May 22 , 2009

Israel’s Washington Agenda

  

On May 18, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets President Barack Obama at the White House. Netanyahu carries a two-point agenda: renewed focus on Iran and its nuclear program; and, secondly, avoid focus on the Palestinian people and Israel’s own nuclear arsenal.

To better gauge Netanyahu’s agenda, reference has to be made to his book,

Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic And International Terrorists . The crux of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s case is that, instead of passive defense against terrorism, the West will be better served with a pro-active/preemptive approach against terrorism even if it means encroaching upon civil liberties. Among the intended targets: Muslim activism in the West.

This script was followed by the Bush-Cheney Administration, with disastrous effect. In this connection, the New York Times, in its lead editorial of May 12, warned the Obama Administration about the continuing damage done to US interests in the Muslim world by not moving forward on the Palestinian issue.

Unlike pro-Israeli groups who are not satisfied even with much, Muslim organizations are often satisfied with too little. Token visits to the White House, photo ops, donor access, individual affluence, delude some that they have arrived. But that self-congratulatory approach masks complex and unresolved issues for the American Muslims whom, according to Richard Curtiss, Executive Editor of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, remain politically invisible. Nevertheless, their growing numbers represent a potential demographic threat to vested quarters, who have a substantial stake in de-legitimizing Muslims so that they do not become regular players in the American arena.

While executive directors of pro-Israeli organizations like the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, American Jewish Committee, and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, earn salaries in the neighborhood of a quarter of a million dollars, Muslim organizations (mostly strapped for cash) are hard pressed just to keep their heads above water.

Netanyahu is proud to note that his recommendations as a “terrorism expert” have been accepted by successive US administrations, starting with Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz.

Netanyahu carries on with a certain swagger, which is a natural concomitant to controlling the context in which these issues are framed. For example, when Palestine is discussed, it is in the context of terrorism and fundamentalism. When Israel is mentioned, it is against the backdrop of human rights, the Holy Land, and the Holocaust, and America’s claimed moral commitment in safeguarding the Jewish state.

The unstated message of Netanyahu is that it does not pay to resist the Israeli worldview. But an equally pertinent question arises: does it pay to go along? Take the case of Turkey. What does that country have to show for its “moderation”? Can it get into the European Union?

Another view propounded by pro-Israeli academics, like Dan Pipes, is that if Muslims were to develop “mastery” over Western indices like art, culture, language, and society, they would be well served. Up to a point, it makes sense. But 70-plus years ago, the Jews of Europe had, according to the afore-cited indices, achieved mastery in art, music, and mercantile pursuits. But did it protect them from the hideousness of the Holocaust?

Israel, of course, feeds from the weaknesses of Muslims and the crushing ineptness of the Arab establishment. The effort to make the US a criticism-free zone for Israel continues, with dissenting views muffled, if not fully throttled.

The question which begs asking is that why is it that around the world it is US flags which are burned and not Israeli? Netanyahu responds indirectly: he says Muslims hate Israel because of the West; they don’t hate the West because of Israel. This is disingenuous, particularly so for Netanyahu –with ample motive to fabricate – to interpret the Muslim world for the United States.

Pushing opponents overly hard creates its own unintended dynamics.

The lessons of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, ending World War I, have not been heeded when France, by rubbing German pride in the ground, ushered in the rise of revanchism in Germany. Then, too, there is the contradictory anomaly of pro-US governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan having potent anti-US sentiment among the public.

The core of democracy is giving space to diversity of opinion, ensuring that no party or point of view enjoys unfettered dominance. On the Middle East, however, Netanyahu wants America to act in a totalitarian manner.

Netanyahu’s Washington visit highlights, once again, the failure of the international community – including Pope Benedict XVI, especially so, with Church properties in Jerusalem falling under Israeli occupation – to address head-on the underlying problem at the core of West-Muslim tensions and global turbulence.

 

History, they say, is written by the victors. And Netanyahu is trying to rewrite history. But in the Middle East, Israel is not a victor; at least, not yet.