U.S. government remains 'hostage' of Israel

By Riza Sihbudi

JAKARTA (JP): In November 1979, the citizens and government of the U.S. were united in their fury against Iran over the 50 diplomats held hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

At about the same time, a joke circulated among certain circles. "How come the U.S. is so angry over only 50 of its people being held hostage by Iran when in fact all of its people have always been the 'hostages' of Israel?"

The quip might have been in poor taste for those suffering in the embassy and their families, but still there is a grain of truth in it as well. For years, the U.S. has been the hostage of Israel.

It is, therefore, hardly surprising when the U.S. recently rejected Palestine's bid for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to call an emergency meeting in the hope of halting Israel's brutality toward the Palestinian civilians.

Following Israel's deployment on Oct. 13 of its combat helicopters to fire rockets at key Palestinian targets, including the residential compound of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Palestinian representative at the UN, Nasser Al-Kidwa, sought the UNSC emergency meeting. U.S. Ambassador at the UN, Richard Holbrooke, was firm in his response that Washington would veto all possible UNSC resolutions on the matter.

At around the same time, Hillary Rodham Clinton -- intensifying her campaign for Senator of the state of New York, which has a substantial population of Jewish people--joined thousands of demonstrators in Manhattan in a display of support for Israel.

Because the U.S. is a "hostage" of Israel, Washington would always tend to protect and justify whatever actions Israel took, even by clouting international opinion and political good- conduct.

What's rather strange is the anger of Arab countries over the developments. Surely they must have realized since the beginning that the interests of Israel were what lay at the heart of Washington Middle East policies.

No U.S. president would ever dare to "abandon" Israel.

Bill Clinton's predecessor, George Bush, in 1991 tried to pressure Israel by postponing a US $10 billion-settlement project for Russian Jewish community in the West Bank and Gaza strip. He was not reelected to office.

Clinton would not wish to see his second man, Al Gore, and his wife Hillary face the same fate as Bush.

It is reason enough for Washington, in its campaign for support and sympathy from the American Jewish population, to reject any possibility of UNSC sanctions against Israel.

It is important for Al Gore or Hillary to enhance this support from among the American Jewish lobby, especially those in the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC).

Sandra Mackey wrote in Passion and Politics: The Turbulent World of the Arabs (1994, p. 398) that AIPAC was "the most powerful lobby in Washington."

The Arab countries should realize that the U.S. would never reverse its stance on Israel. Holbrooke and Hillary have made it clear that the U.S. remained steadfast in its Mideast policy -- namely, to continue to protect the interests of Israel. The May 14, 1988 long-term strategic agreement signed by U.S. and Israel cemented this commitment further.

Besides, as Mackey pointed out, Washington's increasingly pro- Israel policies had to do with the Christian revival in the U.S. She wrote, "Ironically, right-wing American Christians defended Zionist nationalism more zealously than many Israelis... To them, Israel is not a state exhibiting the ambitions and foibles of a nation-state but Biblical fulfillment.

Hence any challenge to Israeli government policies, no matter how detrimental they are to the stability of the Middle East, is a challenge to God."

It therefore makes sense that the U.S. would never be able to prevent whatever Israel wishes to do. Slowly, but surely, Israel is actually launching a "creeping annexation" of Jerusalem and indeed all of the Palestine's region it occupies. Step by step Israel will take control of all Jerusalem with the UN unable to do anything because of the U.S. veto.

It is a possibility that, when it is time to discuss the final status of Jerusalem, it would already be an Israeli territory. If this scenario materializes, it would not be difficult for Israel to do the same thing with other areas. So what can Palestine do? Not much more than crying and condemning.

The developments in the Middle East are essentially a reflection of the growing dominance of the U.S. and Israel. Much earlier certain parties in the Arab world, especially groups such as the Hamas and Hizbullah, doubted the U.S. ability to act as a just broker in the Middle East.

Ironically, the majority of Arab leaders have always ignored those groups' suspicion. Rather, the leaders have often accused the groups such as Hamas and Hizbullah of attempting to subvert the peacemaking process. This is more proof of the need for democratization in the Arab world so that leaders would really give voice to their people's aspirations.

It is my belief that the U.S. stance only furthers an unstable situation fostering "extreme" reactions in the Middle East. But what's more important is how Arab leaders take lessons from the U.S. Mideast policy so they would no longer be mere victims of the U.S.-Israel conspiracy against establishing true peace in the region.

For the U.S., peace will always mean "maybe at the expense of the Arab/Palestine but never at the expense of Israel."

The writer is a researcher at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences in Jakarta.