Feature: His Master’s Voice – Part I

When we moved to Israel in 1983, my first job was at Israel’s largest (at the time) software consultancy. One of my colleagues was a modern Orthodox (“dati”) man. I was far less to the “left” then, and since this man actually lived in a Tel Aviv suburb, not the settlements, I assumed he was relatively moderate as well. So I had no hesitation to get into a political discussion with him. Shamir had just become prime minister and was already dragging his feet in implementing the Camp David accords. In discussing this, I stated my opinion that the US would never let Shamir get away with his intransigence. To my surprise, my colleage replied: “The US will never force Israel to dismantle the settlements!”

This was 27 years ago, so I don’t remember the arguments he gave to support his contention. But I do remember my shock in hearing him say it. It had only been a few years earlier that Jimmy Carter essentially held Begin’s shaking hand while effectively forcing him to sign on the dotted line on the Camp David accords. Begin was a man of vision, an accomplished political leader who many (including me) deeply respected despite his ideological rigidity. So far reaching are the Camp David accords that one can argue Begin, in signing them, made more concessions to the Palestinians than Rabin later did. And yet Jimmy Carter, hardly a “strong” President, had managed to get Begin to “betray” his ideology and bend his will to that of the US. More recently still, barely a year had passed since Reagan screamed on the phone at Begin and forced him to end the (first) Lebanon war and to allow Arafat, whom Begin compared to Hitler, to leave Beirut while Israeli sharp shooters watched the back of Arafat’s head in their sniper scopes. Shamir by contrast to Begin, is a two bit hack. I had no doubt the US government would know how to deal with him.

They did, but not in a way that is obvious. Like many of the other destructive actions of Reagan whose negative consequences still effect us today, how he dealt with Shamir has huge implications to this day. But to understand that, we need to go back to the beginning of the long and complex relationship between Israel and the US.

Israel came into being at the cusp of a huge transition in the world political order. At the end of WWII Britain was essentially bankrupt and no longer had the economic or political will to continue as a world empire. The US by contrast, was at an opposite point. It ended the war economically enriched. It also proved itself as a world encompassing military power. It was now ready and eager to take over from Britain the role of the world’s “leader”. It’s only rival was the Soviet Union whose military role was instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany, although it, too, was economically devastated by the war. The Middle East, with its vast oil reserves was and is seen as crucial to the economic strength of a world empire. Hence, it is not surprising that US elites were eager to forge strong relationships with the emerging Arab oil states, all the more so because they were conservative and strongly anti-Communist. It was therefore natural that these same elites would side with the Arabs in opposing any Jewish “homeland” in Palestine. The fact that the Zionist leadership was also socialist, just sealed the deal.

It was for this very reason that the Soviet Union and its satellites early on supported the UN partition plan and quickly recognized the Jewish State when the British withdrew from Palestine. What is surprising is that Harry Truman decided to do the same, despite the strong opposition of all his military and foreign policy advisors. This is even more surprising, considering that when he made these decisions he was unelected and not a “strong” or popular President. Both at the time and to this day, those who oppose Truman’s decision (including his internal government critics like Marshall) attributed it to two main causes: the Jewish vote and Jewish money. Since these “causes” are almost always cited to explain all aspects of Israel’s historical and current relationship to the US (and not just Truman’s decision), I’ld like to spend a bit more time discussing these.

Let’s look first at the “Jewish votes” claim. Supposedly, at a meeting in 1945 with 4 American envoys from the Middle East who lobbied Truman not to support partition, Truman said: “I am sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” I have not found any scholarly source that verifies the accuracy of this quote, so I am unsure how reliable it is. But even if it is a 100% accurate, it doesn’t likely explain Truman’s actions.

Firstly Zionism was not as widely accepted as it is today in the Jewish community. So it is not clear how many Jewish voters actually supported the partition plan. But even if many did, Truman was not likely to lose many Jewish votes if he had abstained like the British did and the plan fell through. For one thing, what alternative did the Jews have? The Republican party was the home of open anti-semites in the classical sense of that word. The industrialists behind the party supported Hitler, opposed Roosevelt’s “dragging” the US into the war, and now that it was over certainly wanted to be on excellent terms with ibn Saud. For another, Jews were for the most part strongly progressive and were the biggest advocates (and also often the architects) of FDR’s New Deal. It is true that Dewey, coming from New York, was a strong supporter of the Zionists. But that didn’t necessarily translate into Jews trusting his party. Voting for the Republican candidate or staying home and letting that candidate win was not a likely option.

More importantly, the weight of the Jewish vote just wasn’t a big factor. If Truman did the political calculus, Dewey was likely to win New York anyway and that was where the greatest concentration of Jews were. So within the context of the US presidential electoral system, Jewish votes didnt matter much one way or another. In point of fact, Truman like other Democrats before and after, got at least 75% of the Jewish vote yet Dewey carried New York state anyway. The Jewish vote just didn’t have any real political weight.

On the other hand, there were strong and powerful forces that opposed Truman for many reasons, so his support of Zionism just made his political life even more difficult. General Marshall famously said (and made sure it was put on the record) that Truman’s voting for the partition was reason enough for him to vote against Truman. The big money people behind the party were not eagter to support Truman. Voting for partition was one more reason not to. Which leads us to the second argument about “Jewish money.”

Once again we must keep in mind that the Jewish community of 1948 was not nearly as wealthy or successful as its modern day counterparts. The monied German Jews of the mid-nineteenth century wave of immigration were the least likely to be pro-Zionist or to stick out their neck to push a “Jewish” cause. The masses of socialist Jewish immigrants were not a promising source of campaign financing (although their union dues did help fund Truman’s campaign). If one looks at this Time magazine article from 1949, one sees Jews did play a role in financing Truman’s whistle stop, but (despite what it says on Wikipedia) this was not a Zionist funded endeavor. In any case the campaign came after the decision to support partition and recognize Israel. If Truman made a decision based on a financial calculus, it would have made more sense to abstain. The Jewish unions and industrialists would have still funded him to defeat Dewey.

Although it takes us slightly off topic, given how often these arguments are still used today, I would like to linger a bit more on the question if and how Jewish votes and money play a role in contemporary US-Israeli relations. We’ll get back to Truman and the rest of the historical survey in part 2.

Looking first at the Jewish vote, the most important point to keep in mind is that Jews are a tiny minority of the US population and by now there are probably more Muslims than Jews. So except for a few specific congressional districts, mostly in New York and California, the Jewish vote is pretty much irrelevant in House and Senate elections. While Jews do tend to vote in large numbers, they consistently trend at 70-75% Democrat party, as one can easily see by looking at those congressional districts with large Jewish populations. Hence Democratic congressional candidates can pretty much take Jews for granted, and lip service to Israel’s security is enough to keep that constituency satisfied. They don’t need to pledge allegiance to Jabotinsky’s ideology to keep Jews voting for them.

As for Presidential elections, people (often Jews trying to inflate their own importance) make the following argument: since Jews cluster in big cities in a few states with large electoral numbers, their vote has disproportionate impact. But the biggest concentration of Jews is still in what are now the bluest of blue states, New York and California. So like all New Yorkers and Californians, these Jewish votes have been pretty irrelevant for the last twenty or so years. The next largest concentrations of Jews are in Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania, but there are hardly enough in those States to swing elections. In fact, in Michigan the Arab vote is probably far more important. The rest of the Jews are spread like pixie dust through the rest of the country, and like pixie dust their real influence on Presidential elections is pure fantasy. And need I repeat that Republicans have already found that pandering to Jewish rightists makes no difference in Jewish voting habits? In short, the importance of the Jewish vote is blown out of all proportion both by Israel’s supporters and detractors.

The vaunted and much feared AIPAC, also known as the “Israel Lobby” is all about the money. Supposedly it has vast resources that can be used to target anti-Israel congressional or presidential candidates. Since AIPAC parrots the Israeli government’s perspective, and since Israel has been mostly ruled by the right for over thirty years, AIPAC tends to push right wing Israeli ideology.

AIPAC reminds me most of the Wizard of Oz. Pull aside the curtain and you’ll see a little, cowering man with little real power who is good at blowing smoke and using mirrors to keep people afraid. Yes Jews are certainly among the wealthiest demographic in US politics, but most rich Jews still tend to support Democrats (it was mostly Jewish money that got one Barack Obama’s political career moving in Chicago). And they still trend relatively progressive (at least in how that term is used in the US) and really are not enamored by AIPAC. Hence, the ease and speed that J Street got off the ground when it finally dawned on these rich progressive Jews that after Rabin was murdered and with Bush and Sharon in power, AIPAC is not exactly representative of their views on Israel, and never will be. But take all the money of AIPAC and J Street, and it’s value is dwarfed by the oil lobby, which after all is more aligned in it’s thinking to the Arabists in the State department that Truman had to contend with.

That’s not to say AIPAC’s money doesn’t buy anything. Congress people are like cheap street walkers, and for a few bucks they’ll do anything. So it’s easy for AIPAC to get congressional letters condemning Judge Goldstone or supporting Bibi’s gang building in Jerusalem. But those letters and proclamations have no more substantive meaning than congressional recognition of the “Armenian holocaust” or a cheap, five minute trick for that matter, because that is exactly what they are.

So from Truman till this very day, neither the Jewish vote nor Jewish money play any substantive role in the real foreign policy of the US empire. It may comfort Palestinians to believe that their failure to influence the empire is due to Jewish influence. It may flatter Israeli egos to believe the same. But the real basis of US policies are, for the most part, deeply rooted in imperial considerations. Israel and Palestine are mere pawns on the board. More on that in part 2.

Tags: Feature, US Politics, Zionism