Support for Israel in Congress is Based on Fear
James Abourezk, Council for the National Interest, 12 December 2006
I can tell you from personal experience that the support
Israel has in the Congress is based completely on political fear -- fear
of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell
you that very few members of Congress -- at least when I served there --
have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt,
but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I've
heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will
voice their bitter feelings about how they're pushed around by the Lobby
to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics
of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby's animosity
by making their feelings public.
Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further
any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions
to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I believe, are sincere
in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority
does not a U.S. imperial policy make.
Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any
congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which
might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on
grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will
have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists
or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well
organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning.
I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking with me a reporter
friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was writing honestly about
what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and other countries bordering
on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives received threats from several
of their large advertisers that their advertising would be terminated if
they continued publishing the journalist's articles. It's a lesson quickly
learned by those who controlled the paper.
With respect to the positions of several administrations on the
question of Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: One is
pressure from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in the
demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the President
and his advisers to keep their respective political parties from crumbling
under that pressure. I do not recall a single instance where any administration
saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. Imperial interests.
In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel's involvement was detrimental
to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. The U.S. had to suppress
any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their
involvement.
So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for
U.S. operations, I'm not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S.
has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any
kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can't think of an
instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily for fear
of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the
Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to
continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved.
I suppose one could argue that Bush's encouragement of Israel in
the Lebanon war this summer was the result of some imperial urge, but it
was merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the
Lobby's continual pressure. In fact, I heard not one voice of opposition
to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel). Lebanon
always has been a "throw away" country so far as the congress is concerned,
that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no
Lebanon Lobby. The same was true in 1982, when the Congress fell completely
silent over the invasion that year.
I think in the heart of hearts of both members of congress and
of the administrations they would prefer not to have Israel fouling things
up for U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil flowing to the Western world
to prevent an economic depression. But what our policy makers do is to juggle
the Lobby's pressure on them to support Israel with keeping the oil countries
from cutting off oil to the western nations. So far they've been able to
do that. With the exception of King Feisal and his oil embargo, there hasn't
been a Saudi leader able to stand up to U.S. policy.
So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid
to Israel would immediately result in Israel's giving up the West Bank and
leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think,
because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their
misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the
Palestinians. It would work because of the democracy there, unlike sanctions
against a dictatorship where the public could do little about changing their
leaders' minds. One need only look at the objectives of the Israeli Lobby
to determine how to best change their minds. The Lobby's principal objectives
are to keep money flowing from the U.S. treasury to Israel, requiring a docile
congress and a compliant administration. As Willie Sutton once said, "That's
where the money is."
James Abourezk was a U.S. Senator, the first Arab-American to serve in
the Senate, from South Dakota from 1973 to 1979. He is the vice chairman
of the Council for the National Interest. The Council for the National Interest is a non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization advocating a new direction for U.S. Middle East policy.
Related Links
The Council for the National Interest
One-sided collective punishment legislation passed by U.S. House, Council for the National Interest (9 December 2006)
Democrats ignore subjugation of Palestine in targeting Carter's book, Michael F. Brown, The Palestine Center (15 November 2006)
Latest articles on EI:
 | |
|
