Sure, it’s unprecedented. Never before has the United States Congress invited a foreign head of government to address a joint session with the declared aim of thwarting a key American foreign policy initiative, let alone extended such an invitation behind the back of the White House and the State Department.
What’s far more extraordinary, though, is that Benjamin Netanyahu’s calculated snub will not prompt any meaningful recalibration of relations between the US and Israel.
Notwithstanding vast amounts of comment in sections of the US and Israeli media about Netanyahu’s willingness to damage the relationship between the two countries in order to shore up his chances of re-election this month, the Israeli prime minister is well aware that he has little to fear on that front.
The chemistry between Netanyahu and Barack Obama has never been conducive to personal warmth, but that lack of rapport has not translated into meaningful US pressure on its foremost client state in the Middle East to make the adjustments essential to facilitating a peace agreement. There has never been any question, for instance, of reassessing those huge American subsidies that enable Israel militarily to strut its stuff in the region where it was planted.
Even in the past few days, the US administration has been at pains to demonstrate its favoritism. Addressing the annual shindig of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Monday, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, accurately noted that her nation “has Israel’s back” at the UN. Coincidentally or otherwise, Secretary of State John Kerry chose the same day to berate the UN Human Rights Council about its focus on Israel.
And on the eve of Netanyahu’s congressional address, the supposedly seething White House published an article on its website listing “five key facts” about US-Israel ties under Obama, emphasizing that the president “has strengthened Israel’s defense in concrete and unprecedented ways” and stood up for it on the international stage.
Sad, but true. Under the Obama administration there has been no let-up in the American tendency to facilitate Israeli impunity, regardless of whether the target is Gaza, Lebanon or Syria. Only the mildest criticism is offered of Israel’s determination to expand its illegal settlements in the occupied territories, a policy that may already have rendered redundant the concept of a two-state settlement. And it’s restricted to rhetoric. There are never any repercussions.
There are, no doubt, some differences over Iran — even though the aim is ostensibly the same. The Obama administration believes this can be achieved through negotiations. Netanyahu is convinced of Tehran’s ability to dupe Washington: Any deal reached will be worthless, in his view, because Iran will surreptitiously continue to pursue its aim.
The alternative? He was expected to harangue members of Congress about the vital importance of strengthening sanctions. Not so long ago, though, he was the foremost proponent of a military option. In other words, yet another war. There were times when he seemed willing for Israel to mount an attack on its own. Chances are he was restrained not by fear of American censure or the prospects of cracks in the alliance, but because of strong opposition within the Israeli establishment, not least from serving and former heads of intelligence services.
None of the American commentators bother to mention the fact, though, that there is already a nuclear-powered state in the Middle East, which acquired that status decades ago yet has steadfastly refused to acknowledge it. Perhaps it’s not particularly surprising that all Israeli politicians bow to the imperative of “strategic ambiguity” on this score, but it’s certainly remarkable that all mainstream American politicians, including those who occasionally dare to be critical of the Israeli government, sheepishly follow suit.
Small wonder, then, that Israel’s role in assisting a previous apartheid state, namely South Africa under white minority rule, acquire a nuclear capability, almost never scores a mention anywhere. Nor, naturally, is it considered polite to raise the prospect of a nuclear-free Middle East, even though pursuit of such a goal would undoubtedly increase the moral pressure on Iran to desist from following through on its technical accomplishments thus far.
It’s easy to see Netanyahu’s intervention on the American front, meanwhile, as a crucial component of his re-election bid. More significantly, though, this conspiracy between the extreme right in both countries is based on the unstated assumption that whereas Israel can, whenever it so chooses, defy the US, the reverse is unacceptable.
In his speech to AIPAC on Monday, Netanyahu absurdly stated that his congressional arrangement was not intended to disrespect Obama, adding that Israel and the US weren’t just friends, they were family. It’s hard to challenge him on the latter score.
As the redoubtable Robert Fisk commented in The Independent on Monday, “… the prime minister of Israel knows he can get away with anything in America — with the same confidence that he can support his army when they slaughter hundreds of children in Gaza in the ‘self-defense’ of Israel.”
Noting that Netanyahu is considerably more popular on Capitol Hill than Obama, Fisk adds: “It’s a pity Bibi wasn’t born in New York. Then we could have US President Netanyahu — and stop pretending there’s any difference between the Israeli and American governments.”
That may be a slight exaggeration. But very slight. Thus far, notwithstanding minor disagreements and even the occasional family feud, the tail has invariably managed to wag the dog. The question of keeping that appendage in check, let alone snipping it off, has never seriously been raised. It would at the very least be premature to interpret the confected outrage of the moment as a meaningful sign of change.
