|
Courtesy of
Council for the
National Interest Foundation
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. |
