Recently, I watched the season three
opener of The West Wing in which
President Jed Bartlett delivers a speech to launch his reelection
campaign. White House staffer, Josh
Lyman, is preoccupied throughout the episode with FDA approval of a new birth control
drug that he does not want to “dominate the news cycle.”
More than any other topic of debate, more than taxes and the size of the
federal government, abortion and reproductive rights politically and
emotionally divide the United States, and this debate encourages a range of futile
attacks on both sides from boisterous, talk-show squabbling to violent protests
around Planned Parenthood clinics. Currently, abortion is still the most
sensitive, contentious issue facing the United States. However, without the
vigilance of American and Israeli Jewry, House Republicans may very well drive
a wedge through a fundamental, bi-partisan issue, for House Speaker John
Boehner’s unprecedented invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu indicates danger
for all parties involved.
America’s equivocated aid for Israel,
diplomatic, economic, and military, though, is not designated as a free grant
for Israel to obliterate hopes of a peace process and eventual agreement for
the sake of security. Rather, the US funds Israel so that we, as developed
democracies who both face grey area over human rights and pressing concerns for
self-protection, can learn from and improve one another, and a formative
relationship with Israel provides strength for democracy in the Middle East.
For Jews, American support of Israel protects our freedom to pursue
self-determination, and after centuries of exiled from one anti-Semitic country
to the next, we finally feel as though we have two established safe havens, one
physical and one symbolic. Dismantling this relationship, then, pits liberal
and conservative-minded Jews in direct conflict with one another. Just as what
happens with any issue that results in partisanship, debate on Israel would
stagnate as the majority offers its view and the minority stalls in protest. If
the Camp David Accords faced the same divisiveness as Roe v. Wade, for instance, Carter would be waging a peace process
on two fronts. When one focuses on the domestic qualms over a foreign issue,
all prospects for resolution dissipate. Even for Jews who agree with Netanyahu
and Boehner then, this decision will only weaken the degree to which America
and its allies can help Israel. Politicians tackle the abortion issue by doing
one of the following: stroking their party’s base by taking on an extreme view
or tip-toeing their way through the ambiguous “middle ground”. Either way,
campaigns spend countless funds and hours over a topic in which they only
sustain polarization. Birthright trips to Israel and summer camps would also
have to tackle the issue in a new, exhausting age of political correctness. In a neighborhood that seems to sustain itself
on crises, such a decision would leave the American people and Jews all over
the world helpless to establish a stable, meaningful connection to their
homeland.
Still, the Palestinians suffer as
well. Granted, the factitious bodies of Hezbollah and Hamas will most likely
benefit from the Netanyahu speech, using it as propaganda for the ignorance of
the Israeli state. The majority of Palestinians, however, who face subjugation
will either a.) be drawn to extremism and ultimately endure the continued
hardship of war or b.) experience societal pain at the fault of the larger
political forces on both sides that manipulate their daily lives. Partisanship
in the United States creates a void for a mediator, one that comprehends the
interests and obstacles of both sides as well as the promise of democracy. This
vacuum not only spurs the conflict that inevitably wastes so many valuable
lives but also reinforces systematic oppression that goes against American and
Israeli ideals. In this invitation, Boehner and Netanyahu simultaneously
withdraw their voice from the peace process, issuing a blank check for Hamas to
wreak havoc on Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Evidently then, Israelis lose most
in this deal. In a contentious election, America’s vagueness over its
relationship with the state boosts Netanyahu’s numbers. When the country
focuses on securing itself, though, it ignores the root cause of the conflict
itself, its own policy over the West Bank and Gaza particularly regarding the
status of East Jerusalem and the construction of settlements. Moreover,
Israelis will elect a vocal, religious right, projecting to the rest of the world
its disregard for the fundamental rights of its founding. Israel will cede its
biggest ally in the US and all of the nations that fall under American
influence. Israel was once the most stable, promising democracy in the Middle
East, but in its means of achieving a false version of that and in shielding
its eyes to its own atrocities, Israel has betrayed itself and the world that
brought it into being. By purposefully antagonizing Iran at a time when it is
most willing to negotiate its nuclear program, Netanyahu merely provokes
extremists throughout the region to support nuclear arms over energy. Instead
of coordinating with the rest of the world to promote safety for Israel, Iran,
and the region, Netanyahu has decided to sidestep diplomacy and place his
countries needs over that of a country of 77.45 million. Granted, Netanyahu has
a right to raise concerns about Israel’s security with a nuclear Iran, but he
could do so while working in conjunction with all of Israel’s traditional
allies.
Without
a change in course then, Israel would gravely suffer as a result of this speech.
I can only imagine that West Wing
episode with Lyman begging the State Department to avoid announcing its Israel
policy so as not to plague a democratic president’s reelection campaign or
provoke too much debate. Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and Speaker John
Boehner, if you care about international stability, the condition of American
Jewry, or your own legacies as politicians, please revisit your decision to
replace an opportunity for bilateral compromise with partisan bickering
