Should Our Politicians Reassess their Unconditional Support for Israel?

These days it seems like just about the only thing that Barack Obama and John McCain agree on is an unequivocal support for Israel. While they are diametrically opposed on seemingly every critical issue, they almost find themselves competing to see who can offer more fulsome support for Israel, and by extension, the foreign policy of that country.

Numerous public statements from each bear out this assertion. Essentially all of McCain's disdain for the Iranian regime comes from their rhetoric towards Israel. He also offered the infamous "bomb bomb bomb" Iran quote a few years back when asked what he wanted to do to that country, particularly if they made an aggression gesture towards Israel.

For his part, Barack Obama was nearly stumbling over himself at the AIPAC convention last week to offer an unequivocal endorsement of Isreal's policies vis a vis Iran, and the Palestinians.

Just a mere month ago, McCain lambasted his electoral opponent for what he perceived as his "naivety" on the Iranian threat when he said:

"It is a serious error on the part of Senator Obama, that shows naivety and inexperience and lack of judgment, to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country who says that Israel is a stinking corpse."

The most interesting part of the quote is that McCain cites Iranian's policy on Israel as a justification for a continuation of the United States policy with respect to the Islamic Republic. Judging by this quote, John McCain seems to believe that United States policy in this matter is predicated on how Iran deals with another country.

A logical extension of McCain's quote would also lead the reader to believe that his loyalty to Israel is tantamount, or even paramount to his loyalty to America. As a politician whose duty is to presumably serve the interests of the citizens of the United States, it's odd, and highly questionable for John McCain to instead place the interests of this country at the behest of another, as he is clearly doing in this instance. For a candidate who stakes his candidacy on his dexterity and expertise in foreign affairs, it is as best shortsighted, and at worst a dereliction of duty for John McCain to delay the advancement of the United States strategic interests towards Iran because of Iran's policy towards another country.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surprisingly, McCain has received no flack for the aforementioned decision to inextricably intertwine the interests of the United States with that of Israel from any current office holders. As indicated above, Obama's similar stance certainly provides McCain with apt political cover to neglect US strategic interests, but that is not the real reason that he escapes unscathed.

Rather, the political climate has shifted to the point where anything but unapologetic support for Israeli policies is nearly political suicide. If any candidate, or elected official, irrespective of party, offers a critique of Israeli decision makers, they are immediately discredited by the mainstream press and other politicians. Some detractors, like Jimmy Carter, have been labeled anti-Semitic by the far right zealotry who steadfastly supports Israel. Politicians first and foremost strive to be re-elected, and in order to due so in the present milieu, they must suppress critiques of Israel, no matter how salient they may be to present or future US policy in the region.

The climate as such has thus rendered any sort of serious discussion on the actual impact of the United States' unabated support for Israel impossible. Because of this pervading sentiment, policy flexibility and adaptability has been severely limited, lest our policy makers want to incur the wrath of those on both the Christian right, and the pro-Israel right.

1. Unfettered support for Israeli policy has made a simmering Middle East into a powder keg, and thus increased the blowback towards the United States as a whole. A perfect example of this phenomenon would be 9/11. Of course, Washington endorsing Tel Aviv did by no means directly cause the terrorist attacks. But, this support was arguably the foremost bone of contention Al-Qaeda has with the United States, one they can easily use to recruit and radicalize Muslim men and women in the region.

2. Support for Israel without any sort of conditions has endangered the stability of regimes friendly to American policies in the region. Allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt find themselves under intense fire from their citizens when they appear to look powerless on the Arab/Israeli conflict. By associating themselves with the United States, a nation who has little issue with supporting Israel, these Arab nations put themselves in danger from Islamist insurgencies and other potential radical groups who feed off the otherwise moderate citizens who feel passionately about Palestinian statehood. However loathsome Egypt and Saudi Arabia may be on human rights and freedom of speech, they are invaluable supporters in the war on terror. If they were to be shamed by their citizens after looking impotent towards helping the Palestinians, dire consequences could materialize for our interests.

3. The no questions asked support for Israel has emboldened and assisted Iran. It's no secret that the mullah's running Iran are not particularly popular amongst their own people. The control and dissemination of information, and they ability to mold public opinion is essential for the clergy to maintain power.

Luckily for the Iranian leadership, there is no easier way to distract the populace than to bring up how the "Zionists and Americans" are crusading against Muslims throughout the world. No other argument, as facetious and factually wrong as this may be, has a similar mollifying effect for the Iranian regime. The Bush Administration's decision to offer unilateral support to Israeli doctrine has thus provided the Iranian leadership, namely Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with plenty of rhetorical fire to steer their citizenry away from any concerted effort at reform.

As a result, disastrous decisions have been made that have jeopardized critical US interests in the region. Among the miscues:

Given the 3 examples listed above, one would think that carrying a myopic and restricted policy into a region as volatile as the Middle East would be implausible. Public opinion and pressure would not permit for such a contretemps between United States interests and their policies in the region.

Yet, sadly, because the climate is such that any sort of policy that attempt to disengage United States' policies from Israel's is summarily dismissed as "anti-Semitic", or would "help the terrorists", failures abound. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, this phenomenon spans the ideological spectrum, from the far right to the Democrats in Congress. None of these entities are brave enough to buck the prevailing orthodoxy, and as a result, American interests are threatened and will continue to be so.

Frankly, one should expect a greater degree of intellectual pliancy from the man who will be the 44th President of the United States. That said, I would not turn to John McCain for any sort of resiliency or malleability with respect for the Middle East. Like the rest of his party, every issue is as clear as the Biblical battle between "good" and "evil". The Israeli's are good, and of course, the Palestinians and their Muslim allies are patently, and wholly bad. Hell, the only thing that gets John McCain more excited than the imminent destruction of Iran, and the subsequent rise of Israel to the apotheosis of the Middle East, is to talk about how "we are winning" in Iraq.

So that leaves the onerous task to Barack Obama. Throughout the primary season, Obama has shown himself a formidable and adaptable politician. Despite that pedigree, he has thus far been unwilling to serve as a bulwark against the irrationality of the present Israel policy.

However, he has shown a innate capacity to learn quickly. After all, only 4 years ago he was a novice in the Illinois legislature. Let's hope he utilizes those same instincts to address the deficiencies in the U.S. policy towards Israel.