A Special Relationship At Risk

By Fouad M. Moughrabi

The intifadah has, over the last 15 months, exposed the futility for Israel of holding on to the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza against the will of their Palestinian inhabitants. It has also exposed a side of Israel which is sharply at odds with the image of a small, valiant, beleaguered democracy fighting for its survival. The impact on international and especially American public opinion has been so devastating for Israel that the special relationship it has cultivated with the United States is now possibly at risk.

Yasser Arafat's decision, following the Algiers meeting of the Palestine National Council, to accept UN resolutions 242 and 338, to recognize Israel's right to exist, and to renounce the use of terrorism has further exposed the latent contradictions between the United States and Israel.

Israel looks increasingly like South Africa to the rest of the world. It is a highly polarized society undergoing a heated debate on its future relations within the region. The majority of the Israeli public favor negotiations with the PLO. Elements in the army, unhappy with the status quo and worried about their troops' morale, increasingly prefer a negotiated settlement. Quite a few generals and former generals publicly affirm that Israel can return the territories and assure its own security. Israel's American Jewish supporters are split. Most of them prefer a negotiated settlement and are deeply disturbed about the brutality of Israel's iron fist policy against the Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Congressional Support May Be Shifting

As for American officials, many are now embarrassed by the behavior of an erstwhile reliable and trusted ally. The State Department has finally issued, for the first time, a relatively complete and candid report on Israel's violations of human rights in the occupied territories, even though Israel has been violating the human rights of the Palestinians since 1967. Congressional leaders are aware of the erosion of Israel's support among the American public. Sen. Robert Dole is quoted in the Philadelphia Enquirer (Feb. 21. 1988) as saying: "I think they are losing support, and I see it in my own part of the country... People are opposed to violence ... I think it's going to have an impact on Congress." The New York Times reports (Feb. 12, 1989) that "key members of Congress responsible for setting foreign aid levels say that Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories is unacceptable and could weaken congressional support for American aid to Israel." Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Foreign Operations subcommittee, says: "They will get their money this year. But they build up enormous resentment in the United States, and in the future it will hurt them." This resentment has been building up since the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and its involvement in the massacres at Sabra and Shatila. It has taken several years of brutal occupation, a major nationalist uprising in the occupied territories, and several hundred Palestinian deaths to get members of Congress to begin to question long held assumptions about the conflict and Israel's role in it.

As is often the case in the United States, the public is way ahead of its official representatives in perceiving trends and new possibilities. A CBS News poll conducted during Oct. 1-3, 1988, asked a nationwide sample if they "think that in order to preserve the security of Israel, the United States should give Israel more aid than it gives to any other country." Seventy-two percent said no and only 13 percent said yes. Years of building a special relationship and of so-called strategic coordination are therefore based on a slim constituency among the American public. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll reveals the highest negative rating for Israel since the poll began to measure attitudes eight years ago. Fifty-six percent of those polled say they do not believe Israel is a reliable ally of the United States, and 52 percent have a negative impression of Israel.

When the question of aid to Israel is linked to its human rights policies toward the Palestinians, a significant number of respondents favor decreasing aid or stopping it altogether. A Gallup survey (Feb. 26-March 7, 1988) asked respondents the following question: "Because of the way Israel has handled Palestinian unrest in Gaza and the West Bank, do you think US aid to Israel should be increased, kept about the same, decreased, or stopped altogether? " A plurality of adult Americans (41 percent) think US aid to Israel should be decreased (19 percent) or stopped altogether (22 percent) as a consequence of its handling of Palestinian unrest. One-quarter (24 percent) say the level of aid should remain the same and 7 percent favor increasing aid to Israel. Among those who have heard or read about the conflict, 45 percent say that aid to Israel should be decreased (22 percent) or stopped altogether (23 percent). These figures confirm an earlier Yankelovich-Clancy Shulman survey done on behalf of Time magazine (Feb. 8, 1988) which discovered that 45 percent of non-Jews say the US should cut aid to Israel because of its actions against the Palestinians and 32 percent oppose cutting aid.

In an era of economic scarcity and of severe budget deficits, key members of Congress will be hard put to engage in their habitual insouciance about foreign aid to Israel. Sen. Leahy and Rep. David Obey are quoted in The New York Times (Feb. 12, 1988) as wanting to find new ways to link aid to progress on human rights in Israel and elsewhere. Interestingly enough, the proposition dealing with the Middle East that was adopted by voters in Cambridge, MA, in the November 1988 election linked human rights abuses and foreign aid to Israel. The proposition called on the US government to: demand that Israel end its violations of Palestinian human rights and its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; stop all expenditures of US taxpayers' money for Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; and favor the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with peace for all states in the region including Israel.

The success of the pro-Israel lobby in blocking arms sales to Arab countries already has cost American companies great losses, and may have severely damaged long-term as well as short-term American influence in the region.

Traditional arguments in favor of increasing levels of military and economic aid to Israel no longer make any sense. In an era of detente, Israel will have a difficult time arguing that it plays a crucial role in limiting Soviet influence in the region. The Soviet Union, at present, is in fact playing a helpful and constructive role, trying to produce a settlement that is fair for the Palestinians and that will guarantee Israel's security. Furthermore, Israel has tried to enlist American support in its confrontation with the Arabs, something in which the United States has no interest at all. The success of the pro-Israel lobby in blocking arms sales to Arab countries already has cost American companies great losses, and may have severely damaged long-term as well as short term American influence in the region.

The Bush administration must eventually respond to the international calls for a peace initiative. A worldwide consensus has emerged. It views an international conference as the most suitable arena for negotiations between Israel and the PLO. The PLO appears to be sincere in its desire for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Most of the Arab countries are ready for a compromise solution. Significant sectors of Israeli society are calling for a negotiated settlement. Only the Israeli leadership seems determined to block such an effort.

The Bush administration has adopted an extremely cautious attitude toward the Middle East, not wanting to anger Israeli leaders, or appear to be leaning too heavily on them. Yet there is a grave danger in being too relaxed while events on the ground get worse by the day. Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze is correct when he states that the Middle East is marching toward another war, unless of course a process of peace is set in motion.

Fouad M. Moughrabi, a professor of political science at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, is co-author of Public Opinion and the Palestinian Question.