Foreign Policy In Focus

(First in a series.)

Although not quite over, September 2011 is one that Israelis are likely not soon to forget. It’s not that their whole world has been shattered, but many of the political threads that have held Israeli regional policy together for decades seem to have simultaneously broken leaving the Israeli "ship of state" floating aimlessly in the Eastern Mediterranean. Worse, it seems to have been hit with a political tsunami for which it – as well as its main supporters in Washington – was ill prepared.

Five years after Israel’s abortive invasion of Lebanon that left 20,000 Lebanese dead and the country’s infrastructure in ruins as a result of massive Israeli bombing, three years after Israel’s unconscionable military assault on Gaza, and one year after Israeli special forces stormed the Mari-Marmara Turkish aid ship to Gaza, killing 9 (8 Turks and one U.S. citizen) Israel finds itself more and more isolated both within the Middle East and in the world as a whole, its image tarnished, its credibility at a low point.

The U.S. Congress can vote for lop-sided pro-Israeli resolutions until it is blue in the face. The fact remains that over the past five years Israel’s international status has plummeted. Almost universally outside of the U.S. and a few of its closest allies, Israel is characterized as a rogue state and threat to peace. The comparisons between Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories is more and more compared to South Africa’s treatment of blacks under the apartheid system. Indeed, Israeli isolation is probably more total today than South Africa’s in the last days of apartheid. Its cynical strategy that the rest of the world can go to hell as long as it has the support of Washington is coming apart at the seams.

Among the recent slew of developments:

• Two strategic regional allies upon which Israel heavily relied to help extinguish anti-Israeli fires now appear far less willing to play their designated role – Turkey and Egypt.
• Turkish-Israeli relations are at an all-time low. The Mari-Marmara incident did not blow over; a significant political and military parting of the ways seems to be occurring as Turkey, essentially spurned in its attempt at European Union membership, turns east.
• Perhaps even more serious, is the decline in Israeli-Egyptian relations. The much touted 1979 Camp David Accord has not collapsed, but Egypt has called for its re-negotiation. Egypt’s unwillingness to support the Israeli sealing of Gaza and the partial re-opening of the Egyptian-Palestinian border crossing has somewhat defused the humanitarian crisis there.
• Egypt’s post-Mubarak posture – pressed by mass opposition in Egypt to the Israeli-Egyptian relationship – has also given momentum to new dialogue and possible cooperation between the main long-feuding Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah.
• Regardless of the U.S. vete’s Palestinian UN membership or not, the momentum to support the principle of Palestinian statehood in the United Nations has been a great diplomatic setback for Israel that should not be under-estimated.
• And while Barack Obama – in perhaps his worst performance on the world stage – "stood by" Israel at the United Nations, U.S.-Israeli relations have become strained as the voices within the United States – both within circles of power and on the street – question whether the U.S.-Israeli relationship benefits or undermines the U.S. strategic position in the Middle East.
• As Israel finds itself more and more isolated in the Middle East, it's turning even more so than in the past to what might be called the meshugener Christian fundamentalist fringe (John Hagee, Christians United For Israel) here in the USA that has always supported (politically and financially) settlement building and opposed negotiations with the Palestinians.

The fact of the matter is that the spectacular collapse of Israel’s strategic position is the result of trends that have been brewing for decades and is not simply the result of recently events. What has happened recently is that its near-eternal violation of international law and its contempt for UN resolutions excepting those serving its interests has caught up with Israel. It turns out that there is a limit to how long a country can ignore international law – even the United States or Israel – before the boomerang of the world’s conscience hits in the back of the neck.

A few months after Israeli Foreign Secretary Tzipi Livni suggested that Israel was facing nothing less than a crisis in legitimacy; things continue to fall apart for the Netanyahu government. Put all together, these threads and others tell yet another tale: the utter failure of what was called the Oslo Peace Process and with it, a dramatic failure in U.S. Middle East policy as well. Oslo is dead in the water and has been for a long while. It is only now finally after yet another unsuccessful attempt to raise it from the dead, that both Obama and Netanyahu understand that it is gone, history.

Long lauded as a path to peace, 18 years after its signing, it has turned out to be anything but. Oslo was important in that it provided Israel with a cover of global legitimacy that it has now lost with Washington’s encouragement and connivance from both Democratic and Republican administrations. Israel tried to string the process along for as long as possible. It was a two pronged strategy: talk peace while building settlements (and then a separation wall) that would make a two-state settlement that much more difficult to achieve.

From the outset, more than skeptical about Oslo’s chances of delivering an Israeli-Palestinian peace based upon political realism and justice, we do not mourn – but welcome – its collapse. It produced nothing but settlements and suffering. A new framework is needed; the time is now.

Ibrahim Kazerooni is completing a joint PhD program at the Iliff School for Theology and the University of Denver’s Korbel School of International Studies in Denver. Rob Prince is a lecturer in International Studies at the University of Denver’s Korbel School of International Studies; for the past seven years he has published a blog, The Colorado Progressive Jewish News.  

Cross-posted from Mondoweiss.

In response to expected clashes between Israeli settlers and Palestinians over the UN vote on Palestinian statehood, the Palestinian Popular Struggle Coordination Committee and the Israel group Anarchists Against The Wall are launching their own patrol efforts around Palestinian villages. Meanwhile, in response to the deaths of two Israelis in a car crash whose cause is now attributed to Palestinian stone throwers, Israeli settlers are demanding that the IDF take action, or they will. The controversial Orthodox Chief Rabbi of the Kiryat Arva settlement, Dov Lior, has told Israeli news outlets that "We have murderous rioters surrounding us, according to the Torah, there is room for collective punishment and the IDF must carry out the punishment against the rioters. There are no innocents in a war."

The anti-price tagging story, first reported by the Christian Science Monitor, outlines the actions of the Palestinian-Israeli groups, who are running car patrols around Palestinian villages and lands to keep an eye out for price-taggers, Israeli settlers who attack Palestinians and IDF property in retaliation for any removal of Israeli settlers from the West Bank. The CSM notes the recalcitrance of the Israeli settlers towards these actions, quoting the mayor of the West Bank settlement of Itmar as saying "This is our home, Israel. It’s in the Bible. It belongs to the Jewish nation."

Israeli settlers are already coordinating their own patrols and protests through their community organizations, while the IDF, Israeli Border Police and Palestinian Authority are nominally working together to prevent outbreaks of violence. At least 5 Israeli settlements have also brought in members of the far-right French JDL to prevent "Arab infiltration."

The CSM also quotes Palestinians involved in the anti-price tagging patrols as being unsupportive of the UN effort and willing to engage in a non-violent campaign to resolve the settlements' question. This course of action has also been suggested by outside commentators, such as Carne Ross of Independent Diplomat.

The story about the Palestinian and Israeli anti-price tag patrols as reported by the pro-Israel, Jewish-American weekly The Algemeiner, though, focuses on charges of how these groups are delegitimizing Israel and enabling the deaths of settlers through their (in)action towards Palestinians throwing rocks at Israeli motorists (two Israelis were reportedly killed in a car crash caused by Palestinian stone throwers on Friday):

Among the settlement leaders who have expressed their concerns is David Ha’ivri, the spokesman for the Samaria Liaison Office, the public relations branch of the Samaria Regional Council.

Ha’ivri alleged that the patrol initiative was “another effort by the extremist left wing and Anarchist activists in Israel to cause friction between Jewish and Arab residents.”

Commentary magazine, referring the stone throwers, asserts that "Arabs" are the main source of all West Bank violence and that the "rare" instances of Israeli retaliation are often done in self-defense.

Israeli settlers have reacted strongly to the deaths. A public funeral for the dead was disrupted by protests that forced the IDF to intervene. A settler leader told Ynet:

The hurling of stones must be stopped. If the IDF can't do it, then we'll do it and we know how. We shall deploy our men along the line. Anyone with a licensed weapon will arrive and we'll equip others with batons and protective gear.

So far, according to Israeli media, protests and counter-protests in the West Bank have remained "relatively" calm, though deaths and injuries among both Israelis and Palestinians have been reported since Friday, when the PA formally presented its statehood bid at the UN in New York.

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

On the face of it, statehood is an odd request to reject. But, writes Gershom Gorenberg at the Daily Beast: "The official argument is that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has turned to the United Nations because he wants to evade making peace with Israe.l As Israeli Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar phrased it at a recent political rally … 'The Palestinians have been serial rejectionists of peace—ever since the U.N. decision of 1947.'"

It's tough to understand how the process of becoming a state could sabotage the peace process. Intuitively the opposite should be true: becoming a state suggests a readiness to assume the responsibility of global citizenship. Nevertheless, in a speech yesterday (September 20) before the UN Security Council, President Obama spelled out the unconventional wisdom on why Palestine should be denied statehood. Instead, he said

… the international community should continue to push Israelis and Palestinians toward talks on the four intractable "final status" issues that have vexed peace negotiations since 1979: the borders of a Palestinian state, security for Israel, the status of Palestinian refugees who left or were forced to leave their homes in Israel, and the fate of Jerusalem, which both sides claim for their capital.

Turns out Abbas is willing to comprise and delay statehood until more talks are held. The Guardian reports:

International efforts to forestall a showdown in the UN security council over the declaration of a Palestinian state are solidifying around a plan for the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, to submit a request for recognition but for a vote on the issue to be put on hold while a new round of peace talks is launched.

In the interim, Washington couldn't wait to show Israel how alarmed it was by Palestine's pursuit of statehood. James Traub at Foreign Policy:

With barely a week to go before the Palestinian Authority (PA) seeks a vote on statehood at the United Nations, members of U.S. Congress have begun to stage a lively competition for the most elaborately punitive legislative response. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has prepared a bill that would withhold funds "from any UN agency or program that upgrades the status of the PLO/Palestinian observer mission," … Rep. Steve Israel, a New York Democrat, did her one better with a measure that would eliminate bilateral military assistance for any country that voted for statehood … But Rep. Joe Walsh, a right-wing Republican from Illinois, took the cake with a resolution endorsing Israel's right to annex the West Bank should the PA go ahead with the vote.

At New York Magazine, John Heilemann chronicles Washington's groveling during Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit in May of this year. 

The next day, Netanyahu delivered his on-camera lecture to Obama. … But Netanyahu knew he could get away with it—so staunch and absolute is the bipartisan support he commands in the U.S. Garishly illuminating the point, on the night before his speech to Congress, the prime minister attended the annual AIPAC policy conference in Washington, where he was the headline speaker at the event’s gala banquet. Before he took the stage, three announcers, amid flashing spotlights and in the style of the introductions at an NBA All-Star game, read the names of every prominent person in the room, including 67 senators, 286 House members, and dozens of administration and Israeli officials, foreign dignitaries, and student leaders. … thunderous waves of applause … poured over Netanyahu.

The next day came his speech to Congress, in which he spelled out demands that were maximal by any measure: recognition by the Palestinians of Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition for negotiations, a refusal to talk if Hamas is part of the Palestinian side, an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and absolutely no right of return for Palestinian refugees.

More on Netanyahu's speech by Gideon Levy at Haaretz.

It was an address with no destination, filled with lies on top of lies and illusions heaped on illusions. … The fact that the Congress rose to its feet multiple times to applaud him says more about the ignorance of its members than the quality of their guest's speech.

Back to Heilemann:

Taken as a whole, his whirlwind Washington visit provided a strong dose of clarity. … So much pandering, so little time!

Here's an idea: when Netanyahu completes his term as prime minister, he should move back to the United States, where he lived for six years as a youth, graduating from an American high school. Cabinet members are free from birth requirements like the president of the United States. To make it that much easier for Capitol Hill to pay deference to Netanyahu and Israel, create a Department of Israeli Affairs, and appoint Netanyahu, like a Supreme Court justice, as its head for life.

Cross-posted from Mondoweiss.  

SEPT. 21 -- Hoo boy. It was a real Israel lovefest in Manhattan as Republicans, members of U.S. pro-Israel groups and Likud politicians convened at the prestigious W Hotel in Union Square, Manhattan yesterday morning. The press conference was led by GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry and KM Danny Danon. From JPost:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry will hold a press conference with American and Israeli-Jewish leaders in New York on Tuesday in which he is expected to address the upcoming deliberations at the United Nations, MK Danny Danon (Likud), said on Saturday night.

Danon, who will participate at the press conference, said he would ask Perry ahead of the conference to adopt the initiative the MK is advancing to annex Judea and Samaria in response to the unilateral Palestinian moves at the UN.

Danon, already in the U.S. to speak at nationwide Israel fundraisers and rallies prior to the UN vote, has proposed an "Annexation for Declaration Initiative," which would "establish full sovereignty over the Jewish communities of the West Bank . . . our historic homeland of Judea and Samaria:"

Under [my] three-state solution, Arab-Israelis residing within Israel would be welcome to join the official new State of Israel. The remaining enclaves of Palestinian towns and villages in Judea and Samaria would become part of either Egypt or Jordan, and the Egyptian and Jordanian borders would extend accordingly to these designated towns.

[Snip]

Both Jordan and Egypt have expressed strong support and concern for Palestinians living in the West Bank. If they truly care so much, then they should readily agree to a three-state solution and incorporate the Palestinian towns located adjacent to their current borders.

Perry avoided endorsing this proposal, though, proclaiming his support for a two-state solution (but not at this present time through the UN). Most of his remarks were directly or indirectly aimed at the Obama Administration rather than the Palestinian Authority or the PLO, though he said that the U.S. should consider cutting all aid to the Palestinians if the UN vote goes through, a measure already proposed by members of Congress. 

While Perry sought to present himself as a pro-Israel centrist, members of Congress have approved a resolution that mirrors Danon's. The annexations would include the settlement areas "as a start," and expand to encompass the "empty land" of Area C, a designation for almost 60% of total West Bank territory (less than 10% of the total Palestinian population resides in Area C). The land, susceptible to drought, is at least partly underpopulated by Palestinians because under the Oslo Accords, Area C has seen:

Demolition of livelihood structures -- including commercial structures, educational facilities, wells, water cisterns, water storage tanks, farmland and animal pens -- by Israeli authorities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem increased by about 85 percent in 2010 and so far in 2011.

[Snip]

In Area C, Israel retains military authority and full control over the building and planning sphere, while responsibility for the provision of services falls to the PA.

About 70 percent of Area C is classified as a firing zone, settlement areas, or nature reserves, and is inaccessible to Palestinians.

Danon argues that all this is right and proper because the land constitutes what was "Judea and Samaria": there's no Palestine, he insists, never was and certainly won't be on the Jews' God-given property. So while it is right for South Sudan to pursue statehood, in Danon's opinion -- "just like Israel, its people live with a sense of resolve and confidence that their existence is a God-given right," he has said, and "the creation of this new nation deserves the attention and admiration of the entire international community" -- it is not right, not God-given and certainly not admirable for the Palestinians to attempt to do so now or ever, as it will just lead to the establishment of an Iranian-backed "terrorist state" like Gaza.

All this will no doubt garner a robust "Amen!" from Perry, since he is all too happy to project past onto present, Israel onto Texas, Arabs onto Mexicans, and the "struggles" of Texan pioneers in the 1830s and 40s onto the "struggles" of Israeli settlers in the the 21st century. As he rather famously wrote in The Jerusalem Post last week: "historian T.R. Fehrenbach once observed that my home state of Texas and Israel share the experience of civilized men and women thrown into new and harsh conditions, beset by enemies." 

So it's exactly the same -- except for the part where Texans actually participated in a referendum over their annexation by the U.S. (granted, it was a referendum that whoeheartedly endorsed slavery). The non-Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria will presumably not have the luxury these (white) Texans did, though they will certainly be welcome to vote with their feet on whether they remain in Greater Israel or not.

Yet, as Max Blumenthal has pointed out, Perry's remarks are in fact, too clever by half. According to Blumenthal, what Fehrenbach actually said in his work Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans was this:

The Texan’s attitudes, his inherent chauvinism and the seeds of his belligerence, sprouted from his conscious effort to take and hold his land. It was the reaction of essentially civilized men and women thrown into new and harsh conditions, beset by enemies they despised. The closest 20th-century counterpart is the State of Israel, born in blood in another primordial land.

With that in mind, Danon is even more deserving than Glenn Beck is of an honorary Texan citizenship. Hell, make him an honorary Texas Ranger. Make everyone in Likud (among other parties) an honorary Texas Ranger. They could then do some whistlestop campaigning in the West Bank wearing official badges. 

Yisrael Beitenu's Avigdor Lieberman would probably look good in a bolo tie, and I think spurs would not look out of place on Im Tirtzu jackboots. But I shudder to think what Perry would wear to such a West Bank rally . . . especially as a U.S. president.

Perry will also be hosting a fundraiser targeted at Jewish donors in Manhattan this week (which may or may not be part of the venue with Danon on 9/20).

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

If one thing has the potential to unite the fractious U.S. House of Representatives, it is the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN. First up, we have Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Chairwoman of the influential House Foreign Affairs Committee, pushing a bill that would make U.S. funding of UN agencies conditional on how the body votes this month on Palestinian statehood. But the bill, which was just presented in the House, would also allow the U.S. to suspend financial support to the Palestinian Authority. It certainly has some interesting suggestions. Three stand out in particular, from a summary of the 153-page bill released by the Chairwoman's office:

Title IV – Status of Palestinian Entities at the United Nations: Opposes efforts by the Palestinian leadership to evade a negotiated settlement with Israel and undermine opportunities for peace by seeking de facto recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN (through gaining membership for “Palestine” in UN agencies or programs). Withholds U.S. contributions from any UN agency or program that upgrades the status of the PLO/Palestinian observer mission.

Title V – Goldstone Report: States that it is U.S. policy to lead a high-level diplomatic campaign calling for the revocation and repudiation of the Goldstone Report and its follow-on measures by the UN General Assembly. Also states that it is U.S. policy to consider the Goldstone Report, which falsely accused Israel of deliberately attacking Palestinian civilians during Operation Cast Lead, to be irredeemably biased and unworthy of consideration, legitimization, or support. Also states that it is U.S. policy to strongly and unequivocally oppose any consideration, legitimization, or support of the Goldstone Report or measures stemming from the report in multilateral organizations, and to encourage other nations to repudiate the report. Would also withhold U.S. funding from the Goldstone Report and its preparatory and follow-on measures.

Title VIII – UNRWA: Prohibits U.S. funding to UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which aids Palestinian refugees. Despite failing to meet the requirements under U.S. law to obtain foreign assistance, UNRWA has received about $500 million in FY 2009 and 2010 alone, with over $230 million in further funding included in the Administration’s FY 2012 budget request. The prohibition on funding would remain in place until UNRWA: vets its staff and aid recipients through U.S. watch lists for ties to Foreign Terrorist Organizations; stops engaging in anti-Israel propaganda and politicized activities; improves its accountability and transparency; and stops banking with any financial institutions under U.S. designation for terror financing or money laundering.

So yes, while it's little we have not heard before ("Second verse, same as the first!"), it is demonstrative of conservative opinion these days towards Israel, the Palestinians and the UN (and, arguably, "internationalism" in general).

But we also have House Democrats, despite Obama's vow to exercise the U.S.'s veto power in the UN Security Council against the Palestinian effort, joining with Republicans in proposing punitive actions against the Palestinians. Democrat Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia have introduced a (non-binding) resolution, drawing hundreds of signatures, which would strip the Palestinian Authority of the US$600 million worth of aid payments it receives from the U.S. government. Democratic Congressman of NJ Steve Rothman, who sits on the powerful House Appropriate Committee, and who supports cutting aid to the Palestinians if they proceed at the UN, had the following to say to Washington Jewish Weekly:

The P.A. is acting irrationally and against its own interests. These resolutions are unambiguous, and when put into effect . . . will have a devastating impact on the Palestinian economy. Most of the Palestinian leadership has decided to turn a blind eye to the terrible consequences that will result upon their own people.

Another Democratic-backed resolution is aimed at U.S. allies who have expressed support for the Palestinian initiative. It would "prohibit Foreign Military Financing Program (FMFP) assistance to countries that vote in the UN General Assembly in favor of recognizing a Palestinian state in the absence of a negotiated border agreement between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority." So far, it's main supporters are all Democrats -- Steve Israel and Eliot Engel of NY, Robert Brady of Pennsylvania and Steve Rothman of NJ. None of these individuals are no-name Congressmen: Israel, a member of several Israeli caucuses in the House, was appointed by Nancy Pelosi to serve as the head of the 2012 Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and, along with Rothman, sits on the House Appropriations Committee. Engel is a member of the aforementioned House Foreign Affairs Committee. Brady has a seat on the House Armed Services Committee.

The multibillion-dollar FMFP is overseen by the Department of Defense but ultimately answers to Congress because it was established during the Cold War by Congress through a law called the Foreign Assistance Act. The bill, first reported on by Washington Jewish Weekly, is based on the rationale that foreign countries that oppose Israel should no longer receive U.S. military assistance.

One presumes that the bill is primarily aimed at Egypt and Jordan, who are, respectively, the second and third largest FMFP recipients in the Middle East, with Israel being the  number one beneficiary of the program (the numbers for 2009: Israel, US$2.55 billion; Egypt, US$1.3 billion; Jordan, US$335 million).

This is the Department of Defense's description of the FMFP (kind of reads like a press release for General Dynamics, doesn't it?):

The principal means of ensuring America’s security is through the deterrence of potential aggressors who would threaten the U.S. or its allies. Foreign Military Financing, the U.S. government program for financing through grants or loans the acquisition of U.S. military articles, services, and training, supports U.S. regional stability goals and enables friends and allies to improve their defense capabilities. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) is made available under the authority of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). Congress appropriates FMF funds in the International Affairs Budget, the Department of State allocates the funds for eligible friends and allies; and the Department of Defense executes the program. FMF helps countries meet their legitimate defense needs, promotes U.S. national security interests by strengthening coalitions with friends and allies, cements cooperative bilateral military relationships, and enhances interoperability with U.S. forces. Because FMF monies are used to purchase U.S. military equipment and training, FMF contributes to a strong U.S. defense industrial base, which benefits both America’s armed forces and American workers.

Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Turkey also benefit from FMFP assistance.

Considering that the list of proscribed recipients would include valuable U.S. "allies" in the Mideast, it is not an idle threat (whereas, say, China, the EU and Russia could care less -- more arms sales opportunities for them worldwide).

Then again, the Democratic-written bill would allow the president to review the suspensions on a case by case basis, so maybe it is an idle threat after all. Still, it sends an inescapable message: you're expendable when it comes to Israel.

It says a lot about U.S. politics that while an international small arms treaty cannot win Congressional U.S. support because of Second Amendment concerns, a bill that would suspend all military aid to human rights violators such as the Egyptian, Turkish, Pakistani and Saudi Arabian militaries only exists because of the U.S. commitment to blocking a UN recognition of Palestinian statehood, which, according to the U.S. Government, is conditional on the following:

Palestinian State: No aid is permitted for a future Palestinian state unless the Secretary of State certifies that the governing entity of the state

1. has demonstrated a firm commitment to peaceful coexistence with the State of Israel [NB: this would exclude Hamas as it stands today];

2. is taking appropriate measures to counter terrorism and terrorist financing in the West Bank and Gaza in cooperation with Israel and others; and

3. is working with other countries in the region to vigorously pursue efforts to establish a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the Middle East that will enable Israel and an independent Palestinian state to exist within the context of full and normal relationships.

This restriction does not apply to aid meant to reform the Palestinian governing entity so that it might meet the three conditions outlined above. Additionally, the President is permitted to waive this restriction for national security purposes.

These bipartisan Congressional efforts show just how much Washington is willing to gamble on Israel's behalf this September. While some Democrats have announced their opposition to the GOP's UN-targeted bill, the FMFP and aid suspension resolutions may yet be one "liberal" defense-slashing bill we might see many Congressional Republicans supporting.

Might. After all, the defense industry sells many of the same weapons to both Israel and countries like Saudi Arabia. Who cares who recognizes who as long as both keep buying!

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