice as the apology they will never give?
‘What is at stake for the Neocons with the Hagel nomination is far more than just Israel and Iran – Hagel is the anvil upon which the Neocons themselves will be crushed.
The changes in the US foreign policy SANS the Neocons and the Israeli Lobby will be revolutionary in magnitude.
It is the entire Neocon edifice itself that is at risk now – after lying the US into Iraq (which they cannot admit was a failure) and now still agitating for war in Syria and Iran now. And it was decades of Israeli Lobby policies themselves that led to the blowback of 911 which they then parlayed into dovetailing with the Clean Break Plan for Israel.
Hyperbole? – Without the Neocons and the Israeli Lobby last decade there would have been no Iraq war – without the Neocons this decade there will be no war on Iran. Simple. Huge.
There will simply be systemic changes without America following Israel’s ‘Clean Break Plan’ orders which America salutes to with 99-0 AIPAC-bought Senate votes
A 2nd American Revolution twill have effectively taken place by overthrowing the neocons and Israeli Lobby-coup over American foreign policy and political campaigns
There is a direct connection between the Israeli Lobby’s power in the US and Israeli control and power with Israeli Apartheid.
Getting rid of one dramatically effects the other
Hagel ‘ON’ = Iran ‘OFF’ = Israeli Apartheid ‘OFF’=Israeli Lobby ‘OFF’
One of the first steps is to force AIPAC to register as an agent of a foreign government – .
Its been a bad 21st century for Israel.
Mid 2000 Israel skedaddled from southern Lebanon after some 18 years of occupation and getting its ass handed to them by Hezbollah, an Islamic entity that owes it existence, stature and power solely to Israeli aggression. The same can be said for HAMAS.
The 9-11 attack and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 are proving greater strategic disasters for Israel than the US. Failing to conquer oil producing regions, the US is steadily enhancing and deepening its relations with the regions Arabs & Muslims to the the inevitable disadvantage of Israel. Obama’s nominating of Kerry, Hagel and Brennan is in effect tying the diplomatic, military and intelligence apparatus of the national security state in lockstep to his anti war, global stability and multi internationalist policies and agenda. Once his appointees are confirmed, and Hagel will be confirmed, some form of accommodation with or containment of Iran will likely be accomplished with this President. America’s allies and enemies should know that America is seriously adverse to the business of making and/or keeping permanent enemies.
Today the alliance between Likudniks, neocons and the lobby is deeply resented in Congress, even by the loudest supporters of Israel. Most political support for Israel is bought by money, not love, and many pols covertly itch for another option. Constituencies, lobbies or interests based solely on money absent voters do not last. True 5th rail politics in America is based on raw voting power like the military/industrial/complex (millions of jobs), social security recipients (56 millions) or gun owners (70 to 80 millions). Obama is playing with deadly fire if he pushes the latter too far.
In 2006 Hezbollah handed Israel’s ass back to them again in spades when they invaded and got stopped stone cold, no more than a klick of two within the border regions of southern Lebanon.
In 2008 Israel invaded Gaza to stop the rockets, which it utterly failed to accomplish as proved in the post invasion period. Worse, in spite of turning Gaza into a vast open air prison under constant surveillance and bombing, Israeli ground commanders were stunned by the tactical competence and proficiency attained by HAMAS fighters in combat actions. In 2012 Israel affirmed Marx’s dictum of history repeating itself “first as tragedy, then as farce.” The Israelis massed on the Gaza border threatening to invade due to rockets again, but in the final analysis’ bugged out’ for diplomacy instead of military action.
There’s been tons of works published on tactics and strategies of war in the 1st decade of the 21st century, but none of it surpasses or trumps a dictum in Napoleons Art of War: “You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war.” A simple minded, logical fact of war that Sun Tzu and the Spartan’s warned. A warning the Israelis have munificently violated to the benefit of their enemies in ‘lessons learned’ and capabilities enhanced. The era of Chevauchée’s, grand promenades of armored IDF flying columns raiding deep and at will into enemy territory are over. Israeli invincibility a busted myth.
But I believe the worst FUBAR has been the deliberate humiliation of a sitting President and the none too stealthy interference in US electoral politics. I believe Obama has been massively underestimated & mischaracterized by domestic and foreign critics. Over estimating someone usually leads to nothing worse than embarrassment, contempt or disillusionment. Going the other way can be deadly. It can get you killed.
What are you basing this all on?
Take Lebanon and Hezbollah’s “victory”. At the end of the victory the defender of the Lebanese people was widely seen as having deliberately started a shooting hot war that did tremendous material damage to Lebanon and retaliated in ways that killed few Israelis and did token damage. Hezbollah’s popularity is in the toilet, a major setback from where they were. In what possible sense is that a loss for Israel?
Israeli US relations have almost never been stronger. There is little more than token US objections to settlement expansion now, a huge shift in US policy where the US no longer even pretends to recognize the green line. There is no debate at all in the US about restricting arms sales or degrading the relationship.
Gaza is devastated. They’ve been pulling 160mcm from a well which can handle 55mcm. The water is already pretty dangerous to drink and by 2020 Gaza’s main water supply will be gone. They estimate their needs will be closer to 260mcm. Its harder to think of anything more damaging a government can do to a society than destroying the main water supply. Hamas is pretty close to a situation where they can’t even be afford a short term fight with Israel without losing large chunks of their population.
Israeli invincibility looks stronger than it did last generation when it was untouchable by enemies by a mile.
MJ, let me give you the 411 from Fly-By Country. Nobody gives a damn about your some Jews believe this but the majority believe that argument. Jews are now despised where I live. They are considered ungrateful traitors who would destroy Americans and America if given the chance, a chance they are looking for. That is how Jews in the last two years are now perceived. Sorry to break the news to you this way, but your lack of realizing that you were once Americans and failure to jump on it immediately has harmed your community.
MJ that is just nonsense. Attitudes towards anti-Semitism are regularly polled and they have been stable for 20 years at about 12% of the population. Those numbers are very low by US standards. On the charge of dual loyalty specifically about 30% have had that attitude towards Jews and about 30% have had that attitude towards Jews since the 1960s. And that group is 84% of those people who hold mostly negative views of Jews accept that position while only 7% of people who hold few if any other negative views hold that position.
So dual loyalty seems to be something people believe in after they believe that Jews are dishonest in business life, secretly control the government, are personally irritating…. There is no evidence for any surge nor is their any evidence that Israel is creating a problem.
The #1 area of frustration is not even related to Israel but Jewish economic power.
____
In terms of Israel, Middle America is either indifferent to or likes Israel.
That is good news but far less significant than the implications for peace. As Dine told me all those years ago, if a president pushes for a peace agreement that advances U.S. interests while not harming Israel’s, he will prevail.
I wanted to hit this issue separately from the domestic issue. Israel is not a US state it is a separate country. It can and it has many many times in its past told US presidents to go pound sand on issues they want.
Eisenhower demanded the raids that Ariel Sharon was running into Arab territories were stopped and imposed sanctions. They didn’t stop and Israel upgraded their relationship with France to get weapons.
Lyndon Johnson demanded Israel not attack first in 1967. They didn’t agree and attacked first.
Ford demanded that Israel agree to Sadat’s lines in the Sinai. They screamed and threatened. Ford went public. Israel did what they wanted.
etc…
Israel is not America’s to command.
I don’t agree that the issue is Jews it is Christian Zionism and Neo-Conservativism. Jews are just a part of the equation. And I think we’ve already saw a good example of that with George Bush. If you remember early after 9/11, April 2002 George Bush delivered his roadmap for peace to try and put the Palestinian issue to bed. The US Senate invited Netanyahu to address them to say what a terrible idea the roadmap was as currently constructed. Note that was a Republican Senate vs. a Republican President. As a result, Bush folded.
A president ultimately cannot act against the stated wished of the US congress he gets undermined. Congress is not supportive of a 242 style peace plan.
Could it be that the time has passed for a solution to the conflict based on the 1967 lines, and that the Arab Spring ensures that the 1948 partition will now be put back into question?
“How, I asked Dine, could the United States get ever get Israel to actually yield occupied territory if it became clear that the Arabs were ready for peace, as in fact became the case after the 1993 Oslo agreement between Israel and the PLO?”
I don’t know about “the Arabs” but in 1988 the PLO was bending way over backwards to make the UNSC-242 type peace that is based on the 1967 lines, and Egypt had already made peace. There could have been Israel-Palestine peace in 1988 (and, recall, in 1980 UNSC-465 had demanded that Israel remove all settlers and dismantle all settlements — so, formally, the USA was not asking PLO to allow ANY settlements to remain in 1988).
So it’s Hagel or Bagel? Or how about Barack or Barak?
re: “As long as Israel’s security is not put at risk (and no president would put it at risk) …” Circular logic.
How do you explain Netanyahu’s bellowing, “return to 1967 borders is indefensible.” That is to say, there is NOTHING that Israelis will not say does not put Israel’s security at risk.
Lather
Rinse
Repeat