Foreign Policy In Focus

Cross-posted from IPS Special Project Right Web's Militarist Monitor.

Last week, blogger and Inter Press Service correspondent Mitchell Plitnick reported that an otherwise little-noted Republican National Committee (RNC) meeting in New Orleans produced a potential foreign-policy firebomb: a unanimously adopted resolution apparently disavowing the party’s commitment to a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine and endorsing the Israeli annexation of the Palestinian territories.

The relevant text reads: “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that … Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.”

The curious trope that Israel is “neither an attacking force nor an occupier” harkens to an annexationist, right-wing audience that sees the West Bank in particular—or “Judea and Samaria”—as an integral part of Greater Israel, meaning the Israeli soldiers there in abundance are not properly foreigners but locals (the occupation itself notwithstanding). Proponents of this worldview often further suggest that the Palestinians themselves are “occupiers,” as implied by GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich when he called Palestinians an “invented people” who had missed their “chance to go many other places.” Although Palestinian lands are considered occupied territories under international law, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received a standing ovation from the U.S. Congress when he declared, “in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers.”

The allusion to “one law for all people” is quite clear about the number of states the GOP would favor in the region, but it leaves unresolved questions about the final status of Palestinians. Would they be fully absorbed and assimilated into a democratic Israel, or would they live on as second-class citizens, a potential Arab majority in an officially Jewish state? Might they be expelled from the region altogether?

Plitnick himself speculated that the RNC activists “do not understand the implications of their resolution and that it would mean either the end of Israel as a Jewish state or would necessitate the mass expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank.” Indeed, an RNC spokesman played down the report, noting that the official platform, which currently calls for “two democratic states living in peace and security,” can only be formally amended at the presidential nominating convention. But the unanimous one-state resolution speaks volumes about the attitudes of the GOP base toward Israel-Palestine.

One wonders why the party would seek to downplay this shift away from the two-state formula, which is already apparent in deed if not word. In addition to the party’s grassroots, its presidential candidates (at least the ones who aren’t Ron Paul) have been utterly unshy about advocating a pro-settlement policy in the West Bank that would render a viable two-state solution completely unworkable. 

In addition to his other impolitic remarks, for example, Gingrich has expressed his support for “development in the [occupied] areas” as a way for the Israelis to “[maximize] their net bargaining advantage”—acknowledging but not condemning the fact that the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories makes good-faith negotiation about the division of land impossible. Mitt Romney has criticized President Barack Obama for supposedly going “to the United Nations to criticize Israel for building settlements” in the West Bank, despite the fact that the Obama administration actually spent considerable diplomatic capital to veto a UN resolution condemning the settlements in defiance of its own stated policy. Most curiously, Rick Santorum has claimed—and repeatedly refused to clarify—that “all the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians.”

Perhaps the GOP’s reluctance to embrace its own one-state bent is purely tactical. If the party can continue to claim support for a stagnant “peace process” geared toward the eventual creation of a Palestinian state—all the while supporting the settlement program that has fatally hamstringed recent negotiations—it can continue to place the onus on Palestinians to recognize Israel’s “right to exist” as “a Jewish state,” and even to end their supposed “war on Israel,” as though these were the crucial stumbling blocks. Nominally clinging to the two-state formula enables Republicans to shirk tougher questions about the fate of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza that would inevitably arise should the party fully back a one-state solution.

Of course, if even the right-wing Israeli government is unwilling to own its positions on these matters, one could hardly expect better of today’s Republican Party.

Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg made quite a claim on Monday. Hosting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in London, Clegg declared that “there is no stronger supporter of Israel than myself.” Well, I’ve got news for you, Nick: there’s some very stiff competition for the title of Israel’s strongest supporter, and you’re not even a contender.

For one thing, Nick Clegg has actually had the temerity to criticize Israel on occasion, which immediately disqualifies him. For instance, at Monday’s press conference with Abbas, he stated that “I condemn the continued illegal [Israeli] settlement activity [in the Palestinian Territories] in the strongest possible terms.” He has also spoken out in the past against the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, describing that territory as “one of the most... wretched stretches of land on the planet.”

Let’s compare Clegg’s remarks with what Newt Gingrich has had to say about Israel and the Palestinians. The Republican presidential candidate isn’t exactly mealy-mouthed when it comes to giving his views on the Middle East, as exemplified by his now famous statement that “we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs.” (In fact, they are both Palestinian and Arab, but let’s put that to one side).

More of Gingrich’s uncompromising views on Israel can be found on his campaign website, where he accuses the Obama administration of “actively and materially harming Israel.” The White House has, he asserts, “unacceptably interfered in internal Israeli politics on a range of issues (from settlement construction to domestic legislation), challenging Israeli sovereignty in the process.”

It would be understandable if President Obama was somewhat resentful of this characterization of his policies towards Israel. After all, his administration has been very generous when it comes to dishing out aid to Israel, and has requested from Congress the not insubstantial sum of $3.075 billion for Israel for fiscal year 2012. And while administration officials have indeed claimed to oppose Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Territories, this stance was severely compromised in February 2011 when US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice vetoed a Security Council Resolution that condemned the settlements as “illegal”.  Every other member of the Security Council voted in favour of this resolution.

Now, I’m not saying I agree with the President’s policies towards Israel. I’m just pointing out that Gingrich’s assertion that the Obama administration is “actively and materially harming Israel” is untenable.

It’s pretty clear then that Clegg is some way behind not only Gingrich, but also the US President, in the pro-Israel stakes. And Clegg is certainly no match for Gingrich’s fellow Republican presidential hopefuls (except for Ron Paul, of course), who share the former Speaker’s penchant for issuing statements that are eerily reminiscent of Israel’s ruling Likud Party.

Consider the attitude of the two Ricks to Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It begins and ends here: both Perry and Santorum firmly reject the notion that the West Bank is occupied, viewing it as Israeli land. It follows that Israel has the right to build all the settlements it wants. For instance, in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in December, Perry stated that “I consider the Israeli settlements to be legal.” When Blitzer observed that the US State Department deems the West Bank to be occupied, Perry replied “I think our State Department from time to time gets it wrong.”

Rick Santorum likewise supports Israel’s right to construct settlements in the West Bank. He has declared that “This [the West Bank] is Israeli land and therefore… they have the right to build things based upon their ownership of that land.” Santorum also espouses Gingrich’s view that “there is no Palestinian.”

As noted above, these Republicans sound at times like spokesmen for Likud. Last May Israeli Prime Minister “Bibi” Netanyahu received a rousing reception when he spoke before the US Congress. He declared that “You have to understand this: In Judea and Samaria [the West Bank], the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers.” As we have seen, Perry and Santorum hold exactly the same view.

In the same speech Netanyahu underscored that “Israel will not return to the indefensible borders of 1967.” Taking his cue from “Bibi,” Santorum has excoriated Obama for having “deliberately put Israel in a vulnerable position by publicly stating that he supports Israel going back to the borders of Israel prior to when they were attacked [in 1967].” Israel actually attacked Egypt in June 1967, but we needn’t get into that.

Again, this characterization of Obama’s policy is distorted. The President’s position, which he outlined while speaking at the State Department last May, is that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” This would be an intolerable compromise in the eyes of Santorum and Perry, though, as they consider the whole of the West Bank to be Israeli land.

So Nick Clegg has a very long way to go before he can join the likes of Gingrich, Perry and Santorum among the ranks of Israel’s most fervent foreign supporters. To be part of that club, you must do the following: misrepresent the US president’s policies, declare that there is no such thing as a Palestinian, support settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and assert that the West Bank rightfully belongs to Israel. Oh, and any criticism of Israel is unacceptable.

I’m guessing that Nick Clegg, the leader of Britain’s Liberal Democrats, doesn’t want to be a member of that particular team. 

Michael Walker has a Ph.D. in International Relations from the University of St. Andrews, Scotland.

"Why does the Chief of Staff want to attack?" asks Uri Avnery, who morphed over the years from a member of the Israeli paramilitary Irgun to a peace activity, in a widely posted op-ed.

What? Iran? No, writes, Avnery. Because of the "catastrophic, even apocalyptic" economic consequences, Israel Defense Forces Chief of General Staff Benny Gantz "knows that he cannot have it."

It's Gaza he wants to attack. Why? How about … to "compel Hamas to become extremist again." It seems that Hamas is just not holding up its end of the bargain as an enemy. Avnery writes:

Hamas is being accepted by the international community. Their Prime Minister, Isma’il Haniyeh, is now traveling around the Arab and Muslim world, after being shut in Gaza – a kind of Strip-arrest – for four years. Now he can cross into Egypt because the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’ parent organization, has become a major player there.

Also

By joining the PLO, [Hamas chief Khaled Mash'al] is committing Hamas to the Oslo agreements and all the other official deals between Israel and the PLO. He has announced that Hamas accepts a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. He has let it be known that Hamas would not contest the Palestinian presidency this year, so that the Fatah candidate – whoever that may be – would be elected practically unopposed and be able to negotiate with Israel.

By removing the reasons to attack it, Hamas is pulling the rug out from under Israeli calls for Cast Lead II. It's always a sad day for an army when it loses an enemy, especially one it knows it can engage without unleashing World War III.

Haaretz on the December 29 arrests:

Security forces arrested prominent right-wing activists in the West Bank early Thursday, over suspicions they had been monitoring Israel Defense Forces in the region.

To say that Palestinian measures have come to Israel proper would be a bit much (as administrative detention has been applied to Israeli citizens before, such as Kach member Noam Federman), but here we are -- more from Haaretz (emphasis added):

Netanyahu approved issuing administrative detention orders for the Jewish extremists, as is usually done with Palestinians suspected of being a security risk. 

Moreover, the prime minister approved trying the Jewish activists in military courts, which would effectively expedite their sentencing and make their punishment more severe.

Early Thursday, a joint operation by Israel Police and Shin Bet forces...  The arrests took place in Jerusalem as well as in West Bank settlements of Yitzhar, Itamar, Harsha, and Kiryat Arba.

It is not clear if the "orders" refer to the Administrative Detention Order that the IDF enforces in the West Bank against Palestinians or the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law, though it is likely the latter since the accused are Israeli citizens, not Palestinians. 

Arutz Sheva, whose editorial pages strongly oppose the administrative detention of settlers, has a bit more information. The rightists are accused of helping organize the settler protests near Ramat Gilad: "Police said that the six did not actually enter the base, but did organize the group that did."

Paul Mutter is a graduate student at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at NYU and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

Cross-posted from Mondoweiss.

There are good NGOs and bad NGOs in Tel Aviv's eyes. The new Likud-Yisrael Beitenu NGO funding legislation is aimed at the bad ones. Bad ones criticize the Occupation. Good ones help it along. 

This bill will limit and tax foreign governments' funding for Israeli NGOs, yet it is not a sweeping measure that will affect Israeli nonprofits' funding from other sources (or from the Israeli government itself). It is targeted at left-wing organizations, particularly those that provided information for the Goldstone Commission -- its supporters openly admit this. Israeli officials also do not want to create a wide-ranging law that could impact right-wing charitable organizations. Tel Aviv increasingly depends on these groups, and their U.S. donors, to help subsidize and, most importantly, legitimize the Occupation.

The primary players on the ground in the West Bank are those operating on foot and from their cars hurling rocks, tear gas, bullets and threats at one another every day. So U.S. money that subsidizes the settlements -- including new immigrants -- is a little less money that Tel Aviv has to expend (and it expends a lot). Although this money does not come from U.S. politicians, it does come from their constituents -- many of whom are not shy about making their largess (and peace process preferences) known. These ties also aid pro-settlement Israeli politicians when they are stumping across America to drum up support for Tel Aviv's decisions. 

Americans for Peace Now argues, "private American money plays a relatively small role in the patterns of settlement construction; the real question is political." This is absolutely true. But the mere fact that "private American money" is there is significant because it shows Tel Aviv and Jerusalem planners that they can count on the U.S. failing to do much about their construction projects due to domestic debate.

Settlements and pro-settlement charities rake in large sums from foreign donors though, especially in the U.S. According to the New York Times, "at least 40 American groups" have given "$200 million in tax-deductible gifts for Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the last decade." The Guardian reports that the California-based Moskowitz Foundation has provided funding to the East Jerusalem-focused Ir David and Ateret Cohanim. Ir David ("City of David") is ostensibly an archaeological organization, but told the Guardian "the goal of our organisation is to increase the presence of Jews in the neighbourhood as much as possible." Ateret Cohanim has similar goals. Both groups have raised millions of dollars in the U.S. on their own through "Friends of Ir David Foundation" and "American Friends of Ateret Cohanim." Critics of the Moskowitz Foundation claim it has disbursed over US$150 million to the settlements, particularly in East Jerusalem, since the 1980s. 

Other pro-settlement organizations with U.S. ties include:

1. Hebron Fund: Registered in New York. It has given around US$1.5 million annually since 2004 to promote "social and educational well-being" in Hebron settlements. Its executive director, told donors at a 2009 gala: "There are real facts on the ground that are created by people helping the Hebron Fund and coming to our dinners."

2. Central Fund of Israel: Registered in New York. It raised approximately US$12 million in 2007 alone. Mondoweiss has reported how some of this money funds settler militias through the groups Amitz and Magen Yehuda. The Central Fund for Israel has been criticized for this aid, as well as its association with an extremist Yitzhar yeshiva tied to the far-right group Women in Green. 

3. Shuva Israel: Registered in Texas. It supports Jewish settlement in "the Hills of Samaria," aka the part of the West Bank encompassed by the Shomron Regional Council. Yitzhar, Rechalim, Nofei Nechemia and Revava are among the settlements it has provided welfare services for. Its website also notes "Christian support has provided the assistance that has enabled Shuva Israel to provide for the daily needs of some 2,600 new immigrants to the Biblical Hills of Samaria."

4. Christian Friends of Israeli Communities: Registered in Colorado, but also has offices in Israel and the EU. Founded in 1995 in protest against the Oslo Accords (which it claims run counter to "God's plan for the Jewish nation"), it has provided financial assistance to Israeli settlers in the West Bank. The group has received money from Pastor John Hagee's operations (see 7.)

5. One Israel Fund: Registered in New York. It provides "essential security, emergency medical, social service and other forms of humanitarian aid to the over 320,000 men, women and children." It is thought to raise and distribute around US$1 million annually to send over to settlements. Its website allows donors to gift money to other pro-settlement organizations, including the far-right group Im Tirutz. 

6. SOS Israel: Reportedly receives an unspecified amount of funding from a U.S. group called Machanaim, also registered in New York. SOS Israel gained notoriety (and was investigated by the Israeli government) for offering cash rewards to soldiers who disobey settlement eviction orders. SOS Israel is opposed to "giving up any part of Eretz Yisroel."

7. John Hagee Ministries (& Christians United for Israel): Registered in Texas. Evangelical Pastor John Hagee has been praised by both U.S. and Israeli officials for his unstinting support of Israel. The Christian Evangelical news network GOD TV reports that Hagee has raised US$58 million for charities in Israel. Im Tirtzu, the Gush Etzion Regional Council and the settlement of Ariel have all reportedly received funding from his network, among other venues. Hagee's operations are perhaps the most high-profile ones on this shortlist, partly because as an Evangelical leader he possess political clout that has brought presidential hopefuls to break bread with him. 

Legislation that would restrict private foreign donations would certainly gladden critics of the New Israel Fund (NIF), which has given money to Adalah and Physicians for Human Rights, and the Ford Foundation, which has given money to B'Tselem and Palestine Monitor. Both are well-financed, U.S.-based foundations -- and both have been accused of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism by Israeli critics. But broad legislation that would apply to private overseas donations would significantly impact pro-Israel organizations such as World Zionist Organization, the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, PEF Israel Endowment Funds (one of the largest U.S. philanthropic organizations that disburses grants to Israeli nonprofits, including some in the Occupied Territories), the Jewish National Fund (which also runs projects in the Occupied Territories) and perhaps even the American Israel Education Foundation that sends U.S. Congressional delegations to Israel. 

Such legislation would almost certainly not survive a "freedom of speech" lawsuit brought before either country's judiciary (that is, unless some judicial bills go the Israeli right's way). Different methods would be required to limit the activities of the NIF and company. One such avenue of attack would be to classify these groups as material supporters of a foreign terrorist organization, a designation that some Members of Congress are trying to have applied to the Center for Constitutional Rights and Free Gaza Movement. The success of the NGO funding bill in Israel may embolden critics of privately-funded leftist organizations in both countries. After all, one of Prime Minister Netanyahu's closest Likud colleagues said that Senator Joe McCarthy was proven "right" in his defense of the NGO funding bill. 

The Zionist narrative has significantly changed since the 1970s, and money is flowing to the facts on the grounds that resulted from these changes. It is not just a coincidence that the socially conservative religious revivals seen in Judaism and Christianity (and Islam) have all taken place from the 1970s on. Religion and politics mix a lot easier now. That narrative umbrella serves them well, since it brings together disparate groups in Israel, as well as the U.S., that reject compromise with the Palestinians. As the Economist notes, even though the Israeli right is far from united on everything, their bloc now makes up a "fast-growing" Knesset constituency and ~40% of the IDF officer corps. And no Democrat can, after the manufactured crisis in Obama-Israel relations, hope to pull a George W. Bush and withhold U.S. loan guarantees over the matter (I wonder, though, whose fault this might be in 2012).

Some may simply accept this as the price of supporting Israel: witness how the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has embraced the ultraconservative Michele Bachmann and John Hagee because of their unwavering support for Israel. Bachmann even told ZOA she would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital if elected.

I'll let Ed Koch have the last word on this uncivil union:

Hagee's followers have supported the State of Israel in many tangible ways. Evangelicals continue to visit Israel as tourists even during the most dangerous times, which is more than can be said for some Diaspora Jews. 

It has become fashionable among liberals, including Jews, to ridicule and denounce Hagee and other fundamentalists. I do not. I appreciate their support of the State of Israel and thank them for their enormous contributions to the Jewish state.

This is not to say that I agree with Rev. Hagee's view of Hitler or his other views. For example, I strongly disagree with Rev. Hagee's statement that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for homosexual sin in New Orleans. I also deplore his reference to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore," for which he has since apologized.

In this dangerous world, Christians and Jews must come together to fight our common enemies. I've been working for years to strengthen the Christian-Jewish alliance, and I intend to continue to do so.

Paul Mutter is a graduate student at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at NYU and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.