-Caveat Lector-
>From http://antiwar.com/mcconnell/pf/p-mc040902.html
}}}>Begin
Ground Zero
by Scott McConnell
Antiwar.com
April 9, 2002
BUSH VS SHARON: THE SEQUEL
Who will prevail in the showdown between President Bush and Prime Minister
Sharon? Bush has asked Sharon to cease offensive military operations on the West
Bank and begin to withdraw immediately; Sharon has replied that he will stop on his
timetable, not Washington's.
Events have forced Bush to recognize that Washington's one-sided support for Israel
is gnawing away at every American relationship in the Arab world, undermining the
President's war against terrorism and potentially threatening its oil supplies. The
President seems finally to understand that America's vital security interests are
jeopardized by the absence of a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.
Sharon for his part has always felt that the only way to deal with Palestinian national
aspirations is military force; throughout his long career, he has opposed every peace
proposal and negotiation. Now, in the midst of intensifying war of terror and counter-
terror, he seems to have enough political support in Israel to carry out a plan of
destroying the nascent institutions of a Palestinian state. America's interests mean
zilch to him.
Try to imagine the subject as it plays out in George W. Bush's mind. He is a man
who did not read or reflect very much about the wider world for most of his life, now
thrust suddenly into a circumstance in which hundreds of millions scrutinize his every
word and gesture for nuance, and where his decisions have life and death
consequences for much of the planet.
If he is like most Americans, with no particularly strong convictions about the Middle
East other than a vague desire not to get harmed by the issue, the course of least
resistance is to cede the Arab-Israel portfolio to the most pro-Israel people he knows.
Running for president with something of a reputation as a lightweight to overcome,
there was no downside to doing this. If you are Bush and let it be known early on that
you are completely on Israel's side, meet regularly with neoconservative intellectuals,
have one or two of them on your campaign staff, you are likely to find yourself the
beneficiary of articles describing your intellectual curiosity and surprising range,
what
a quick study you are, etc. Shelving a vexatious issue and solidifying your reputation
on a vulnerable front, a pro- Israel stance kills two birds with one stone.
In Bush's case however, the matter is hugely complicated by what happened to his
father. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush had the most noteworthy showdown
with Israel and the American Israeli lobby of any American president. While the
outcome was mixed, the President definitely lost on points.
In early September of 1991, Israel's right wing government had asked Washington
for a loan guarantee for $10 billion in commercial paper – seeking the new credit line
to finance the resettlement of Jews leaving the Soviet Union. Bush had six months
earlier driven Saddam Hussein's armies from Kuwait, helped by a broad Arab
coalition; he then was planning to convene an unprecedented peace conference in
Madrid. And he didn't want to undermine the conference by subsidizing massively the
settlement of a million new immigrants to Israel on Palestinian land in the West Bank
– where the Shamir government was inclined to place many of them.
Bush asked Congress to delay the loan guarantees for four months. The Israeli lobby
shifted into gear; one day, about a thousand lobbyists began paying visits to
Congressional offices, making the case for the United States to dispense the
guarantees immediately.
Anyone who has worked on the Hill will tell you that Israel lobbyists always present
their case well. Three or four lobbyists will arrive, each prepared to make a different
point. But behind the presentation is an understanding that never has to be made
explicit: the Israeli lobby has tremendous financial clout, and if it decides to start
funneling campaign donations to your opponents, your future in politics will become
difficult and probably be short. As Michael Lind pointed in out in the British journal
Prospect, the Israel lobby functions differently from other ethnic lobbies, which
promise to mobilize voters for and against various candidates. The Israel lobby
works more on the model of the national lobbies like the NRA and pro-choice and
right-to life movements, dispensing funds on a national basis to help or punish. It has
the reputation of being the most effective and potent lobby of them all.
Confronting a lobbying storm against his effort to slow down the loan guarantees,
then President Bush stepped before the microphones and said "I heard today there
were something like a thousand lobbyists on the Hill working the other side of the
question. We've got one lonely little guy doing it." He spoke further about being "up
against some powerful political forces."
At this point, the loan guarantees had massive political backing in Congress, the
branch of government which attends lobbies most closely – the Israel lobby and
others. For a while, Bush's complaint helped shift the balance; Congressional
support for overriding the President's opposition to the four month moratorium on the
guarantees dissolved overnight. It wasn't actually a showdown – Israel got its funds
later; and the Madrid Peace Conference spawned the Oslo agreements. But there
was a confrontation of sorts, and initially the President seemed to come out ahead.
But at a price. Within days there a buzz of commentary, audible to anyone paying
attention: many Jews interpreted Bush's words about the lobbyists as an anti-Semitic
attack on them. Malcolm Hoenlein, director of the Presidents Conference, an
influential and centrist Jewish organization, issued a statement decrying Bush's
comments as an assault on the Jewish right to practice citizen advocacy. Meanwhile,
the White House began receiving a lot of troubling mail, congratulating the President
for speaking out against "the lobby."
President Bush wrote an apologetic letter to the chairman of the Presidents
Conference, talking of his great respect for lobbyists, and apologizing for being the
source of any hurt feelings.
That seemed to put the issue to rest. But it didn't go away. In September, a close
Bush political ally, Richard Thornburgh, held a big lead in an off year race for
Pennsylvania's vacant Senate seat. Suddenly his 44 percentage point lead began to
evaporate, and Harris Wofford began to gain. The media attributed Wofford's surge
to a sudden outbreak of interest in the health insurance issue. But insiders noted that
money, the mother's milk of politics, played a decisive role. As J.J. Goldberg points
out in his book Jewish Power (my principle source for this discussion) "within a week
after Bush's September 12 press conference, Republican and Democratic
fundraisers alike began noticing a distinct shift in donations away from Thornburgh
and towards Wofford." FEC filings showed that while Thornburgh throughout 1991
had been raising money at twice the rate of Wofford, that ratio was reversed in the
campaign's final weeks. Jewish donors who had played prominent roles in
Thornburgh's campaign throughout the year abandoned it at the end. After the
campaign, Thornburgh told Bush that he felt he had been the proverbial canary in the
mineshaft, the tell-tale first victim of President Bush's suddenly emergent problem
with Jewish voters and contributors.
Many factors went into Bush's 1992 defeat. Ross Perot's ascendance and the weak
economy make it difficult to gauge the importance of the loan guarantee issue in
taking him down from stratospheric approval ratings he enjoyed in the spring of
1991.
But in 2002 it is hard to imagine that the topic of the defeat and all the reasons for
it
doesn't come up frequently in conversation between father and son. Here the former
President Bush had marshalled a difficult domestic and foreign coalition to evict
Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, a task for which he was praised as masterful. Six
months later, he was depicted as a practitioner of "if not anti-Semitism, then
something very close to it" (in the phrasing of American Jewish Congress leader
Jacqueline Levine) and soon suffered crushing electoral defeat.
What lesson does his son draw from this, as his faceoff with Sharon makes the
headlines around the world every day? That the Israel lobby needs to be appeased
at all costs if one is to survive politically? Or something more akin to the words
attributed to (and denied by) then Secretary of State James Baker – "F*** Them,
They didn't vote for us anyway."
The blunt fact is that the political vulnerability cuts both ways. A veiled battle
with the
Israel lobby would wound severely the Bush presidency. But Washington, as Israel's
financial and military benefactor and only real foreign friend, has the power to bring
down Sharon's government. If it were to let out, quietly but unambiguously, that
Sharon was severely jeopardizing good American relations with Israel, Sharon's
government would not survive two weeks. If it made it clear that it thought it could
deal much more effectively with an Israeli government committed to seeking a fair
peace with the Palestinians, rather than smashing them, it would have a huge impact
on Israeli voters.
Clearly, this would be a extremely risky course in the time of extreme violence and
volatility. The Clinton administration did demonstrate to Israel that it felt Netanyahu
was a poor choice as leader – and influenced the Israeli electorate to vote for Barak.
But even though the Mid East was boiling then, the intensity of violence was much
less than current levels.
The present situation is dangerous and volatile; there are risks for President Bush in
whatever course he chooses. But the current trajectory – which has Sharon stomping
on America's reputation throughout the Arab world while he pummels the inhabitants
of the West Bank – holds the greater risks. There is considerable consensus that the
most-pro-Western governments in the Arab world, Jordan and Egypt, are far from
ideal; they have taken only tentative steps toward democracy; their economies are
riddled with corruption. But for American interests, they are much better than the
radical fundamentalist governments that would replace them. And that is the
alternative: if Sharon continues to fan the flames of anti-Americanism, friendly
regimes in the Arab world will fall, probably violently. We might not have one Saddam
Hussein but several. That is the message President Bush is receiving from every
diplomatic post in the Arab world, and why Bush and his top foreign policy people are
demanding in ever more urgent tones that Sharon pull back.
If Bush sees it through, compelling an Israeli withdrawal and beginning to work
actively for a two state settlement, he will risk a showdown with the Israel lobby at
home as least as severe as the one that wounded his father, and probably much
worse. He will be accused, as his father was, of anti- Semitism. (Indeed, I have
heard those accusations bandied about already, as soon as he called last Thursday
for an Israeli pullback.) But he would likely survive it, and come out all the stronger
on the other end.
Please Support Antiwar.com
A contribution of $50 or more will get you a copy of Ronald Radosh's out-of-print
classic study of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets on the Right: Profiles of
Conservative Critics of American Globalism. Send contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no automatic endorsement
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
