International aid groups lashed out at Israel today over the war in Gaza, saying that access to civilians in need is poor, relief workers are being hurt and killed, and Israel is woefully neglecting its obligations to Palestinians who are trapped, some among rotting corpses in a nightmarish landscape of deprivation.
--The NY Times, January 8th
Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza with over 500 trucks and numerous ambulances entering the Gaza Strip since December 26, 2008
--Senate Resolution reaffirming "strong support for Israel in its battle with Hamas"
I'm sympathetic to those put off by the nastiness of the Daily Kos debate over the I-P conflict. That's why I tried, with some success, to initiate a peaceful discussion. But I'm thankful for the debate despite, or perhaps because of, its intensity, because it's rare. There's no sustained debate on talk shows or on op-ed pages and no debate at all in Congress. The reflexive pro-Israel position prevails.
Indeed, it's partly because of the orthodoxy that the debate here gets emotional. It's not just the suffering that riles up people on my side of the debate. It's our voicelessness among people of power.
The "pro-Israel" orthodoxy is nothing new, of course, but it has never been more grotesque. As most countries call for a ceasefire, as human rights groups blast Israel for its treatment of civilians--evidence of war crimes--the Senate passes by voice-vote a resolution not merely declaring support for the invasion but also praising Israel for its handling of the humanitarian crisis.
Please consider this resolution the next time someone here complains about the "excessive" focus on this conflict. How 'bout this: We at Daily Kos will stop telling the truth about this issue when the US Senate stops lying about it. Because of the Senate's one-sided involvement, this is not like any other issue.
A few representatives have, in varying degrees, dissented, but not a single senator has voiced even mild opposition. It's hard to think of another issue that would produce such a one-sided debate. Religion perhaps: there are few outspoken atheists in Congress. But that's mostly because there are relatively few outspoken atheists in the country. Although most Americans are generally sympathetic to Israel, opposition to its invasion of Gaza is not a marginal position. According to Rasmussen, almost as many Americans oppose as support Israel's invasion of Gaza, and among Democrats, opposition is overwhelming (55-31%).
Yet there's not a peep of protest from Senators; on the contrary, they go out of their way to voice support, securing ownership of Israel's invasion. Given the sizable minority opposition to the war in Iraq in 2002-03, it's possible to conclude that US politicians are more willing to criticize their own country than Israel.
Glenn Greenwald has been out front documenting and discussing the groupthink. This is from his post on the Senate resolution and its implications.
It's hard to overstate how one-sided this resolution is. It "expresses vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders." Why should the U.S. maintain an "unwavering commitment to the welfare" of a foreign country? It "lays blame both for the breaking of the 'calm' and for subsequent civilian casualties in Gaza precisely where blame belongs, that is, on Hamas." It repeatedly mentions the various sins of Hamas -- from rockets to suicide attacks -- but does not mention a single syllable of criticism for Israel. In the world of the U.S. Congress, neither the 4-decade occupation of Palestinian land nor the devastating blockade of Gaza nor the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements even exist. That may not be mentioned.
The Resolution demands that Hamas take multiple steps towards peaceful resolution but demands that Israel do absolutely nothing. It purports to call for a cease-fire in which the Palestinians make all the concessions and Israel makes none. Worst of all -- in light of the Red Cross condemnation, yesterday's slaughter at the U.N. school, and other similar incidents -- the Resolution disgustingly praises Israel's conduct of the war, claiming that "Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza with hundreds of trucks carrying humanitarian assistance and numerous ambulances entering the Gaza Strip since the current round of fighting began on December 27, 2008."
This one-sided, ostensibly "pro-Israel" bipartisan inflaming of tensions by the U.S. is nothing new. Long-time Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller, in Newsweek, earlier this week made one of the most startling revelations in some time -- that in all the time the U.S. has supposedly been attempting to forge a Middle East peace agreement over the past 25 years, it never once, in any meaningful way, raised with Israeli leaders the damage that comes from Israeli settlements. Specifically, said Miller: "I can't recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity — including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions — does to the peacemaking process."
The groupthink is a fact. The question that remains is: why? Why does it exist?
Here's my list of interconnected reasons. I welcome your additions.
$$$$$--This is the most obvious. Politicians who buck the interests of Israel's government are likely to face primary or general election challengers flush with cash donated by AIPAC-associated individuals.
In 2002, two Democrats in Congress with records of voting against Israel's interests -- Reps. Earl Hilliard of Alabama and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia -- faced primary opponents who received substantial support from Jewish donors. A majority of AIPAC board members gave to either McKinney's challenger or Hilliard's or both. Hilliard and McKinney lost.
The financial concerns are party-wide. Democratic partly leaders fear that if enough members dissent, the party will be seen as "anti-Israel" and suffer financial consequences. Thus the self-imposed pressure to keep everyone in line, and to out-hawk the Republicans on Israel.
The Intensity (And Wealth) Disparity--While there is obviously intensity on both sides of the debate, the "pro-israel" side claims many more single-issue supporters ready and able to vote with their checkbooks. These include LEOIDs (Liberal-except-on-Israel Democrats.)
The "Pro-Israel" Lobby--It's difficult to overstate AIPAC's influence (yet people sometimes manage to.) With an estimated budget of 40 million, board members representing a cross-section of DC's elite, and offices across the country, it shapes and even writes legislation, and generally controls the debate. Its lobbying budget is smaller than that of, say, the Chamber of Commerce, but unlike the Chamber, which has to compete against Labor and environmental groups. AIPAC faces no countervailing force. J-Street, the Arab American PAC, and the Arab American Institute aren't well established or well funded. AIPAC sends all new members of Congress to Israel to ingest "pro-Israel" spin. Every politician who wants to be president (and many who don't) genuflect before AIPAC. George Soros believes that it's up to American Jews to take on AIPAC, because Democratic politicians won't dare.
Whether the Democratic Party can liberate itself from AIPAC's influence is highly doubtful. Any politician who dares to expose AIPAC's influence would incur its wrath; so very few can be expected to do so. It is up to the American Jewish community itself to rein in the organization that claims to represent it. But this is not possible without first disposing of the most insidious argument put forward by the defenders of the current policies: that the critics of Israel's policies of occupation, control, and repression on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem and Gaza engender anti-Semitism.
The Anti-Semitism Smear--Critics of Israel's policies suffer more than financial repercussions. If you take on Israel, its kneejerk defenders will seek to destroy your reputation. They will call you an anti-Semite and an apologist for terrorism. It doesn't matter if you're a Jew. Or a Holocaust survivor. Or a billionaire. Soros:
Anybody who dares to dissent may be subjected to a campaign of personal vilification. I speak from personal experience. Ever since I participated in a meeting discussing the need for voicing alternative views, a torrent of slanders has been released including the false accusation in The New Republic that I was a "young cog in the Hitlerite wheel" at the age of thirteen when my father arranged a false identity to save my life and I accompanied an official of the Ministry of Agriculture, posing as his godson, when he was taking the inventory of a Jewish estate.
"The War on Terror"--This illogical and dangerous construct has exacerbated old dichotomies, whereby Israel = us = the United States vs. the Palestinians = them = terrorists. Now, in the view of the establishment to be "anti-Israel" is to be "pro-terror," which is the worst thing you can be.
Bigotry--It's impossible to escape the conclusion that more than a few politicians don't sufficiently value the lives of brown people. American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, in which hundreds of thousands of Muslims have died, have both exposed and exacerbated the race-based callousness of American politicians.
Ignorance--People scoffed when I mentioned this in a comment thread, but I insist that it's a factor. Because of incuriosity and MSM bias and AIPAC spin and the self-perpetuating orthodoxy inside the DC cocoon, some politicians simply don't know how much Palestinians are suffering, or have suffered. I'm certain that many don't know that Israel has for more than two years devastated Gaza with a blockade. Or if they do know, they don't know it enough. While most probably know, in a factual sense, that Israel dominates Palestinians with military force, they probably don't know about the systematic humiliation, degradation, and deprivation. Why would they? Even many politically informed progressives don't.