In 1991 President George H.W. Bush tried to stop Israeli settlements by linking American loan guarantees to the Jewish state with a freeze on the settlements. Pro-Israel groups in this country went haywire, and Bush backed down, and famously complained about "all these lobbyists on the Hill," or words to that effect. Bush lost the presidency the following year and by some accounts, his loss was dealt by Jewish groups in the U.S.
His successor Bill Clinton wisely left Israel/Palestine issues till the bitter lame duck end of his 8-year presidency.
Clinton’s successor George W. Bush wisely left the Israel/Palestine issues till the bitter lame duck end of his 8-year presidency.
At which time–last weekend–the younger Bush said that the newest Israeli settlements "ought to go."
Do you see the pattern? I thought my country was a superpower. It’s not in this area. Our presidents are weaklings, our politics are broken. It’s no wonder that two international relations scholars stopped considering the issue as one of international relations and looked at it as an outgrowth of domestic politics: Mearsheimer and Walt, who penned The Israel Lobby.
In his new book, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, Jacob Heilbrunn writes that in some part for religious reasons, the neocons have never believed in the peace process or the sacrifice of Israeli lands to the Palestinians. Heilbrunn states that the movement of the neocons to Reagan from Carter in ’80 and from Bush to Clinton in ’92 helped to elect both challenger candidates. Did you hear that? The switch of the neocons from Carter to Reagan–crossing party lines in 1980–then the switch back across party lines in ’92, both times because of the Israel issue, was an important factor in presidential politics in those elections, helping to unseat an incumbent President. No wonder Clinton and Bush let well enough alone till 7 years had passed.
This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s just hardball. The problem is that only religious crazies and rightwing Israelis get to play, and the rest of us sit in the bleachers. That is the question that should be asked of the new New York Times columnst, Bill Kristol (who served in the White House under Bush I): Why have you supported the illegal settlements? Why have our presidents who opposed them been able to do nothing about them for lo these many decades?
