Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Conditioning Part of US Aid to Israel on Implementation of US Policy
It is well-known outside the United States that a key obstacle, if not the key obstacle, to Israeli/Palestinian peace is the relationship between Israel and the United States. To say that the U.S. "supports Israel" severely misstates the problem: the key problem is the perception and the reality that the U.S. almost unfailingly protects the Israeli government from the negative consequences of anti-Palestinian policies, such as the recent military assault on Gaza, so that while rhetorically the U.S. is committed to peace, in practice the incentives that have been created and maintained by U.S. policy have had the effect of constantly pushing the Israeli government towards more confrontation with the Palestinians, rather than towards accommodation. Just as a Wall Street banker who expects a U.S. government bailout will take dangerous risks since he is protected from the potential negative consequences of those risks, so Israeli government leaders, faced with choices between "risks for peace" and "risks for war" will tend to choose "risks for war" since the U.S. government is perceived to provide a blanket insurance policy against "risks for war" while no such insurance is perceived to exist for "risks for peace."
The key immediate question then for people in the United States concerned about Israeli-Palestinian peace is altering the character of the insurance policy. Just as Washington must demand policy changes in exchange for insuring Wall Street banks, so Washington must demand policy changes in exchange for insuring Israeli government policies. In either case, the failure to demand policy changes spreads systemic risk, since the insurance effectively makes the failed policies into policies of the U.S. government.
Could public opinion in the United States have an impact? While Americans are in general significantly misinformed about the Israel-Palestinian conflict due to the fact that most reporting of the conflict in the United States takes place through the prism of U.S. government policy, it is still the case that there is a significant gap between public opinion and U.S. government policy, whether because the media reporting is not nearly as unbalanced as the U.S. government policy, or because more reasonable instincts among the public tend to counteract somewhat the bias of the media, or both.
On December 31, Rasmussen reported that Americans were "closely divided" over whether the Israel should be taking military action in Gaza. 44% said Israel should have taken military action, while 41% said it should have tried to find a diplomatic solution. Among Democrats, only 31% backed military action, while 55% said Israel should have tried to find a diplomatic solution. Among Republicans, 62% backed military action, while 27% said Israel should have tried to find a diplomatic solution.
These views were not effectively represented in Congress. When, week after the Rasmussen poll, a resolution effectively endorsing the Israeli assault - that's how it was, quite predictably, reported in the press, and therefore that was the effective result - was considered by the Senate, it was passed by voice vote. When it was considered by the House, it passed 390-5, with four Democrats and one Republican voting no and 22 Democrats voting "present" - in effect, a politically cautious no vote (many Members who voted "present" had publicly criticized the Israeli assault.) So, being charitable and counting the "present" votes as "no," the vote was 390-27, or 94% to 6%, in favor of Israel's military action, in contrast to the 44% to 41% (or 52% to 48%, excluding those who didn't answer) that might have been predicted if Congress were reflecting public opinion. Among Democrats, it was 90% to 10% voting in favor of military action in the House, as opposed to 55% to 31% against military action among Democrats generally (64% to 36% excluding non-answerers); among Republicans in the House, the vote was 99% to 1% in favor of military action, as opposed to 62% to 37% among Republicans generally (70% to 30%, excluding non-answerers.)
In July 2008, a poll published by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland asked: "In the Israel-Palestinian conflict, do you think [the US] should take Israel's side, take the Palestinians' side, or not take either side?" 71% of Americans surveyed answered: "Not take either's side."
Of course, this is not the only issue where Congress diverges sharply from public opinion. It is well-known that a well-financed, disciplined, and focused lobby can outweigh broad public opinion. However, in addition to this dynamic, it is also true in this particular case that lobbying on the other side is handicapped by a gap in infrastructure.
In particular, there is a voice missing: an organized effort acting in DC, and supported by grassroots action outside of DC, to begin to move the parameters of the insurance policy. On the one hand, there are inside-DC groups that have been working diligently to try to change the debate. But these groups have been unable politically to raise the all-important question of US pressure on the Israeli government. On the other hand you have groups outside of DC that are quite happy to raise the question of pressure, but have been so far unable politically to push for anything strategic. "Stop aid to Israel" may be an emotionally satisfying demand in the context of a demonstration, but it is a totally irrelevant demand in the context of Washington. If one had a meeting with a Member of Congress about "stopping US aid to Israel," the effective response would likely be: come back when you are ready to stop wasting my time.
If one considers precedents of how progress has been made on similar issues in Congress in the past, the logical thing to do at this stage would be to push for an amendment that would condition a part of US aid to Israel on compliance with an important aspect of stated US policy. In this year's funding cycle, for example, US military aid to Israel is expected to increase. The increase, or even part of the increase, could have real conditions attached.
The principal determinant of what real conditions would be attached in a meaningful effort would be the opinions of Members of Congress who were willing to do so. But there are some obvious candidates.
An obvious example would be to condition part of US military assistance on certification by the President that all Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank has ceased. This condition is obvious because 1) it is widely considered a key precondition of any meaningful "peace process" 2) it is already stated US policy 3) it is verifiable 4) it is already a condition of the "road map" 5) Senator Mitchell, in his 2001 report on the causes of the second intifada, identified Israeli settlement expansion as a key cause of violence and predicted that violence would resume if settlement expansion were not stopped - as it wasn't. So, such a condition would actually implement existing US policy and would actually strengthen Mitchell's hand as a negotiator.
It is important to note that such a campaign - like Rocky's first fight - should be judged a significant success if it takes place at all. In other words, if in 2009 even a handful of Members of Congress were willing to publicly support an amendment that would condition even a small part of US aid to Israel on verified implementation of US policy on an issue important to peace - such as cessation of settlement expansion in the West Bank - and if there were a significant public mobilization on behalf of such an amendment, it would significantly change the dynamics of the US-Israel relationship, and lay the ground for expanded efforts to do so in the future. There are about 50-60 Members of Congress who have indicated by past actions that they might at least be willing to consider such a step. If a third of them actually did so, it would be noticed. But first they have to be asked in a way that would make them consider it to be a live proposition, and that is the piece that has been so far missing.
- Posted in
31 Comments so far
Show AllCessation - HELL!!!!
Removing the 300,000 illegal Israeli settlers would be a good start to peace.
Then tear the wall creating cantonments on Palestinian land down.
This is already US policy. I know my Congresswoman wants no part of enforcement.
Any suggestions?
I am absolutely NOT wrong on this.
No, you certainly are not.
Withdrawal to pre-1967 "borders."
Division of Jerusalem into Israeli and Palestinian capitals.
Right of return for Palestinian refugees, while acknowledging that all cannot be accommodated and that reparations will be made for those.
This is basically the plan that has been out there for ever, and recently reiterated in Carter's new book. It is fair and doable, but the Israelis want it all, so it won't happen without force.
Any plan that requires one side to make all of the sacrifices, is a Surrender Plan and not a Peace Plan. The trouble with a Surrender Plan is that the winning side, has to actually win a war.
No Izak as a signatory party to the Geneva Conventions Israel is not allowed to gain territory through war even defensive war according to the 4th Geneva Convention. Thus all the settlements on the West Bank are in gross violation of international law and all living leadership in Israel should be tried for crimes against humanity at the Hague. And that's not even getting into U.N. resolution 242.
The UN partitioned Palestine into Arab and Jewish states in 1948. Still waiting for the Arabs to accept the partition.
It's every time funny to witness how you nazionists base Israels right to exists on the very same institution Israel has disavowed ever since. You are simply to stupid to understand that by underminding UNSC you are to the same degree lessening the legality of the partition.
Resolution 181 was passed in 1947, not -48, and it called for two sovereign states, and the right of return for the refugees.
PLO and Hamas have accepted Israel. De facto if not de jure. The zionists have not yet accepted a palestinian state. Not only that, for every passing day the possibility of a 2-state solution is diminished by the colonialists' expansions on the West Bank.
I dont know whether you are stupid, a fascist or a lunatic, but I know that people like you makes it hard to fight antisemitism, because quite frankly, I find you despicable.
Arabs think of the UN as a smorgasboard, where you take what you want and urinate on the rest.
An antisemitic Muslim, golly. You'll have to go stand at the back of the line. There are a billion or so ahead of you.
The UN did not partition Palestine. The partition plan, Res. 181, was a recommendation by the General Assembly, which has no legal power, to the Security Council, which refused to pass it. The failed plan, in any case, required the agreement of all sides and equal rights for all, Jews and non-Jews. The Zionists illegally established their Jewish state in violation of the proposed plan, ignoring the requirement for mutual agreement and equal rights, seizing by force even more territory than the plan suggested, and evicting the non-Jewish inhabitants in contravention of all accepted moral and legal standards.
Emma 7:05 -------- Thank you!
The U.N. with resolution 242 AND the I.C.C. regarding the apartheid wall has already ruled against your criminal state Izak, deal Outside of the media bubble of the U.S. and Israel the rest of the planets 5.5 billion people correctly perceive the state of israel to be a racist criminal enterprise. Are you a West "settler" (colonist) per chance Izak? Please answer the question truthfully!
Excellent piece, just what we needed. Can we all get behind the first baby step? Peace strings on the war funding.
What a great democracy the USA is the worst economic crisis in 80 maybe more years, we can not afford to provide health care or quality education but increase funding to an amoral entity ,no problem.
It is ludricrous that we give a country as affluent as Israel one-red cent let alone 10 million dollars a day! Where is the outrage! Especially when anytime we have suggested they cool it on the settlements they just thumbed their nose at us. It is just a matter of time before the public catches on.
*EXCERPT FROM "Will Obama Break the Law for Israel's Sake?" by Grant Smith @ antiwar.com (02/11/09):
Israel possesses an arsenal of at least 150 nuclear weapons. Why does Obama trot out the discredited policy of "strategic ambiguity" – in which Israeli and U.S. officials officially refuse to confirm or deny the existence Israeli nuclear weapons – at this early moment? For one reason alone: to break the law. The 1976 Symington Amendment prohibits most U.S. foreign aid to any country found trafficking in nuclear enrichment equipment or technology outside international safeguards. Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). If U.S. presidents complied with the Symington Amendment, they would not deliver yearly aid packages to Israel totaling billions of dollars. Presidents make-believe that Israeli nuclear weapons don't exist so Congress can legally continue shoveling the lion's share of the U.S. foreign aid budget to Israel.
SOURCE - http://www.antiwar.com/orig/gsmith.php?articleid=14229
*MY CONTRIBUTION: Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis elaborated in Olmstead v. United States (1928): "In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta
"It is well-known that a well-financed, disciplined, and focused lobby can outweigh broad public opinion."
Yes it is well-known. Yet, even as you hope for Rocky's first baby steps, conversations such as these are increasingly being described as hate speech. Washington cannot afford - literally - to speak the truth you have spoken here. Until that changes, there will be no hope of any change. I had hoped that the trail of tears of the Iraq War and the puppet Bush would have made the public contest the ability of the few to purchase policy at the expense of the many. But as you point out, the public is ill-informed, at best, and will remain that way.
Punishing Israel's supporters for Israel's genocidal war crimes would be a good start.
America will need a new congress or course...
The first objectve of the US in Israel-Palestine is to defend our ally. This is not "neutral" or "balanced" and does not pretend to be.
If Israel is a US ally, we do not need enemies...
Frenemy comes to mind after the U.S.S. Liberty incident and the U.S. being a target of terrorists due to the U.S.'s one sided support for Israel's crimes against humanity. Looks like giyus.org has sent over round two of the Hasbara shils. :(
hoot 11:26 --------- do not forget the israeli spys and the stolen Plutonium.
"Just as Washington must demand policy changes in exchange for insuring Wall Street banks, so Washington must demand policy changes in exchange for insuring Israeli government policies."
Tow the line or you're on your own. Most U.S. citizens don't want to pay for Israels imperialistic stupidity on top of the stupidity we pay for in the U.S..
This mentality must change!
The U.S. could start with enforcing the laws that prohibit U.S. supplied weapons or military supplies being used against civilian population or otherwise in violation of Geneva Convention. I'm not sure of the specific statute, but it is a U.S. law passed by congress and signed by the (then sitting) president.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There's no such thing as a winnable war, it's a lie we don't believe anymore."
Sting, Russians, 1984
You beat me to it.
"While Americans are in general significantly misinformed about the Israel-Palestinian conflict due to the fact that most reporting of the conflict in the United States takes place through the prism of U.S. government policy..."
Wrong. Most media are owned and run by hardcore Zionists, who in turn dictate American foreign policy to our leaders.
And let me anticipate the response. This is not an "old anti-Semitic canard." It is fact, like it or not.
If you want to believe that it takes Vast Semi-Magical Forces, to account for the American preference for bourgeois democracies over fascist police states, knock yourself out.
Call it a typo, misprint or what have you.. that the US would impose ANY conditions on our so-called ally, AND, that this 'news' might even make the US evening network news (almost as momentous!?).
Sadly, those of us who are conscious recognize that this is mostly grand-standing, a paper tiger as our Chinese allies might say.
Corporate America does such a fantastic job of killing us all (not so) softly, that it barely matters that Israel's preference is to efficiently destroy itself in addition to America in the upcoming blessed holocaust event (it could be televised).
Zionists need not fear, however, they can take comfort is knowing that with their help, America's demise shall be expedited.
We're animals anyway, so let us lose our souls..
Isreal main objective is to launch some kind of premptive strike against Iran
Everyone knows the Rasmussen report and knows that Democrats do not support Israeli policies, but Congress is in the pocket of AIPAC, JINSA, as well as their minions in organizations like "Stand with Israel." Most of the public doesn't like it, and I think that increasingly they've been exposed as distorting U.S. foreign policy. J Street and other groups are organizing to provide a counterpoint to AIPAC, and I believe their presence does make a difference. We forget that not that long ago there would have not been 27 "no" votes, and the candidates would have been bullied, threatened and run out of office. That's less easy to do today, because all of the money and lobbying activity is exposed and its corrupting effects are clear. My mother doesn't follow politics closely and even she knows about AIPAC. So, I think there has been a shift in public opinion. It's just getting that heard on Capital Hill that is the challenge.
Pan
YUP YUP YUP
Justice and Liberty for ALL ?
Also, do we really have 2 billion for Egypt. Its belt tightning time for US.
National Security priorites have surely turned to Domestic Economic Conditions.
toophat for you!
This whole Israeli-Zionist/Palestinian conflict reminds me of a Bill Cosby routine (from his old style "Himself" show). A bit wordy, but bear with me.
There is a section where he's talking about his children: his youngest (4 year old, I think) believes that it's OK to just take what she wants without asking. This is obviously causes a problem with his 7-year old who wants to take back her property. This causes a fight where the youngest is screaming "MINE MINE MINE"; which then forces the parent to find out what the conflict is about. When the parent sees the conflict, he/she hits the OLDER child, stating something like "why don't you give her the ____, don't you hear her screaming?" When the older child runs off in (understandable) angry tears about the injustice of being hit for wanting her property back, the parent says something like "don't you be upset, she has things of mine, too!"
In making my analogy, Israel is the youngest child who takes without asking, Palestine is the 7 year old who is angry that her things are being taken and the parent is the U.S./Great Britain In this scenario, the US/GB actually approves of Israel's stealing property and then allows the theft because they make the loudest noise, regardless of the injustice of the situation. The parent wants the expediency of "quiet" and the US/GB wants the expediency of not being loudly called "anti-semitic" by zionists in the Israeli power structure.
Am I wrong here? Feel free to comment on this one, it's been on my mind for a while now...
Peace,
Sindel
I can't imagine Israel really going for peace; it's grabbed so much land since it's founding, it seems impossible to go back to those borders, which are the only ones that are internationally recognized by the then-UN. A secular one-state for all, including Jordan, where a lot of Palestinians are living, might be a solution, but who's the Solomon to achieve this problem?