All Israeli politics is local — it’s American

This is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.

When it comes to those who want to discipline Israel’s abuse of power, those who place their faith in the next round of the US election cycle should have their heads examined.

The Republican pandering to Israel and its US supporters is obvious. Hillary Clinton’s pandering is obvious, too, and more to the point. Her recent pledge to host Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House during her first month as President sounds, well, presidential.  As the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination and the odds-on favorite to win the presidency, Clinton is the one to watch.

Netanyahu’s visit to the US this week is timed for the US election cycle. His mission is to mend ties that were frayed during and after the Iran deal went south on his watch. It’s hardly a coincidence that it’s also a time for those elected officials who voted for the Iran deal to mend fences with the various Israel lobbies. That is, if they want to be reelected.

So reports the New York Times. It seems that all international politics is local and the international politics of Israel is more local still. The Times emphasizes the slights and pressure placed by the Israel lobby on elected officials who supported the Iran deal:

Democratic members of Congress felt the wrath of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pro-Israel groups almost immediately after announcing their support for the nuclear deal with Iran. They were left off the guest list of the annual Rosh Hashana reception at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, traditionally a bipartisan affair. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware was nearly disinvited by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee from a gathering with wealthy donors in New York City — a result, the group told members, of his “disappointing decision on the Iran vote.” Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who is facing an expensive re-election campaign in 2016, had fund-raisers around the country canceled by pro-Israel supporters.

The Times’ Julie Hirschfeld Davis also notes what these elected officials have to do to win the trust, that is, campaign dollars, back to their side. Highlighted is a back and forth speaking invitation to Senator Chris Coons of Delaware:

The day after the committee informed supporters by email that it was punishing Mr. Coons for his Iran vote by removing him from its list of speakers at a lunch in October at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, it circulated a “clarification” message, calling the earlier email “in error,” and saying there would be no change to the program. Both emails were obtained by The New York Times.

An Aipac spokesman said Friday that the organization never made a decision to disinvite Mr. Coons, and that the email indicating he had been dropped was “not authorized.”

Mr. Coons, who attended the luncheon, said he “was made to feel very welcome, even though there were many people at the event who continued to make clear their disagreement with me.” He called the invitation episode “a misunderstanding.” (His spokesman later said that neither the senator nor anyone in his office was ever informed that the invitation had been rescinded.)

“I think there is a recognition on many parts that we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that support for Israel is a bipartisan position, and that going forward, we reassert the strength, the durability and the unshakability of that relationship,” Mr. Coons said in an interview.

Mr. Blumenthal declined to comment on the canceled fund-raisers, but said tensions persisted.

“My vote caused some consternation, some real personal heartbreak and some remaining hard feelings, but I have really made an effort to explain and to tell people unequivocally that I’m moving forward to support Israel,” he said. “They’re not there yet; they’re not saying, ‘All is forgiven,’ by any means. Some have said: ‘We’re not talking to you again. We’re not supporting you again.’ ”

He said he maintained “optimism” for healing the bruised relationships “over time.”

The tensions that persist are of interest – if they persisted and made a difference in the long run. More than a few progressive and even radical commentators thought that Netanyahu’s break with President Obama and his speech to the joint session of Congress was the needed turning point of US support for Israeli expansionism. As in previous crisis points in the US-Israel relationship, these pundits were wrong.

Instead, with increased military aid to Israel now assured and Middle Eastern governments support for Israel’s increased repression of Palestinian resistance, it seems that what some thought was a series of political blunders has, instead, worked in Netanyahu’s favor.

If all politics is local and Israel’s politics in the US is more local still, underestimating, even deriding, the politics of incitement and violence, is risky. When President Clinton meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu in the Oval Office in January 2017, they will both be smiling for the cameras. Palestinians will be out of sight. And out of mind.