The National Interest Has Gone Missing

by By Lawrence Davidson, Reader Supported News

Tuesday, 13 July 2010 19:29

US President Barack Obama and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet in the Oval Office, 07/06/10. (photo: Getty Images)

Reader Supported News | Perspective

n interesting commentary by Gideon Levy, entitled A Peace Crime, appeared in Haaretz on July 11, 2010. It focused on comments made by Bashar Assad, President of Syria, in an interview he gave to the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir about a week earlier. In the interview Assad said, "Our position is clear: When Israel returns the entire Golan Heights, of course we will sign a peace agreement with it." However, Syria wants the prospective peace to be comprehensive and durable. "What's the point of peace if the embassy is surrounded by security, if there is no trade and tourism.... That's not peace. That's a permanent cease-fire agreement."

To Assad's offer can be added that of the Arab League's Saudi Plan. In other words, there can be little doubt that if Israel wants peace with just about the entire Arab world it can have it in short order. Levy is rightfully frustrated that the Israeli press and political establishment let the Assad interview pass without so much as the blink of the eye. Levy protests, "How long must he [Assad] knock in vain on Israel's locked door?"

Levy's conclusion is that, "Israel does not want peace with Syria. Period. It prefers the Golan over peace with one of its biggest and most dangerous enemies. It prefers real estate...." He is quite right, and we can complement this situation with the recent behavior of the American government on the issue of Iran's nuclear program. Last month the Obama administration had a real opportunity to lay that controversy to rest. Turkey and Brazil had, with the acquiescence of Washington, negotiated a deal with Iran to have its nuclear fuel processed by a third-party country. Then, Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton essentially double-crossed the Turks and Brazilians, and chose to push through greater sanctions against Iran in the Security Council.

It does not take a genius to observe that the pursuit of national interests, defined in common sense terms, would have led to very different behavior by the US and Israeli governments. But both failed to pursue such a course. Their doors remained locked. The question why is a seminal one. It touches on war and peace, and thus the lives of millions. So let's look at some of the factors that might go into an answer to this question - why was national interest not pursued?

1. Both the US and Israeli governments are democratically elected. However, normally such governments are brought to power by votes cast on domestic issues. Foreign policy is a secondary factor (or as often as not a non-factor) for most voters. It is to be noted that for a minority of Israeli voters impassioned by religious zealotry, expansion into the West Bank is a domestic issue.

2. On the rare occasions when domestic populations are brought to consider foreign issues they do so through a media- and government-constructed filter. This filter is laden with largely uncontested propaganda and biased reporting despite the "free press" environment that might theoretically exist. Over time, reporting based on a consistently biased storyline can create a population wide "thought collective" on a particular topic. That is, a broadly held popular point of view created by the manipulation of public opinion (i.e. the "existential" threats from Iraq or Iran, or the assertion that all Palestinians are terrorists). In addition, there is the fact that most of the population has little or no independent understanding about the foreign events and issues that the media sources speak of. Their limited interest in foreign matters also means that few will take the initiative to go looking for non-partisan data. Lacking an independent viewpoint, they are not in a position to make a critical judgment on the reporting. Many simply assume that they are being told the truth. Soon, they are locked into an artificially created "thought collective." This has certainly happened in both the United States and Israel in relation to the Palestinians and the Arab world.

3. The domestic priorities of most voters means that, in a default sort of way, foreign policy formulation comes under the influence of small but powerful interest groups that do have serious interests in these issues. When it comes to the Middle East, the relevant interest groups in Israel and in the United States are allied reflections of each other. And in both cases, their influence has not been confined to politics, but also extends to the media so as to shape the thought collective process just laid out. The result is a melding of interest-group politics and managed popular attitudes.

4. What this adds up to is that, in practice, there is no such thing as "national interest" under the conditions described above. Of course, in theory, it is in the interest of the whole nation of Israel to take up the Saudi Plan and open the door to Assad's offer. Of course, in theory, it is in the interest of the US to take advantage of the negotiations carried on by Turkey and Brazil with Iran. But, alas, it is not the nations' interests that are guiding policy here. In both these cases policy formulation is in the hands of special interests organized into powerful lobbies with money and votes to influence the appropriate political elites.

In the case of Israel, foreign policy formulation is in the hands of special interests that are ideologically committed to "real estate." This special interest, which has both secular and religious devotees, has been operating since before the founding of the country. That is why Israel has never declared final borders. It might very well be that most Jewish Israeli voters would trade land for peace if the question was put to them in a straightforward and objective way. But it has not, is not now, and may never be so put. The question of land for peace has been embedded in a "thought collective" that emphasizes the erroneous concept that the Arabs are untrustworthy barbarians, and the archaic notion that all the Palestinians want to destroy Israel. It also emphasizes the patently absurd, but widely believed, notion that Israel is susceptible to such a fate.

In the case of the United States' foreign policy formulation, as regards Israel, Palestine, Iran and often the Middle East as a whole, it is definitively influenced by Zionist lobbies that are either undeclared agents of a foreign power (Israel), or ideologically-driven religious zealots (Christian Zionists). This influence is also of long standing, and has only been openly challenged in the last decade. It might take decades more before those who are contesting that influence have the financial and political wherewithal to succeed. In the meantime, the special interests in charge will proclaim that the threat of a "nuclear Iran" is real. This in turn will allow Israel to assert that Iranian behavior, and not Israel's dispossession of Palestinians, is the most pressing Middle Eastern problem for the US.

The explanation given here helps us to understand why Bashar Assad can knock at Israel's locked door and no one in that country will bother to open it. It also helps us understand why Obama and Clinton turned their backs on the Turkish and Brazilian efforts to negotiate a deal with Iran. Both are reacting to the power and influence of domestic special interests. Compared to these interests, the "national interest" does not stand a chance.

Lawrence Davidson is a professor of Middle East and Science at West Chester University in Pennsylvania, and author of the works listed below.

Contributing Editor: Logos: A Journal of Modern Society & Culture
http://www.logosjournal.com

"Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America's National Interest"
http://www.kentuckypress.com/viewbook.cfm?Category_ID=I&Group=55&ID=1490

"America's Palestine: Popular and Offical Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood"
http://www.upf.com/authorbooks.asp?lname=Davidson&fname=Lawrence

"Islamic Fundamentalism"
http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/GR2429.aspx

Click here to endorse the Palestinian Call for Boycott:
http://www.academicsforjustice.org/petition/

Click here to visit Birzeit University's Right to Education Site:
http://right2edu.birzeit.edu

Keep your eye on the language: When South Africa assigned rights according to race they called it apartheid. When Israel assigns rights according to religion they call it the only democracy in the Middle East.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+10 # Guest 2010-07-13 20:15

Why should Israel seek peace as long as she can keep stealing more and more land? As long as America remains her slave, Israel will continue making war whenever and wherever she feels the urge.
But this thing is growing more costly to the US, which could collapse under the weight of the stupidity of America's immoral policies, slavish devotion to bigot Israel being only one of them.

-1 # Guest 2010-07-14 04:59

America being Israel's slave reminds me of a right winger who contended that Israel had decided to attack and defeat the USSR by military might. He was sure that Israel intended to send its Airforce, Navy and Infantry to attack the USSR. Nothing I said made any difference to his faith in his contention. I assume you have that same level of faith in your silly nonsense. How terribly sad to believe in lunacy and operate as though it were reality.

0 # Guest 2010-07-19 10:35

When Will the American Army cease and desist invading countries that ore naot white and so-called christian?
America and Israel policies are immoral and dangerous to the whole world!

+9 # Guest 2010-07-13 21:48

Lawrence Davidson is pointing out the sad truth, that Israel could conceivably drag us into a war with Iran because so many wealthy jewish citizen, in media, big business and banking will protect Israel at ANY cost, and no politician can go against them, if they want to get into office or stay in office. We may say and think that we have a democracy; but our government is totally corrupt. Money not democracy is what determines who can run for office and who will win. We all know that NOBODY can run for office without getting money from wealthy citizens or big corporations. Of course they will have to do favors for their donors. Money for favors = corruption. I am sure that many will be angry at what I wrote for the truth is not pretty; but I have noticed that a lot of people commenting on this site have open minds, so I think that several of you will agree with me.

+6 # Guest 2010-07-14 01:16

Your analysis is thorough and points out the way conventional wisdoms - what "everybody knows" - are created and maintained as well as how this influences leaders to the point of abandoning national interests. The analysis was so good that I was startled to see that American policy in the Middle East so short-shrifted. The Jewish AIPAC lobby (who make no secret of the fact that they want as much support for Israel as possible, hence the term "undeclared agents" is unnecessary and a bit unfortunate) and the Christian zealots who are "Zionist" for their own reasons, do have an influence on American policy; however, they would not have that influence on American policy if American leaders did not see the Zionist presence in the Middle East as something that contributes to American interests in the region. First come American interests - corporate interests, to be specific - and only then can this or that lobby have influence if and only if that lobby's aims dovetail with American interests.

-9 # Guest 2010-07-14 03:40

Lawrence Davidson seems always to have an anti-Israeli point of view. Neither Syria or Iran have democratic governments. Syria is led by a family connected to a minority Islamic sect- the Alawites which crushes all opposition. Iran is a Sh'ite religious theocracy that also suppresses freedom. Hamas is a fundamentalist organization intent on destroying Israel, and Fatah is politically corrupt beyond redemption. Why is it in the national interest of the US to deal with these groups?

+8 # Guest 2010-07-14 05:05

The last entry of the bibliography has a telling and trenchant statement: "Keep your eye on the language: When South Africa assigned rights according to race they called it apartheid. When Israel assigns rights according to religion they call it the only democracy in the Middle East." Democracies may also be tyrannies, witness the present US. And how can a country organized around religion be a true democracy? Some citizens (Jews) will be favored above others (non-Jews), as is the case in Israel.

+6 # Guest 2010-07-14 05:13

Quoting

Lawrence Davidson seems always to have an anti-Israeli point of view. Neither Syria or Iran have democratic governments...Why is it in the national interest of the US to deal with these groups?

I think even Mr Weiner would have to agree that had Israel not been so effectively supported by the US, she would have been forced to negotiate with Syria. On the other hand, had Israel not been supported by the US, it is probable that the Arab countries would be less willing to negotiate with her! Bottom line: even if Israel did not have US support, which admittedly has reinforced its current policies, it is not at all certain that peace could be achieved.

+11 # Guest 2010-07-14 04:11

It is time for the US to tell Israel---you have enemies in the region because of your Actions. You must stop the aggression, the arrogance, or US money and assistance will be withheld until you do!
It makes me shake my head when I hear people say--"But Israel is our only Democratic friend in the area". WHO CARES if they are a Democracy or not when they are acting like a Rogue nation---and causing this turmoil. They either learn how to get along with the other countries, or they take their people and go find another place outside of this huge rock to establish themselves as a nation.
Come on Obama---shove AIPAC up their bums!

+4 # Guest 2010-07-14 04:30

It is good to see it finally said in the open -- Israel and the US simply do not want peace or settled agreements in the middle east. They prefer war because they think they can continue to make territorial and resource gains by war. The Geneva Conventions and other international laws on war absolutely prohibit the gaining of territory by war. Thus it is clear that Israel and the US are criminal and outlaw states. It is not Iran, N, Korea, or anywhere else. It is the US and Israel who are the great criminal states of the world. Both of them need to be destroyed, their government officials brought to the International Criminal Court, and then disarmed for eternity. This US/Israeli Axis of Evil is the great problem in world now. It is time to start saying this openly. Thanks for your article Prof. Davidson.

+11 # Guest 2010-07-14 04:32

Actions speak louder than words. After four decades of occupation and annexation it should be clear to any objective observer that Israel wants land, the land set aside by UN partition for a Palestinian state and the water-rich Golan Heights, more than it wants peace. Israel could have peace and security if it withdrew to the '67 borders. To pressure Israel to obey international law and Geneva Conventions, which it obligated itself to do when it was admitted to the UN, is neither anti-semitic nor anti-Israel.

-6 # Guest 2010-07-14 05:18

Taking Assad at his word is whimsical of Davidson. Assad is a wily power-hungry politician who has attempted to dominate the region, invaded and occupied more democratic neighbors, and permits no dissent internally.

Israel is no angel but they have made peace with several of their neighbors and, in the case of Syria, most likely simply do not want to hand back territory to a tyrant which might easily be used to disadvantage them militarily when the "peace with Syria" eventually breaks down as it must with a thoroughgoing villain like Assad in charge.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts

+2 # Guest 2010-07-14 05:25

Lebensraum -- that's all Israel wants, right?

+7 # Guest 2010-07-14 05:27

It is plain to see: the interests of the military-business-political elite that controls the so-called American democracy coincides with the interests of Jewish hawks who have dreamed of Zion for 3,000 years. Obama is too weak to stand up to either. This is a shameful case (from the perspective of U.S. democratic interest for peace) of the dog wagging the tail.

-5 # Guest 2010-07-14 06:06

Oh Please
Syria has started multiple wars with Israel and has refused most peace negotiations. There is no proof that Syria offered a peace agreement and no reason to believe that they will live up to any promises especially ones that promise to protect Israel's right to exist in peace. Syria has been inciting the Arab world to kill Israelis and Israel for decades. What has changed?
When you start believing that the Arab world is interested in peace you are deluded. The Arab tribes don't even want peace with themselves and the only thing they agree on is the elimination of Israel. Wake up and smell the Humus.

+6 # Guest 2010-07-14 08:45

Will you please specify which wars it was that Syria instigated. And, BTW, Israel, which instigated the '67 war, has been occupying the water-rich Golan Heights for decades, hence the valid and justified Syrian objections. From what I can see, observing the region for three plus decades, Arabs have put forward various peace proposals, all of them scuttled and/or ignored by Israel while it establishes "facts on the ground", which by themselves preclude peace. It is typical Israeli cant to denigrate and marginalize Arab peace efforts, but now the world is watching and unsubstantiated claims and the smear of anti-semitism are no longer so effective. It is neither anti-semitic nor anti-Israel to hold Israel to the standards of international law and Geneva Conventions.

-6 # Guest 2010-07-14 07:25

It is simply madness to negotiate with undemocratic regimes like Syria. Just ask Chamberlain.

+3 # Guest 2010-07-14 08:51

I am not certain we can take Assad's word that he seeks real peace if Israel gives up the Golan. On the other hand I am not convinced that allowing Jewish fundamentalists (who consider Arabs to be something less than dogs) to become "facts on the ground" in the West Bank is in Israel's national interest. Nor do I trust Shiite terrorist pawns of the Mullah's of Iran to be working in the interests of peace. There are strong elements of "holy war" on both sides of the controversy. Let's not try to simplify things. We simplified the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, some of us supporting his opponents thinking they would bring a semblance of freedom. You must try to come to grips with what is in a nations' "natural interest" and what is in the interest of religious zealots opting for a world caliphite or the arrival of the messiah, and what is in the interest of a multi- generational dictatorship. We have to somehow see through this to really approach solutions to a 60 year old state of war.

-2 # Guest 2010-07-14 10:18

Wow, what a lot of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some readers! Scary...

-4 # Guest 2010-07-14 10:36

What do you think Ahmedinejad means when he says that Iran will wipe Israel off the map, that Iran will erase Israel from the pages of time? Do you suppose he says these things just for kicks? To be funny? What do you think Hamas means when they state in their charter that they do not accept the existence of the state of Israel and are committed to its complete destruction? Are they just joking? Get real. Israel feels an existential threat because it faces an existential threat. Its much criticized belligerence and militarism is a natural -- I would say necessary -- reaction to this threat to its very existence.

+3 # Guest 2010-07-14 12:20

The UN - not God - dominated in post ww2 by Western geopolitical interests created the State of Israel. It was an unjust appropriation of Palestine by colonial fiat, having discarded Uganda and South America as other optional locations for the DEPORTATION and RESETTLEMENT of holocaust survivors. ( Why not take them as immigrants to US, Canada, Australia ??? ) Iran is NOT advocating genocide - just trying to get the FACTS out.

+4 # Guest 2010-07-15 04:01

Truthbird -- you should try to be truthful when you report what Achmadinejad said. He NEVER said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. That is a lie circulated by translators working for the Israeli government. He DID say "zionism" will pass from the pages of history. Achmadinejad has also said he accepts Israel's existence and has no desire for a war with Israel. The bullshit about an "existential threat" is just a sick joke. I can tell you read only very stock Israeli propaganda. Try looking at other reports and try really to find out the "truth" about these issues.

-3 # Guest 2010-07-14 12:58

As usual, the left-wing "establishment", of which I am a part except on the issue of Israel, gets it wrong: You take Assad's statements at face value. And assume that Israel is the roadblock to peace. Just the contrary is true: Why is it that the "blame Israel" movement is so blind to the machinations that Assad and his allies, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the other splinter terrorist groups constantly engage in to subvert any true peace with Israel.
Before judging Israel, I suggest you go there, experience the country for yourself, and see just how close geographically Israel's hostile neighbors are to this tiny country's borders. When Assad genuinely wants peace, I know Israel will be there to sign the peace agreement and in good faith. It has spent its entire history having to expend its resources in self-defense at the expense of its citizens welfare.

0 # Guest 2010-07-14 19:34

The war profiteers don't want peace. The people do. About 99.9% of the people on Earth do want peace. Bullets and thousands of nuclear weapons are not the answer. Prayer and Meditation, integrity and sanity are the only chance for peace. Ireland could do it so can Israel. Be peace. Everyone wants to live in peace. Transcend your leaders and armies. Grow up.

+5 # Guest 2010-07-15 03:45

Every American should consider the fact that the American economy is addicted to war. Where are all the remaining good-paying jobs? In the "defense" industry. We cannot have peace while we continue to divert obscene amounts of wealth (much of it borrowed) into our war machine. We cannot have peace while Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State, or while Larry Summers and Tim Geithner remain in their roles. These people are not the solution; they are parts of the problem. The main thread American history since WWII is the profitability of war. That's where our addiction started in earnest, and it has only been getting worse since then. Eisenhower warned us very plainly in 1960, and his nightmare is now our reality.

The middle east situation is very alarming, but pointing fingers at Israel (or Saudi Arabia, or wherever) only makes things worse. The real problem is our addiction to war. Fix that, and the rest will resolve itself eventually.

+1 # jayvee 2010-07-18 13:06

Truthbird: You and similar commentors, because of immature thinking and analysis, only excerbate the problem. The explanations constantly cited as basis for blind support of Israel are two "red herrings" offered up and perennially promoted by Israel and her unthinking supporters: Who truly believe the so-called 'denunciations' of the state of Israel and its right to exist anything of a real threat? And who see the antiquated and almost totally harmless 'scud missiles' occasionally lobbed into a thinly populated area of southern Israel as any threat to the overunning of Israel. If these two seeming 'threats' did not exist, Israel would invent them just to keep simple minds constantly crowing that the US "must support Israel at all costs" -- regardless its heinous atrocities, its rogue aggressions, its unlawful takeover of Palestinian lands, its atrocious treatment and domination of Palestinians throughout its 50+ year illegal occupation. Wake Up ! One day soon the US will ask itself: Why ?

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.