[[link removed]]

THE BREAK-UP?  
[[link removed]]


 

John Feffer
April 10, 2024
Foreign Policy in Focus [[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Are the United States and Israel heading toward a divorce? _

Vice President Joe Biden visit to Israel March 2016, U.S. Embassy Tel
Aviv

 

Critics of Israel once occupied the fringes of the debate in the
United States. Then, in 2007, J Street was founded as a loyal
opposition to the kind of Israeli politics that received uncritical
support from the U.S. mainstream. By organizing “pro-Israel,
pro-peace, pro-democracy Americans” in favor of a more enlightened
U.S.-Israel relationship, J Street has opposed policies of the Israeli
government without challenging the foundational principles of that
country.

A more radical view, however, has been taking shape, thanks largely to
the extremism of the Netanyahu government in Israel and the
intransigence of a succession of U.S. governments. In 2020,
influential Jewish intellectual Peter Beinart published a piece
[[link removed]] in _The
New York Times_ that effectively renounced the notion of a Jewish
state in favor of a “one-state solution” in which Jews and
Palestinians live together with equal rights in a single state.

Given a choice between liberalism and Zionism, many Americans are
giving up on the latter. What started as a trickle has now become a
noticeable stream, as Beinart writes in an article last month
[[link removed]] in
the _Times_. The polling supports his analysis. Last year,
Gallup revealed
[[link removed]] that
sympathy among Democrats now favored Palestinians (49 percent) over
Israelis (38 percent), a reversal never seen before in the polling.
The gap within the Democratic Party is sharply generational. Among
Democrats under the age of 35, 74 percent side with Palestinians
[[link removed]] compared
to only 25 percent of those 65 and over.

Here’s an even more startling Ipsos poll
[[link removed]],
from last year. When asked about a situation in which the West Bank
and Gaza remained under Israeli control, a majority of Republicans (64
percent) and Democrats (80 percent) said that they would favor Israeli
democracy over its Jewishness. Without really knowing much about
Zionism—most respondents in the poll either didn’t know about or
were unfamiliar with the ideology—a majority of Americans have
already gone down Beinart’s path.

U.S. politics hasn’t quite caught up with U.S. public opinion. In
March, Senator Majority Leader Charles Schumer delivered a 44-minute
speech
[[link removed]] on
the floor of the Senate that called on Israelis to hold an election
and essentially get rid of Netanyahu and his ruling coalition. Even
though Schumer expressed his love for Israel and denounced Hamas, he
still came in for considerable criticism from Republicans
[[link removed]] as
well as from those who were aghast
[[link removed]] that
he didn’t call for an immediate ceasefire in the conflict.

Like Schumer, the Biden administration has been shifting its position
on Israel, but not enough to satisfy younger voters on the left.
Together with Arab-Americans, these voters have made their voices
heard in the primaries in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Hawaii
where the “uncommitted” slate has picked up 25 delegates
[[link removed]] so
far. It may not be enough to tip the election—voters who are
uncommitted in the primary are still likely to vote for the Democrats
in the face of a potential Trump second term—but it still worries
the Biden camp, which is behind in most head-to-head election polls.

The Biden administration has altered its policies toward Israel over
the last months, though it might not seem like much of a change given
that those policies haven’t ultimately made an impact on the course
of the war in Gaza. However, combined with evolving public opinion,
these incremental changes may well mark the beginning of a major
course correction in U.S. foreign policy. After decades of military
assistance and policy coordination, the United States is facing up to
its irreconcilable differences with Israel, which could prompt one or
both parties to file for divorce.

THE BIDEN SHIFT

The deaths of over 30,000 Palestinians during Israel’s prolonged
assault on Gaza—which was launched after the Hamas attacks of
October 7—has certainly concerned the Biden administration. The
president and his emissaries have tried to persuade
[[link removed]] Benjamin
Netanyahu to be more “targeted” in his onslaught so that Israeli
forces don’t kill quite so many non-combatants. Around 70 percent
[[link removed]] of
Palestinians casualties so far have been women and children.

The Biden administration has also tried to persuade the Israelis not
to launch a ground attack against Hamas in the southern city of Rafah,
where so many Palestinians have sought refuge. And it has been pushing
for a temporary ceasefire that could provide an opportunity for Israel
to retrieve some of the hostages that Hamas and its allies still hold
and for Gazans to get more humanitarian assistance to stave off
serious food and medical crises.

The Israeli authorities have shrugged off U.S. criticisms and
suggestions, often angrily, which has basically been the Israeli
approach all along.

The most recent Israeli strike on a World Central Kitchen convoy of
three vehicles, which killed seven aid workers, has prompted even more
soul-searching within the Biden administration. The humanitarian
organization provided the Israeli authorities with full information
about its intentions and its route. Still, Israeli armed forces struck
all three vehicles with pinpoint accuracy, even though the lead
vehicle and the one at the back were separated
[[link removed]] by
nearly a mile and a half. Nor were these isolated deaths. At least 196
aid workers have been killed in Gaza and the West Bank since October
2023.

Netanyahu apologized
[[link removed]] for
the “tragic incident.” But it’s hard not to conclude that
“more precise targeting” is not the issue in the Gaza war, given
how precisely that convoy had been targeted. The issue is that Israel
kills indiscriminately and with impunity. The issue is that the
Netanyahu government is engaging in the ethnic cleansing of
Palestinians in Gaza and, with the assistance of armed settlers, in
the West Bank as well. The Israeli government seems determined to
remove the material basis for a Palestinian state.

In the face of this policy, the Biden administration’s response is
obviously inadequate. In addition to the failed effort to minimize
civilian casualties, Washington has pushed for more humanitarian
assistance to Palestinians in Gaza. Here it has had more success in
changing Israeli policy—though the policy hasn’t been implemented
at all crossings and, as Oxfam points out
[[link removed]],
“It is a drop of water in an ocean of need.”

The administration has not stopped supplying Israel with military
assistance or attached any conditions on that aid, despite some
congressional pressure. More than 30 House Democrats, including Nancy
Pelosi, recently sent a letter
[[link removed]] strongly
urging Biden “to reconsider your recent decision to authorize the
transfer of a new arms package to Israel, and to withhold this and any
future offensive arms transfers until a full investigation into the
airstrike is completed.” The distressing part is that it took the
killing of international aid workers, not the tens of thousands of
Palestinian civilians, to prompt such a letter.

As for the administration’s attempt to forestall an Israeli attack
on Rafah, the Netanyahu government has announced on many occasions
that it fully intends
[[link removed]] to
“finish the job.” In this context, providing humanitarian
assistance so that people don’t starve to death before they are
killed in a military operation is a morally dubious position.

So, at what point will the Biden administration—or any U.S.
administration—decide that its relationship with Israel is a net
negative?

BEST FRIENDS?

The boosters of the alliance between Israel and the United States like
to note that Israel is a democracy, one of the most prosperous
countries on the planet, and “the largest American aircraft carrier
in the world that cannot be sunk,” as former Secretary of State
Alexander Haig once put it
[[link removed]].
President Obama was
[[link removed]] even
blunter, “The United States has no better friend in the world than
Israel.”

All of these statements are at best half-truths.

After various autocratic moves by the Netanyahu
administration—the judicial “overhaul”
[[link removed]] designed
to weaken the Supreme Court, the various corruption cases
[[link removed]]—Israel’s
democratic credentials have become significantly tarnished. Meanwhile,
the Palestinians who make up 20 percent of the population don’t
enjoy the full citizenship rights
[[link removed]] of
Israeli Jews. The same can be said about the country’s prosperity:
half of Arab families in Israel qualify as poor compared to one in
five Israeli Jewish families.

Nor is Israel America’s aircraft carrier. There is only one
clandestine U.S. military base in Israel—a radar surveillance site
[[link removed]] with
an unknown number of U.S. soldiers. Most U.S. soldiers based in the
Middle East are in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar (with other U.S. forces
located in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria). On
top of that, Israel frequently engages in military conflicts that run
counter to U.S. interests.

As for friendship, the relationship has rarely been all that close. In
1956, the Eisenhower administration was furious at Israel’s
occupation of the Sinai peninsula and threatened
[[link removed]] to
withhold aid if it didn’t withdraw. Ultimately, Israel did (though
it reoccupied the peninsula a decade later). In 1967, Israel attacked
a U.S. spy ship in international waters, killing 34 seamen. In 1981,
Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq, which was awkward for the
Reagan administration since it was then allied with Saddam Hussein
against the Iranians. And Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank
has jeopardized relations with several U.S. administrations, beginning
with George H. W. Bush.

THE BALANCE SHEET

So, what does Israel provide the United States?

There’s an economic relationship, with Israel investing about $24
billion
[[link removed]] in
the United States. That might sound like a lot, but it doesn’t make
it into the top 20 (Singapore invests $36 billion
[[link removed]],
the UK $663 billion). Meanwhile, since 1946, Israel has absorbed $158
billion [[link removed]] in unrestricted
aid from the United States, more than any other country.

On the military side, the United States has benefitted (probably) from
the sharing of intelligence. On the other hand, Israel kept its own
nuclear program a secret from its American friends, so it certainly
can’t be accused of over-sharing. Meanwhile, Israel has launched
attacks in the region—Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Syria—that have
complicated (to put it mildly) U.S. objectives in the region. However,
an argument can be made that Israel sometimes serves as a useful
attack dog, taking more aggressive actions than the United States
feels that it can make.

Israel used to be a xxxxxx against Soviet communism. But the Soviet
Union is no more, and Israel did not join
[[link removed]] the
sanctions regime against Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.

Israel was a more-or-less reliable ally for the United States in its
various interventions in the Middle East. But that hasn’t always
been the case. Israel’s anti-Iranian positions got in the way
[[link removed]] of
forging a nuclear agreement with Iran. Israel’s invasion of Gaza has
drawn the United States back into a military conflict with the Houthis
in Yemen. And Israeli strikes in Lebanon and Syria threaten to turn
the Gaza conflict into a region-wide war, which would be a nightmare
for the United States (among other countries).

Then there’s the reputational issue. The United States has used its
veto 45 times
[[link removed]] at
the UN through December 2023 to defend Israel—which is more than
half of the U.S. vetoes at the Security Council. Most of these vetoes
were about Israeli settlement policy or treatment of Palestinians. In
February, the United States was the only country
[[link removed]] in
the Security Council to vote against the Gaza ceasefire proposal. The
next month, however, the United States abstained
[[link removed]] from
the vote, allowing the UN resolution to move forward, though it
didn’t have any effect on Israeli policy.

The United States did a credible job rallying the world against the
Russian invasion of Ukraine. That it has failed to do the same against
Israel’s invasion of Gaza is obviously hypocritical. True, many
countries are equally two-faced for rightly protesting Israel’s
actions and doing little to nothing to push back against Russia’s
violations of international law. The hypocrisy of other countries
notwithstanding, the United States risks what remains of its positive
international reputation by its support of Zionism over liberalism.

It’s long past time for the United States to reevaluate its
relationship with Israel. The era of arms shipments should end
(especially since Israel makes most
[[link removed]] of what
it needs domestically). The recent congressional pushback is a start.
The protective cover provided at the UN must end as well, since the
United States is so out of step with international public opinion. The
abstention on the most recent ceasefire proposal is also a positive
sign.

The U.S. ending of its support of Israel as a Jewish state is a much
heavier lift. After all, the United States is also a settler state,
and there are powerful Christian forces that support the U.S. alliance
with Israel for religious reasons
[[link removed]].
But the process that has begun within the American Jewish community,
to choose liberalism over Zionism, must ultimately be the decision for
U.S. policymakers as well. Divorce can be averted, of course, if
Israel also chooses liberalism over Zionism. Since that’s not very
likely at the moment, it might just be time to bring in the lawyers.

_John Feffer [[link removed]]  is the director
of Foreign Policy In Focus. His latest book is Right Across the
World: The Global Networking of the Far-Right and the Left Response
[[link removed]]._

_Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) is a “Think Tank Without Walls”
connecting the research and action of scholars, advocates, and
activists seeking to make the United States a more responsible global
partner. It is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies._

_FPIF provides timely analysis of U.S. foreign policy and
international affairs and recommends policy alternatives on a broad
range of global issues — from war and peace to trade and from
climate to public health. From its launch as a print journal in 1996
to its digital presence today, FPIF has served as a unique resource
for progressive foreign policy perspectives for decades._

_We believe U.S. security and world stability are best advanced
through a commitment to peace, justice, and environmental protection,
as well as economic, political, and social rights. We advocate that
diplomatic solutions, global cooperation, and grassroots participation
guide foreign policy._

_FPIF aims to amplify the voice of progressives and to build links
with social movements in the U.S. and around the world. Through these
connections, we advance and influence debate and discussion among
academics, activists, policy-makers, and the general public._

_FPIF is directed by John Feffer, an IPS associate fellow, playwright,
and widely published expert on a broad array of foreign policy
subjects. Peter Certo, the IPS communications director, contributes as
an editor._

_THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN FPIF COMMENTARIES DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT
THOSE OF THE STAFF AND BOARD OF IPS._

* Israel
[[link removed]]
* U.S. foreign policy
[[link removed]]
* Joe Biden
[[link removed]]
* zionism
[[link removed]]
* J Street
[[link removed]]
* Peter Beinart
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]