U.S. Presidential Battle in the Middle East

U.S. presidents come and go whether they are Democrat or Republican. Israel, however, has always been present since it entered the White House in the 1940s. It has not left even once.

What is said about the White House can also be said about both houses of Congress, the Senate and House of Representatives. Israel’s permanent presence is one of the constants in U.S. foreign policy, specifically in U.S. relations with the Arab world and, by extension, the Islamic world.

The celebration of Israel’s anniversary held at AIPAC (the parent organization of all Jewish American organizations and associations) revealed the reality and manifestations of Israel’s influence on U.S. foreign policy. The celebration was attended by 286 members of Congress and 67 members of the Senate. This was the largest gathering of both houses outside of Congress in the history of the United States.

The Congress members listened to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s rejection of Obama’s Middle East peace plan. Netanyahu said no to the right of return for Palestinian refugees, no to the return to the 1967 borders and no to the withdrawal from parts of the city of Jerusalem.

These refusals take us back to the Arab denials announced by the Arab summit in Khartoum, Sudan, following the [Six Day War] defeat of 1967, which were: No reconciliation, no recognition or negotiations with Israel. The moral and political distance between the Arab rejections of yesterday and the Israeli rejections of today reflects the success of U.S. foreign policy in achieving this transformation, which took place despite Israel’s tough policy at times, and the slow response of U.S. foreign policy on most cases, toward the Middle East peace process for the past three-and-a-half decades. There are several indicators for this, perhaps most notably reflected in the political speeches of both the American president and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

President Obama spoke on the principle of the return to 1967 borders. The American Jewish lobby quickly criticized his views about the Middle East peace solution and later on his actions. He was therefore forced in front of AIPAC to make retrogressive clarifications — at a time when he is getting ready for a second presidential run.

In the 2008 presidential elections, Obama received 78 percent of Jewish votes, which is a very high rate. It is natural that Obama is keen not to lose supporters who have a powerful influence on any presidential election. For that reason, and contrary to all the adverse implications, President Obama has given, and is pledging to give more, military and economic support to Israel. Israel has obtained more from this current administration than from any previous U.S. administration, especially military aid. This is recognized by the Israelis themselves.

The penalties that the U.S. administration imposed on Iran are only a response to appease Israeli demands. The Israeli prime minister, like his predecessors, has mastered the art of exploiting political moments — any moment that American presidential candidates need to appease the American Jewish lobby. Netanyahu flaunted his muscles in memory of Israel’s creation before AIPAC, members of Congress and the 10,000 Jewish and pro-Israel personalities at Israel’s anniversary ceremony.

The celebration was under way with President Obama, Netanyahu, members of the Senate and House of Representatives and the 10,000 pro-Israel policy supporters. Meanwhile, a few hundred Palestinian refugees demonstrated in front of Israeli electrical barbed wire on the border of southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights along occupied Palestine in an attempt to remind the world about their rights and their misery. However, what the world remembered, despite the loss of Palestinian demonstrators who were shot by the Israeli army, were the Holocaust and the importance of promoting and protecting Israel so as not to subject the Jews to a new Holocaust once again — as if the Arabs or Muslims were the ones who committed the massacre of the Holocaust and not those who are today competing to appease Israel and cover up its crimes and occupation.

There is a strong alliance between the Republican opposition to Obama and the Democratic Party, on the one hand, and the American evangelical Zionist movement, on the other. The popular House majority leader and Jewish Republican Eric Cantor is a supporter of Israel in good times and bad, as he always says. He is a candidate for president, which means he will rival President Obama. Is it conceivable in this situation that he (Cantor) would not enjoy the support of AIPAC?

If the Republican party officially names Cantor as the Republican candidate for president, he may become the first Jewish American to be in the White House, which would indicate what to expect from U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

From here we can see highlighted the importance of the evangelical movement, which advocates Israel’s Zionist causes and ideological objectives, not for political or economic reasons. The movement believes in the second coming of Christ, which they believe can happen only if certain events take place and things accomplished. They believe that Christ will not return unless there is an existing Jewish populace in Jerusalem; therefore, Israel must exist. It is essential in their belief for the Zionists to build the structure (Third Jewish Temple) on the ruins of the al-Aqsa Mosque, which would lead to the Messiah’s appearance — however, not before the devastating battle of Armageddon, which will kill millions of Christ deniers, including Jews. According to their religious theory, only 144,000 Jews will survive, after their conversion to Christianity. Their faith in Christ will lift them to him in heaven with the rest of the faithful. They all then descend to earth to spread justice and peace in the world.

When Netanyahu spoke in front of AIPAC about the dogmatic link between the U.S. and Israel, he was referring specifically to the evangelical movement and their beliefs. This evangelical belief is behind the unusual behavior of both houses of Congress on May 24, when Netanyahu’s speech was received with majority support and standing ovations each time he mentioned Israel or a phrase about the Jewish people.

The big question is: How is it possible for a U.S. president, Republican or Democrat, to overcome this doctrinal mentality that is inextricable from U.S.-Israeli relations? But the biggest question, and most controversial, is: How can the Arab world build hope on U.S. policy to recover the usurped rights of the Palestinians?