Earlier this month, Washington vetoed yet another UN security council resolution, supported by all the other members, calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Commenting on the council’s failure to pass the resolution, China’s ambassador to the UN, Fu Cong, accurately remarked that the vote result “once again exposes that the root cause of the council’s inability to quell the conflict in Gaza is the repeated obstruction of the US”. Indeed, as long as Israel can rely on the protection of its superpower patron, it can feel empowered to disregard the increasing global pressure against it to cease its crimes. The horrors in Gaza have reached such levels of cruelty and devastation that even the governments of Canada, the UK, and France have now strongly denounced Israel’s atrocities, threatening Israel with “concrete actions” if it persists in its campaign in Gaza. The Trump administration, though, has remained steadfast in its support for Israel, surpassing even Joe Biden’s extreme support for Israel’s actions. Therefore, the Israeli government can feel unthreatened by (from its point of view) irrelevant global denunciations of its crimes, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can continue to make a mockery of the UN, dismissing it as an “antisemitic swamp”.
US support for Israel, however, is not set in stone, and there has been a remarkable shift in US public opinion concerning Israel in recent years. A Gallup poll conducted earlier this year found that less than half in the US are now sympathetic toward Israelis, the lowest level of support for the key American ally in the Middle East in 25 years of Gallup’s annual tracking of the measure. Meanwhile, the number of US adults who sympathize with the Palestinians (33 %) is the all-time highest reading by two points. There is also a deep partisan split on the issue, with Republicans inclined to have a far more favorable attitude towards Israel than Democrats, although even the number of younger Republicans with negative views on Israel has dramatically increased in recent years. These significant shifts (which will probably intensify as Israel solidifies its status as a global pariah through its lawlessness and destruction of Gaza) are not, however, reflected in policy yet. Bipartisan support for Israel remains strong, and figures like Congressman Thomas Massie and the progressives Democrats that are critical of Israel are still a minority in US Congress.
It is, however, conceivable that the US public’s increasingly critical views on Israel could eventually compel the political leadership in Washington to change course on the Israel-Palestine issue. The US government could, for instance, be pressured to follow the radical course of abiding by US law. The Leahy Law explicitly forbids the US
government from providing military assistance to foreign security force units that are involved in serious human rights violations. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) should undoubtedly be disqualified from receiving US military aid under this law, given its conduct in the current Gaza conflict (not to mention its decades-long oppression of the Palestinian people). However, as Charles Blaha, a former US State Department official, has stated, information that “for any other country would without question result in ineligibility is insufficient for Israeli security force units”, criticizing the Department for “non-compliance with the law”. In 2021, US Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren proposed conditioning US military aid to Israel on Israel ending its human rights violations and illegal settlement expansion in the occupied territories. Last fall, Sanders undertook a failed effort in the Senate to block arms sales to Israel (with most Democrats joining all Republicans in opposing the move). In 2021, Congresswoman Betty McCollum, with the support of 13 progressives in the US House of Representatives, introduced a bill that would prohibit US aid from being used to fund violations of Palestinians’ human rights. Earlier this year, Congressman Massie urged the US government to end all military aid to Israel. Combined with the pressure and protests of a dedicated US public, these initiatives could bring about a fundamental change in US-Israel relations, which could compel Israel to seriously sue for peace and facilitate the realization of the two-state solution.
It could also be noted that the supporters of Israel realize perfectly well that these shifts in public opinion could erode future US support for Israel. A paper published earlier this year by the Institute for National Security Studies, a major Israeli think tank, warns that “[t]he dangers of diminished US support, particularly as it reflects long-term and deeply rooted trends, cannot be overstated” and that “[i]f current trends continue, rank and file members of Congress will almost certainly include more critics of the US-Israel alliance and more members for whom it is simply not a priority”. To ward off this danger, the paper’s author, professor Theodore Sasson, suggests, among other things, that “Israel should pursue bilateral security agreements with the United States that leverage the Republican administration’s political support and bind future governments to the US-Israel alliance”. In other words, Israel should seek to make US support immutable and irreversible, no matter what the US public may prefer in the future. Similar worries were reflected in AIPAC’s spending bonanza last year to ensure the defeats of pro-Palestine candidates in Democratic primaries. AIPAC spent $8.5 million to defeat Democratic Congresswoman Cori Bush in Missouri, while also devoting $17 million to bring down Democratic Congressman Jamal Bowman in New York.
Despite the trends in US public opinion towards greater sympathy for the Palestinians and the (limited) calls from lawmakers for a change in course, Biden and especially Trump have been very reluctant to exercise US leverage on Israel to influence its behavior. Biden did suspend some arms shipments to Israel, but his administration still provided Israel with $17.9 billion for its military operations in Gaza and elsewhere
during the first year of the Gaza offensive, and under Trump, this support continues even more strongly. This is, however, a somewhat substantial change from earlier years, when various US presidents had no qualms in exerting US influence to modify or temper Israel’s actions. In 1952, former US President Harry S. Truman threatened to withhold economic aid to Israel unless it replaced notoriously violent guards along the Jordan river, and Israel obeyed. In 1957, following the Israel-UK-France invasion of the Suez Canal, parts of the Sinai and Gaza, former US President Dwight D. Eisenhower managed to force Israel to withdraw with a threat of severe sanctions, including the termination of all military assistance. Even the revered conservative hero, former US President Ronald Reagan, often applied pressure on Israel, threatening to withhold US military aid unless it complied with US demands. In one famous case, Reagan told former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to stop the shelling of Lebanon, or the future of the US-Israeli relationship would be “endangered”. Begin called Reagan 20 minutes after this ultimatum to inform him that Israel was complying. In 1992, when Israel was seeking US financial assistance to resettle Soviet Jews, former US President George H.W. Bush conditioned the approval of US loan guarantees to Israel on the cessation of settlement expansion in the occupied territories. The Israeli Prime Minister at the time, Yitzhak Rabin, relented and announced a halt on settlement construction, although he did not really make good on his promise.
Given the vast quantities of military aid Israel receives from the US, the American role in reining in Israeli violence is crucial. However, a broader arms embargo on Israel would also be desirable, and countries such as Spain, Japan, and Belgium have already suspended arms sales to Israel. As with the application of the Leahy Law in the US, there is nothing radical about this move, at least if we have even a minimal commitment to international law. As UN experts have pointed out, “[a]ny transfer of weapons or ammunition to Israel that would be used in Gaza is likely to violate international humanitarian law and must cease immediately”, and “Israel has repeatedly failed to comply with international law” in its Gaza offensive.
The failure of the US and many other Western countries to honor their obligations under international law once again demonstrates that international law is invoked very selectively. It is commonly used as a weapon against official enemies, while completely ignored when adherence to it would be inconvenient. When Russia illegally invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin was widely denounced as a war criminal, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) subsequently issuing an arrest warrant for him was greatly cheered in the West. Meanwhile, many Western countries still refuse to even suspend arms shipments to Israel, even though those arms are being used in some of the most egregious assaults on civilians in recent history. Furthermore, the ICC was subjected to angry, bipartisan denunciations in the US after it issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli
Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, even though any person with a moral bone in their body would consider such arrest warrants to be obviously justified.
Nevertheless, there is hope for the future. It is not a law of nature that the US should have a government which ignores not only international and domestic laws but also American public opinion. A committed US public could influence Washington’s stance on the Israel-Palestine issue, which might enable the just aspirations of the Palestinian people and help secure enduring peace.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.DonateEmail
Jooel Heinonen
Jooel Heinonen has a masters degree in social sciences from the University of Helsinki, Finland. He can be reached at jooeljheinonen@gmail.com.

No comments:
Post a Comment