February 16, 2015
Is it significant in any way that Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY),
who is Jewish, issued a statement Thursday entitled
“Why I will not be attending Israeli PM Netanyahu's speech to Congress”? I
think it is, and should be seen as just one element in a larger wave of events
within the much older and decisive legacy of overwhelming American
congressional support for almost anything Israel does or wants. The statement
is substantive and eye-catching, and worth reading and pondering. (Rep.
Yarmuth’s statement is here.)
Other congressmen and women who have said they will boycott the speech and Rep.
Yarmuth’s statement represent small cracks in the single most important
structure of sustained pro-Israeli sentiments in the American political system
(best exemplified in the 100-0 Senate vote last summer to give Israel total
support during its brutal war against Gaza). Yarmuth also speaks in public
about political and electoral dynamics that generally are not discussed in the
public debate in the United States.
The American Congress is to Israel almost as a woman’s womb is to a human
fetus—protective, loving, all-embracing, unquestioning, nurturing and never
changing. The fact that a handful of Democratic senators and representatives
have already announced that they will not attend the speech, including Senate
President Joe Biden, suggests that several novel developments are underway now
in the almost umbilical Israel-Congress relationship in which both parties have
long protected and served each other well.
Rep. Yarmuth openly states that members of Congress will be judged by some
outside organizations according to their attendance or absence from the speech,
and absentees might suffer electoral consequences. This, of course, is a core
operating mechanism for pro-Israeli groups in the United States who use
financial, political, and public opinion pressures to defeat those members of
Congress (Charles Percy, Paul Findley, and others) who do not squarely and
consistently line up behind the positions that the right wing in Israel
dictates to them.
That Yarmuth would allude to this in his statement is itself noteworthy. It is
another indication that the intimidating, punitive and vindictive methods used
by pro-Zionists extremists in the United States, such as the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), to keep politicians in line are emerging from
the shadows and being transformed into issues of legitimate public debate and
analysis.
Also significant is the very delicate point that Yarmuth referred to in an
oblique way, which is that members of Congress might find themselves
uncomfortably caught between two loyalties—to Israel and/or to the United
States. He addressed this squarely and forcefully, saying, “Netanyahu will
specifically be arguing against the foreign policy of the administration.
Speaker Boehner invited the Prime Minister to address Congress specifically to
refute President Obama’s position. I will not contribute to the impression that
this body does not support the President of the United States in foreign
affairs.…The Prime Minister’s appearance will be construed by many to infer
congressional support for his position as opposed to US policy. I do not want
my respectful attendance to in any way imply support for his position.”
The message would seem to be that if the Israeli prime minister is forcing
American elected politicians to indicate where they stand on divisive issues,
like the nuclear negotiations with Iran, at least some American officials will
stand by their constitutional oath to serve their own country, rather than
foreign interests. He tackled this issue head-on by saying, “Congress has a
broader responsibility than the security interests of Israel. While it
certainly is important that we understand the Israeli perspective, the American
people will hear only Netanyahu’s perspective, creating a public perception
that could undermine a broadly supported resolution to the Iranian nuclear
situation.”
Yarmuth mentioned other reasons why he will not attend the Netanyahu speech (we
know what he will say, the Israeli elections are coming up, he has many other
platforms to speak to Americans), but the most noteworthy aspect of his
position is simply that he took this position in public and defended it
unapologetically. The fact that he is Jewish is quite irrelevant, in my view,
because he is acting as an elected official, not a religious sage.
He and some other members of Congress who have spoken out against the
inappropriateness of the invitation to Netanyahu to address Congress have taken
courageous and principled positions. Some of them also have taken risks, whose
consequences, if any, will become clear in the next round of elections. For
now, though, we should note their salutary behavior, and hope that their
pioneering steps will help to expand a healthy public debate in the United
States about the best policies to pursue in the Middle East for the wellbeing
of all concerned—the United States, Israel, Arabs and Iran—rather than
perpetuating the disfigured Congressional tradition of prioritizing Israeli
wishes above most other considerations.
Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly in the Daily
Star. He was founding director and now senior policy
fellow of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs
at the American University of Beirut. On Twitter: @ramikhouri.
Copyright © 2015 Rami G. Khouri—distributed
by Agence Global