U.S., Israel: Is the Party About Over?

CAMBRIDGE, MASS. —  Three years ago I asked a colleague who worked in network television why the American media was so fascinated with Israel. Even then, the Israeli Cabinet was on the brink of collapse. Television news, along with major and minor newspapers, were saturated with stories and commentary about the unfolding events. “Israel is always a good story for us,” my friend explained, “because you are a democracy, our strategic ally, sharing our values and have a dynamic political system.”

Today, another Israeli Cabinet has disintegrated and Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir has lost a vote of confidence in Israel’s Parliament, plunging the country into a search for a new government. The crisis, set off by a Bush Administration plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, marks a historic watershed: Will Israel embark on the road to peace or will the countdown for a new war begin?

Unlike the past, these events are not dominating U.S. air waves or receiving much more than perfunctory coverage in America’s newspapers. This shift reflects a waning American interest in Israel, in particular, and in the Middle East, in general. The Tyndall Report, which monitors the amount of time network news devotes to stories, ranked the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 10th in 1989. The previous year it was in the top five.

Even militarily significant defections fail to attract much media attention in the United States. Five months ago, the three major networks each devoted roughly 15 seconds of their nightly newscasts to the defection of a Syrian air force pilot and his MIG-23 fighter to Israel. When an Iraqi pilot landed his MIG-21 in Israel in August, 1966, the American media’s appetite seemed insatiable. This shift in treatment cannot be explained by differences in the military-intelligence value of the defections, since there were none.

Although signs of Americans’ fading interest in Israeli affairs could be detected in the early 1970s, the turning point came in December, 1987, when the Palestinian uprising began. Israel was unrelentingly depicted in the U.S. media as an uninspired, oppressive force with a government that adamantly refused to talk peace with the Palestinians. Many Americans were shocked by the Israeli security forces’ treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israeli disregard for Palestinian human rights undermines the values that are the moral basis of Americans’ attraction to Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East.

Talking to American friends and officials of the Reagan Administration in late 1988, I detected a deep sense of disappointment in Israel’s unwillingness to reciprocate for the newly moderate declarations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. I also sensed a growing American fatigue with the indecisiveness of Israeli domestic politics. Those impressions linger to this day.

The sensational events unfolding in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, South Africa and Nicaragua rightly captivate the world’s and America’s attention. But sudden reconciliations in some countries also reinforce the frustration many Americans feel toward Israeli reactions to various Middle East peace proposals. Israel is seen by the U.S. media and increasingly by its most loyal American friend--Congress--as sinking deeper and deeper into its own political heart of darkness, most of its leaders as unmovable objects.

Even the attitude of American Jewry, always a constant source of sympathy and staunch support for Israel, has undergone a major change. A recent public survey of Jewish leaders in the United States not only showed a sharp decrease in support but also a readiness (80%) to criticize Israel in public.

Yet most Israelis are unaware of these shifting attitudes. They think and behave as if Ronald Reagan were still in the White House. The former President went farther than any predecessor to make Israelis feel secure. His Administration never fully protested Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Although his State Department railed against the construction of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, it took no diplomatic action. The White House enthusiastically blessed a joint American-Israeli memorandum on strategic cooperation. And in the 1980s, Israel received close to $40 billion in economic and military aid from the United States. That kind of generosity and kid-glove treatment understandably leads Israelis to believe they can do no wrong in American eyes.

Abundant writing is on the wall, however. President Bush and his secretary of state, James A. Baker III, lack their predecessors’ emotional and ideological commitment to Israel, the heart of the alliance. Their language and deeds depart from past practice.

Over Israeli protests, the Bush Administration is continuing a dialogue with the PLO. In a recent visit to Los Angeles, the President said that no new Jewish settlements should be built in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem. His inclusion of East Jerusalem was unprecedented, raising serious doubts about Israel’s claims to sovereignty there. Earlier, Baker suggested that building new Jewish settlements or expanding old ones in the occupied territories must stop before the United States would consider guaranteeing an additional $400 million in loans to pay for housing newly arrived Soviet Jews.

In Congress, the movement away from Israel is no less discernible. The proposal by Minority Leader Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.)--to cut foreign aid for five countries, including Israel, by 5%--is a case in point. I have little doubt that Dole’s suggestion was coordinated with Baker and Bush. The senator’s words were carefully chosen to remind Israel to get more serious about peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Additionally, they were an indication of Administration impatience with Israeli leaders.

If my fellow Israelis do not soon recognize the gravity of this situation--that unquestioning American support can no longer be assumed--they will wake up one day in horror to discover what I have already detected: The party may be over for Israel in the United States.