U.S.-Israel rift undermining some long-standing taboos The remarkable tensions of the last week make it increasingly difficult to deny key facts Glen

U.S.-Israel rift undermining some long-standing taboos
The remarkable tensions of the last week make it increasingly difficult to deny key facts

Glenn Greenwald

Mar. 15, 2010 |

The rather extraordinary dust-up between the U.S. and Israel has, among other benefits, shined a light on two of the most taboo yet self-evidently true propositions: (1) our joined-at-the-hip relationship with Israel is a significant cause of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, fuels attacks on Americans, and entails a very high price for the U.S. on multiple levels; and (2) many American neoconservatives have their political beliefs shaped by allegiance to Israel.


As for the first: not only did Joe Biden tell Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel's actions are endangering U.S. troops in the region, but -- more important -- as Foreign Policy's Mark Perry reports, both Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus within the last couple of months stressed the same causal connection to Obama officials: "Israel's intransigence could cost American lives." It's rather difficult to maintain the fiction that only fringe Israel-haters see the connection between our support for Israel and Muslim hatred toward the U.S. when two of America's most respected military officials (responsible for U.S. troops in the region) are making that case explicitly.


As for the second point: I've previously noted the glaring contradiction among neoconservatives, whereby they simultaneously (a) tell American Jewish voters to vote Republican because (they claim) the GOP is better for Israel and (b) insist that it's anti-Semitic to point out that some are guided by their allegiance to Israel when forming their political beliefs about U.S. policy. Obviously, anyone who does (a) is, by logical necessity, endorsing the very premise in (b) which they want (when it suits them) to label anti-Semitic. Neoconservatives constantly make political appeals to Jewish voters expressly grounded in the premise that American Jews are guided by allegiance to Israel (vote Republican because it's better for Israel), yet then scream "anti-Semite" at anyone who points this out. When faced with this glaring contradiction, their typical response -- as illustratively voiced by Commentary's Jennifer Rubin, after she argued in a 2008 Jerusalem Post column that American Jews should vote against Obama because he'd be bad for Israel -- is to deny that "that the interests of the U.S. and Israel are antithetical" and insist that "support for Israel in no way requires sacrificing one's concerns for America's interests." In other words: to advocate for Israel is to advocate for the U.S. because their interests are wholly indistinguishable, even synonymous.


UPDATE: Former AIPAC official M.J. Rosenberg has more on the extreme and highly revealing AIPAC attacks on the Obama administration and the political strategy it intends to pursue.


UPDATE II: Here's a perfect example of the glaring double standard I'm talking about: hard-core GOP loyalists are today promoting this claim that the tension between the Obama administration and Israel will cause American Jews to stop voting Democratic and (according to John Podhoretz) stop donating to Democratic candidates. The neoconservative Right has been making similar predictions for years with complete futility, but think about it: what is the core assumption of such a claim? That American Jews determine their political beliefs based on what is best for Israel rather than the U.S. -- exactly the "dual loyalty" assumption that, when made by others, this very same faction brands as anti-Semitic.


UPDATE III: AP details the seriously nasty backlash now developing against the Obama administration from the Israel-centric Right, led by AIPAC, Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Lieberman dismissed this as nothing more than a "family feud" and demanded that this all end. You may have thought the U.S. and Israel are separate countries with the obligation to protect their own interests, but according to Lieberman, they're all part of the same "family" that should never publicly disagree, because doing so only helps Our Enemies, which (of course) we have fully in common. Meanwhile, John Cole analyzes the neocon threats that the Obama administration will pay a serious political price for its defiance of the Israeli Government as a result of the upcoming AIPAC conference.


-- Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/15/israel/index.html