The AIPAC Doctrine trumped the Obama Doctrine today, and the US is the loser in the exchange.
The Obama Doctrine
President Obama swept into office with a nearly-landslide victory on the back of large-scale disgust at 8 years of George W. Bush. Obama promised real change from many of the Bush-era policies, both domestic and international. Internationally specifically, the new Obama Administration rejected the Bush Doctrine that the US would enforce its will through military force working only with “coalitions of the willing,” rather than with international bodies. A new, if vague Obama Doctrine emphasized internationalism. Obama promised to rebuild our alliances, and to “hit the reset” on countries such as Russia with who relations had turned sour. He promised to build strong relationships on the basis of a sense of equality and shared values:
at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, the President was again asked the question he was asked during the campaign, of defining the Obama Doctrine. The President replied that "the United States remains the most powerful, wealthiest nation on Earth, but we're only one nation, and that the problems that we confront, whether it's drug cartels, climate change, terrorism, you name it, can't be solved just by one country."[20] In addition, President Obama expressed a desire for the United States to seek friendship with all, harkening back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "Good Neighbor Policy." "I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations," he said. "There is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values."
Obama reached out to Muslim countries in particular, giving a much-heralded speech in Cairo in June, 2009. He promised a new beginning:
I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
However, he did not promise to change everything. In particular, he reaffirmed the long-standing US policy, a policy endorse by both Democratic and Republican presidents, that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegitimate:
The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)
The Obama Administration has worked to enact its doctrine, though not without problems and difficulties along the way. For instance, after numerous vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions under the Bush Administration (in the last 20 years, the US has vetoed more resolutions than all other powers combined), the Obama Administration has not vetoed a single UN Security Council Resolution.
The AIPAC Doctrine
AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, has a much simpler doctrine:
As America's leading pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC works with both Democratic and Republican political leaders to enact public policy that strengthens the vital U.S.-Israel relationship.
That’s it. AIPAC simply works to move the US government and each elected official in the US government to be on the same page as the Israeli government. It does not attempt to influence Israeli policy, but only to align US policy with Israeli policy.
Today’s Vote at the UN
Today, the UN Security Council voted on a resolution to condemn the Israeli settlements which Israel has built and continues to build in the Palestinian West Bank. These settlements now house roughly 500,000 Israeli settlers who routinely harass Palestinian civilians, making life almost unlivable. This resolution aligned with the long standing US policy which Obama claims to promote. It was supported by 14 out of 15 members of the UN Security Council, and by the vast majority of the world at large (130 countries are said to support it). Our allies (save one), which the Obama Doctrine calls on us to respect and work from a position of equality, strongly support this resolution. The US, however, has vetoed the resolution, and has used it position not just to disagree, but to actively prevent action that the rest of the world endorses.
Simply put the AIPAC Doctrine trumped the Obama Doctrine in this case. This is a shame. The Obama Doctrine rebuilds our alliances after the disaster of the Bush years. It helps end our reliance on military power (which is often unjustified and now frankly unaffordable) and strengthens our soft power, which both increases our influence and allows us to work in harmony with other countries as they reject past dictatorial models and seek democracy. The AIPAC Doctrine, on the other hand, hurts the US, by using US policy solely to support Israeli policy.
This does not suggest that AIPAC is all-power or runs the US government or its foreign policy. Nonetheless, the organization, which brags about its influence, strongly supported a veto of the UN Resolution, and it got the result it wanted in direct opposition to the US's long-standing official position on the settlements and in opposition to the Obama Doctrine. The Obama Administration was following the wrong voices on this one.
The AIPAC Doctrine trumped the Obama Doctrine today, and the US is the loser in the exchange.