![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From a strongly pro-israel essay:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/754726.html
"Yet, almost no individual with a whit of appreciation for Jewish history would deny the essential right of the Jewish people to return and repopulate these territories that already millennia ago served as the cradle of the Jewish people."
Well, actually, they could deny that. But since the return and repopulation has already happened, let's move on to the real point:
"This U.S. support for Israel did not arise in a vacuum. Israel's
protectors in the United States, in the plethora of Jewish organizations
that dot the American landscape and at the grass-roots level, have
relentlessly struggled to shore up this support."
"In a similar vein, consecutive Israeli governments and their U.S.
supporters have worked for decades to ensure that Americans recognize
the support that Israel provides in the Middle East. Through careful
coordination - from important contacts at Defense Department levels, to
meticulously managed visits to Israel by members of Congress, as well as
by way of grass-roots lobbying and advocacy - Israel's role as a
reliable ally and strategic asset of the United States had become an
almost unassailable truth."
This lobbying is exactly what Mearsheimer and Walk described in their Israeli Lobby article in the London Review of Books, subsequently criticized as "anti-Semitic". There the influence was criticized (as distorting US foreign policy), which in turn drew criticism; here it's presented as admirable matter-of-fact.
Some further contemplation: granting the claim that a strong Israel is a useful ally of the US, it does not follow that the US should agree with all of Israel's interests. For example, US foreign policy, which is not guided by the historical claims of the Torah, has no particular interest in Jews resettling Judea and Samaria, nor in whether Jerusalem is part of modern Israel. And while resolving the Palestine problem might not guarantee peace, the current situation is certainly not helpful to the US. It would seem, then, that a US-centered foreign policy would guarantee Israel's security, and even provide aid (direct, and to Israel's military through purchasing), while at the same time demanding citizenship or statehood for the Palestinians, and a stronger anti-settler stance.
This is not to say the current US stance is completely hostage to Israeli interests; it could be a compromise between our genuine interests and Israeli lobbying, and in fact that should be the default expectation. On the other hand, I've never been clear on exactly what Israel does (realistically) want with regard to the territories. There seems to be a strong desire for the land, an awareness that transfer or blatant genocide is unacceptable, and an unwillingness or inability to accept the Palestinians as equals, such that muddling along blindly is the only option left, and supporting that muddling seems to be US policy.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/754726.html
"Yet, almost no individual with a whit of appreciation for Jewish history would deny the essential right of the Jewish people to return and repopulate these territories that already millennia ago served as the cradle of the Jewish people."
Well, actually, they could deny that. But since the return and repopulation has already happened, let's move on to the real point:
"This U.S. support for Israel did not arise in a vacuum. Israel's
protectors in the United States, in the plethora of Jewish organizations
that dot the American landscape and at the grass-roots level, have
relentlessly struggled to shore up this support."
"In a similar vein, consecutive Israeli governments and their U.S.
supporters have worked for decades to ensure that Americans recognize
the support that Israel provides in the Middle East. Through careful
coordination - from important contacts at Defense Department levels, to
meticulously managed visits to Israel by members of Congress, as well as
by way of grass-roots lobbying and advocacy - Israel's role as a
reliable ally and strategic asset of the United States had become an
almost unassailable truth."
This lobbying is exactly what Mearsheimer and Walk described in their Israeli Lobby article in the London Review of Books, subsequently criticized as "anti-Semitic". There the influence was criticized (as distorting US foreign policy), which in turn drew criticism; here it's presented as admirable matter-of-fact.
Some further contemplation: granting the claim that a strong Israel is a useful ally of the US, it does not follow that the US should agree with all of Israel's interests. For example, US foreign policy, which is not guided by the historical claims of the Torah, has no particular interest in Jews resettling Judea and Samaria, nor in whether Jerusalem is part of modern Israel. And while resolving the Palestine problem might not guarantee peace, the current situation is certainly not helpful to the US. It would seem, then, that a US-centered foreign policy would guarantee Israel's security, and even provide aid (direct, and to Israel's military through purchasing), while at the same time demanding citizenship or statehood for the Palestinians, and a stronger anti-settler stance.
This is not to say the current US stance is completely hostage to Israeli interests; it could be a compromise between our genuine interests and Israeli lobbying, and in fact that should be the default expectation. On the other hand, I've never been clear on exactly what Israel does (realistically) want with regard to the territories. There seems to be a strong desire for the land, an awareness that transfer or blatant genocide is unacceptable, and an unwillingness or inability to accept the Palestinians as equals, such that muddling along blindly is the only option left, and supporting that muddling seems to be US policy.