“I am a committed Zionist.”
President Joseph R. Biden, 2021-present
The Palestinian catastrophe in the United States began with the 33rd president and has continued with the 47th.
And then there was one, or two—one country, two systems. The political, economic, military and intelligence “interests” of the United States and Israel have become intertwined and often indistinguishable since President Truman decided to officially recognize Israel in 1948.
President Joe Biden has repeatedly stated, “I am a Zionist.” With that avowal, he placed the government and the American people firmly in the Israeli camp, linking the United States to apartheid, genocide and crimes against humanity.
Fifty-seven years ago, the United States chose to inextricably link its interests with an apartheid entity. And since then, for Biden and many in Washington, Israel has become a religion. Very few American politicians, especially since the 1990s, have had the mettle to challenge Israel’s dominance over US policy in the Middle East.
Israel’s leaders are well-practiced in manipulation. They have a long history of insolence toward their number one patron. Americans and US policy in the Middle East have been seen as naive and easily exploited, said Uri Dromi, who served as spokesman for the regimes of Yitzhak Rabin (1974-77; 1992-95) and Shimon Peres (1984-86).
American presidents engage in public rebukes and short-term responses to Israel’s brutal actions, but rarely, if ever are there consequences. The following encounters are just a limited edition of instances when US politicians have buckled under Israeli pressure.
The interactions, for example, between President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) and Prime Minister Menachem Begin (former Irgun terrorist) were fraught. On June 7, 1981, Israel used US warplanes to destroy Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor without informing President Reagan.
Instead Begin called Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, to inform him of the impending attack. Begin and his Likud Party had been cultivating ties to evangelical leaders like Falwell to build the alliance between US evangelical Christians and Israel. Today there are more than 30 million Christian Zionists in the United States.
As a US “ally,” Reagan expected Israel to consult when planning measures that would impact US strategic interests in the region. The administration temporarily suspended the delivery of additional F-16 jets and supported a UN Security Council resolution denouncing the attack on an International Atomic Energy Agency-approved nuclear reactor. Despite Begin’s rejection of US proposals and refusal to apologize, the White House lifted the suspension of the F-16s deliveries in August 1981.
Reagan faced another affront a few months later in December 1981, when again, without informing the president, Begin illegally annexed the captured Syrian Golan Heights. The slight came shortly after the two countries had signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on strategic cooperation, written specifically so that Israel would no longer surprise the United States.
In response to the annexation, the United States suspended the MoU and imposed limited economic sanctions on Israel. Begin then accused the United States of anti-Semitism and “pointed out” that the United States had a strong Jewish community and millions of Christians supportive of Israel. The underlying message of electoral consequences was not lost on Reagan. Like measures taken after the Osirak attack, the penalties imposed on Israel were merely temporary window dressings.
George H.W. Bush, who succeeded Reagan in 1989, experienced his measure of clashes with then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir (former Zionist leader of the right-wing Stern Gang) and Benjamin Netanyahu, who was deputy foreign minister at the time.
The Bush administration was the last to “seriously” negotiate peace. Pro-Israel lobbies, both Jewish and Christian, in the United States did their best to sabotage the 1991 comprehensive peace conference in Madrid.
Bush’s secretary of state, James A. Baker, came under fire for negotiating directly and officially with Palestinians. He was also criticized for leveraging US aid to stop Israel’s expanding colonization of the occupied West Bank and for calling on Israel to lay aside its expansionist policies and unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel.
Frustrated by Israeli intransigence, Baker reportedly referred to Tel Aviv’s stalwart supporters in the US Congress as “the little Knesset.”
The Madrid Conference failed to produce results. Although Palestinians were essentially asked to negotiate with their Israeli occupiers, little was asked of Israel. To get Shamir to attend, the United States accepted Israel’s conditions that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) be excluded, that the Palestinian delegation be subject to Israeli approval, and that Palestinian independence and statehood not be addressed.
The famous confrontation in 1991 over US loan guarantees to Israel was yet another example of its insouciance about bypassing the executive to achieve its aims.
Shortly after America’s war against Iraq in 1991, Israel sought an additional $10 billion in loan guarantees from Washington to help populate Palestinian land with Jewish emigres from the former Soviet Union. The White House wanted assurances that the money would not go toward the building of additional “settlements,” and threatened to withhold funds until it received guarantees.
Recalling the event years later, Baker explained that the clash between the two governments resulted because Prime Minister Shamir had threatened that if the administration did not provide the funds, he would bypass the executive and take his case directly to Congress. Baker said he responded, “you’re damn well not going to do that. You can’t go around the President of the United States.”
The Jewish right to this day views Baker as toxic. The Jewish Press, a religiously conservative pro-Israel newspaper, described him as one of the most “reviled” public figures in Israel and among American Jews.
Although the administration eventually yielded on the loan issue, President Bush remained convinced he lost re-election in 1992 because of the pro-Israel lobby campaign against him.
The willingness to enter into political struggles with Israel’s leaders and their Washington supporters and to seriously ask something of Israel essentially came to an end with the election of President Bill Clinton (1993-2001).
The Madrid Conference paved the way for the Oslo Accords (1993 and 1995) negotiated during the Clinton presidency. For the Palestinians, it was a sham. For Israel, it consolidated domination over Palestinians and their land.
Israel can be more thoroughly understood by observing the conduct of incumbent prime minister and international fugitive, Benjamin Netanyahu. It has been his mission since the early 1990s to expand illegal colonies in occupied Palestine, prevent the creation of a Palestinian state and crush Palestinian resistance.
Netanyahu thinks of the United States as gullible. A former Israeli minister who worked with him remarked that in cabinet discussions whenever someone raises the question of how America would act, Netanyahu says “Leave the Americans to me.”
To show America who’s the boss, Netanyahu has embarrassed presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.
One of Netanyahu’s first acts as prime minister in 1996 was to sabotage the Oslo Accords, antagonizing President Clinton who had helped negotiate the agreement. After his first meeting with Netanyahu, Clinton let loose, saying “Who the f**k does he think he is? Who’s the f***ing superpower here?”
By the time Netanyahu’s first term ended in 1999, the Oslo agreements had collapsed and Zionist colonies were firmly entrenched.
Netanyahu’s contemptuous approach toward the United States was in full view in a secretly recorded video of a conversation he had with colonists in their house in the occupied West Bank in 2001. In it, he bragged that he had deceived Clinton into believing that he was implementing the agreement, that he knew how to manipulate Americans, and that he had essentially put an end to the Oslo Accords.
The video was taped during the second intifada (Palestinian uprising) when the Israeli military was crushing the resistance. Netanyahu talked about hitting Palestinians “hard” many times so that “the price will be unbearable.”
A skeptical colonist asked him if he worried about what the United States and the world would think and say of Israel “hitting Palestinians hard.” Netanyahu responded:
“The world will say nothing…that we are defending ourselves… I know what America is. America is a thing that can be easily moved…moved in the right direction. The Americans will not bother us. Let’s suppose that they will say something… So they say it. Eighty percent of Americans support us. It’s absurd. We have such support there!”
Netanyahu’s belligerence intensified during the presidency of Barack Obama. His flippancy toward Obama was unabashed during a tense public meeting in the Oval Office in May 2011.
The meeting took place a day after Obama had attempted to revive the stalled peace process, where he stated that the borders between Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines, with some adjustments for existing Zionist colonies.
Netanyahu bluntly responded, “It’s not going to happen,” Israel would never return to 1967 borders, warning Obama not to chase “illusions” of peace. He then brazenly lectured the president on the history of the region. After the meeting, Obama’s national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said: “I have never seen a foreign leader speak to the president like that, and certainly not in public… ”
Netanyahu used the Oval Office exchange during his 2019 campaign by releasing a campaign video in which he boasted of how he stood up to Obama and stared him down.
An additional insult came on 3 March 2015. On that date, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of the US Congress (for the third time), excoriating the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy initiative—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran nuclear deal. He had come to Washington at the invitation of then-Republican House Speaker John Boehner. The White House was not informed of the arrangements.
Although the relationship between the two leaders was fraught, Obama was one of the most pro-Israel presidents, giving it more money and arms than any of his predecessors. Before leaving office, Obama approved one of the largest military aid packages yet: $38 billion for the next ten years.
Netanyahu repaid President Obama’s favors with a number of slights. During his campaign for re-election in 2012, for example, he endorsed the president’s opponent, Republican Mitt Romney. In addition, Netanyahu also embarked on a very public and intense campaign to sabotage the Iran nuclear agreement. That was finally accomplished in May 2018, when President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA.
With the election of Biden in 2021, the pro-Zionist/pro-Israel sentiment of the US regime has become more pronounced.
In service to Israel, the Biden administration has spent more than $22 billion on military aid and made more than 100 military aid transfers and weapons sales to Israel from October 7, 2023, to September 30, 2024. Another $680 million arms sales deal was recently approved. And for the fourth time (November 20, 2024), the administration vetoed UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Our history reveals that some American politicians in the past exhibited the ethical and moral courage necessary to speak and write on the pitfalls of following Israel uncritically. There have not been many. Among the few, Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright stands out. In his 1989 book, The Price of Empire, he wrote:
“The (Israel) lobby can just about tell the president what to do when it comes to Israel. Its influence in Congress is pervasive and, I think, profoundly harmful to us and ultimately to Israel itself…So completely have many of our principal officeholders fallen under Israeli influence that they not only deny today the legitimacy of Palestinian national aspirations, but debate who more passionately opposes a Palestinian state…,” adding,
“AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and its allied organizations have effective working control of the electoral process. They can elect or defeat nearly any congressman or senator that they wish, with their money and coordinated organizations. They are the really important power to negotiate within the Middle East if you want an agreement.”
Senator Fulbright served for 30 years, 15 of those as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
Another critic of Israeli arrogance was Admiral Thomas Moorer. He was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1974. Republican Congressman Paul Findley of Illinois recalled Moorer’s comments on page 161 in his book, They Dare to Speak Out:
“I’ve never seen a president…stand up to them (the Israelis)… They always get what they want. The Israelis know what’s going on all the time… If the American people understood what grip those people have on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don’t have any idea what goes on.”
The political climate in Washington has gone from bad to worse since Findley served in Congress from 1961 to 1983. His recollections on page 84 of his book are noteworthy:
“Today, on Middle East issues at least, independence and courage are almost unknown… Since the establishment of modern Israel in 1948, only a handful of senators have said or done anything in opposition to the policies of the government of Israel. Those who break ranks find themselves in difficulty.”
George Ball, US Under Secretary of State (1961-1966), also spoke frankly when he discussed Israel and its relationship with US politics and American politicians. In a 1988 CBS “60 Minutes” report on AIPAC influence on US politics, he remarked: “Practically every congressman and senator says his prayers to the AIPAC lobby.”
Amnesty International, in December 2024, released its well-documented 293-page report, “You Feel like You Are Subhuman: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza.” In a warning to all, it stated: “Our damning findings must serve as a wake-up call to the international community: “This is genocide. It must stop now.”
The State Department’s response to the report: “What I can say as a spokesperson for the US government and as a spokesperson of this administration is that the findings of the accusations of genocide, we continue to believe those to be unfounded.” The non-response bears witness to America’s complicity in genocide and the continuous catastrophe for Palestinians.
Caveat lector: As long as Israel and its lobbies have ownership over America’s Middle East policy, Palestinians will experience more of the same indifference and injustice, the region will be thrown into more chaos, the American public will continue to be red-pilled and international law will become worthless.
– Dr. M. Reza Behnam is a political scientist specializing in the history, politics and governments of the Middle East. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
