Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will speak to Congress Tuesday, March 3, in an event unprecedented in U.S. history. Never before has the Speaker of the House invited a foreign diplomat to instruct the bicameral legislature on its own foreign policy measures.
When Netanyahu speaks, he will address the recent negotiations between the United States and Iran, which have been aimed at easing tensions between the two countries and convincing Iran to curb its nuclear enrichment program.
But prior to Netanyahu’s decision to speak in Congress, an American Israeli Public Affairs Committee lobbyist announced that it had secured a veto-proof majority guaranteeing Congressional approval for more sanctions against Iran. Netanyahu has left AIPAC and his broad base of U.S. support in a state of confusion and consternation. And while American support matters to Israel’s prime minister, it seems the upcoming, Israeli midterm elections matter more.
Many U.S. commentators have drawn attention to Netanyahu’s opportunism, including President Obama who insists — as is U.S. protocol — that he will not meet with a foreign diplomat whose country will soon be counting ballots; the Israeli elections are only two weeks away. Netanyahu’s decision is unleashing a whirlwind of anxiety in Washington and Tel Aviv, in Congress and the Knesset and in the homes of American and Israeli voters.
This is Netanyahu’s method of demonstrating to the Israeli electorate that he wields power over U.S. policy. While many liberal Zionists shame Netanyahu for threatening the necessary U.S.-Israeli partnership, he is attempting to paint a different picture. The true America, according to Netanyahu, rests in the hands of the American right — AIPAC, the Republicans and Christian conservatives. Rather than appeal to both parties as he has typically done, this time he is mainly pandering to conservative groups. And these groups have been vocal: The Emergency Committee for Israel and Christians United for Israel Action Fund issued a joint statement vowing to take action against any politicians who have refused to attend the speech.
Netanyahu’s speech is opening one of the first cracks between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of Israel. Historically, U.S. relations with Israel have been the only point of fanatical agreement between the American left and right. Susan Rice, Obama’s top security aide, called attention to this anomaly, stating that support for Israel has always been bipartisan and that “we need to keep it that way.”
And there are some fairly obvious causes of this growing fissure. Obama had called Netanyahu and asked him not to interfere with these negotiations. But Netanyahu ignored the president and leaked classified information regarding the Iran negotiations to the Israeli press, the Washington Post reported. Last summer, the White House declassified documents from the Nixon era outlining the United States’ clandestine acknowledgement of Israel’s nuclear program.
And the biting irony: U.S. law refuses to grant foreign aid to countries operating secret nuclear programs. Of course, the United States overlooked that point when it came to Israel. Despite full knowledge of Israeli nuclear programs, the United States has continued to supply Israel with aid to the tune of $1,000 per Israeli citizen per year according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Coupled with international disapproval of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, support for Israel may be cracking under pressure. Those running for office will have to make a choice: Align themselves with Zionist ideology or jump the gap and act on behalf of U.S. interests and morals at the risk of upsetting Netanyahu, Israelis and pro-Israel supporters.
And there is certainly a lot of money poured into American politics from pro-Israel donors. Sheldon Adelson, who once claimed that Palestinians are an “invented people” and who has been footing the bill for Republican campaigns for some time now, has gone on the record saying that he supports Republicans because they support Israel.
Obama is aware of the intricate constellation of financial and ideological support that donors provide for Israel. The New York Times reported that, in a lengthy meeting with Democratic senators, Obama said that “he understood the pressures that senators face from donors.” Nonetheless, he urged the senators to look beyond the short term political support that bolstering Israel provides. Many Democrats who have time and time again voted unanimously in support of the Jewish state are not so convinced this time. Nearly three dozen have decided to boycott the speech, citing the overt lack of political decorum as simply too blatant to be ignored.
For the first time, the unease in American Jewish discourse is starting to show, and the calcified stance of “back Israel at any cost” is dissolving. Jewish constituencies are overwhelmingly liberal but are caught between supporting the Democratic Party and supporting Netanyahu’s visit. According to Gallup, Jews who identify as Democrats have fallen 10 percentage points from 2008 until now — a sign of the rapid rate at which the issue of Israel is governing political agendas.
Many perceive J-Street — affectionately called AIPAC lite — as a more centrist, moderate group in contrast to the right-wing AIPAC. Yet in this case, not even J-Street has asked Netanyahu to cancel his speech.
As political sentiment around the world becomes more critical of Israeli policy — illegal settlements, the Gaza blockade, military occupation and apartheid policies — the Israeli public recognizes that it must rely on U.S. ideological and fiscal support now more than ever.
U.S. backing — ideological, financial or in the form of a United Nations veto — is all that Israel has left as former allies continue to champion human rights and the Palestinians knock at the door of the International Criminal Court.
And the extent to which Israel has a say in American politics is made doubly discomfiting by the fact that Israel is hardly an apt moral compass when it comes to — well, anything. In 2002, Netanyahu testified in front of Congress — under oath, though not as Prime Minister — that the United States must invade Iraq to seize Saddam Hussein’s nuclear stores. As it turned out, not only were those nuclear stores a fiction, but the fateful marriage of American neocons and the Israel lobby incited the catastrophic invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Most recently, Netanyahu lied again in front of the United Nations when speaking about Iran’s capacity for a nuclear program. Documents leaked to the media show that even though Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, had informed Netanyahu that Iran did not have the potential to develop nuclear weapons, he repeatedly said otherwise to the United States and the international community.
Typically, Israel has not needed to interfere directly in American politics, as political elites from both parties have been quick to conform to Israeli policies. Their reasons for supporting Israel range from strategic interests — read: oil — to funding from lobbyists. Further, politicians and voters alike are afraid of being critical of Israel for fear of being slandered as anti-Semites, a tactic that has already been at work in this most recent controversy. Times columnist Thomas Friedman called the speech a “bad mistake” and was immediately called an anti-Semite by Commentary Magazine, arguably the most important publication for the American Jewish community.
In many ways, those waiting for the end of U.S.-Israeli relations were thrilled with Netanyahu’s decision to speak before Congress. He forced U.S. politicians to decide openly whether they would again accede to Israel’s intrusions or make independent decisions. His ill-conceived talk with Boehner catapulted the full depths of U.S.-Israeli collusion into plain sight.
Will we fall for Netanyahu’s duplicity with regards to Iran like we fell for weapons of mass destruction in 2002? Or will we make a decision free of foreign pressure and guilt? It is perhaps best to consult former President George W. Bush in times such as these: “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
Peter Makhlouf ’16 can be contacted at peter_makhlouf@brown.edu.
