Arrogant Israel

It was amazing to see how US Secretary of State John Kerry appeared to panic when he was the target of unyielding, sharp criticism of three rightwing Israeli Cabinet ministers for his citing the growing effectiveness of the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions programme, known as the BDS movement against Israel for its failure to reach a peace deal, or the slow pace of negotiations, with Palestinians.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki came to the rescue, underlining that “Secretary Kerry has a proud record of over three decades of steadfast support for Israel’s security and well-being, including staunch opposition to boycotts”, adding “he also expects all parties to accurately portray his record and statements”.

In citing the expanding success of the BDS movement at the Munich Security Conference, the hardworking American secretary was obviously worried about the next step should the Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations collapse before the April deadline.

Israel’s Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz was quoted by Israeli daily The Jerusalem Post as telling reporters before an Israeli Cabinet meeting that Kerry’s words were “offensive, unreasonable and unacceptable”, adding that “it is impossible to expect Israel to negotiate with a gun to its head”.

Housing and Construction Minister Uri Ariel said most Israelis believe that Kerry’s approach is not balanced.

Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, the third most powerful figure in the coalition government, declared: “We expect our friends around the world to stand beside us, against anti-Semitic boycott efforts targeting Israel and not to be their trumpet.”

The Obama administration and its European allies have been remiss in penalising Israel for its continued occupation of Palestinian territories where some half-a-million Israeli settlers live illegally, and for its nuclear arsenal — points that should have silenced these loud Israeli critics.

Moreover, a recent but shocking study published in The Christian Science Monitor revealed that since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion.

“If divided by today’s population, that is more than $5,700, per American,” an estimate provided by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington.

So far, he figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam war.

And now, the paper reported, Israeli officials at a White House meeting last month “made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the Intifada and suicide bombings [and] for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country’s recession-bound economy”.

Also eye-catching was an exclusive report published in The New York Times last Tuesday saying that the influential Israeli lobby in the United States, known as the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) “finds itself in a very public standoff with the White House”.

Recently, AIPAC’s top priority, the paper explained, has been a Senate bill to impose new sanctions on Iran. But due to “stiff resistance from President Obama and in what amounts to a tacit retreat, AIPAC has stopped pressuring Senate Democrats to vote for the bill”.

In other words, the Times acknowledged that Obama “has successfully made the case that passing new sanctions against Tehran now could scuttle the nuclear talks and put America on the road to another war”.

More significant is the Times conclusion: “In doing so, the president has raised questions about the effectiveness of AIPAC’s tactics and even its role as the unchallenged voice of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.”

But AIPAC’s headaches go beyond Iran, according to the paper’s reporter, Mark Landler.

In September, AIPAC’s “army of lobbyists” could not win, as Obama’s threat to strike Syria militarily failed to materialise.

The lobby also “came under fire” from the right for not opposing the nomination of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defence because of what, critics said, was his “anti-Israel record”.

AIPAC is scheduled to hold its annual meeting next month in Washington and all eyes will be focused on their agenda and speakers, to judge whether this lobby group remains influential.

What may help tip the balance against AIPAC is the decision of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to allow Israeli troops to stay in the Palestinian territories for five years, not three as he said last week.

Whether his gesture would pave the way for a peace deal with the rightwing Israel government remains to be seen. But many Palestinians are doubtful, since the arrogant premier, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his clique have yet to show willingness to yield to the demand for a Palestinian state on 1967 “Green Line” that separates the West Bank from Israel.

The writer is a Washington-based columnist.