Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Israel in the American Mind: The Cultural Politics of US-Israeli Relations, 1958–1988

2018; The MIT Press; Volume: 20; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1162/jcws_r_00844

1531-3298

Thomas A. Dine,

Race, History, and American Society

Peter Grose, a gifted New York Times journalist, published a book in 1983 titled Israel in the Mind of America. Covering a 400-year period, his informative and insightful study showed how the roles of Jewish thought, symbols, and historical events had woven their way into American values and culture (and not just into religious ethics and reference points) and how strong leaders, in this case President Harry Truman and Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, overlapped and affected the policies of each other. Neither politician was afraid to express ambitions and emotions. Grose noted that “Americans have derived inspiration from a national redemption,” despairing when there is a shortfall in this regard. “Be it strategic asset or strategic nuisance,” Grose argued, “Israel embodies an ideal deeply embedded in American thought from the earliest years of life in the New World.” By “ideal,” he meant the commonality of Judeo-Christian ethics.Thirty-five years later, Shaul Mitelpunkt, born and educated in Israel and currently a reader (associate professor) in American history at the University of York in England, has written an important sequel to Grose's book, with only a slight title change, Israel in the American Mind.Both authors view the recent Washington-Jerusalem relationship as vital for the two societies—with deep historical and moral roots and with overlapping cultural values of courage, self-reliance, independence, integrity, and mutual support on and off the battlefield. These values run through the minds of Americans and Israelis alike—like a biblical golden thread that will not tarnish. Both books delve beneath the political horizon into psychological and personal attachments between the two peoples. Both recognize the lack of smooth synchronicity between U.S. and Israeli processes. Both acknowledge the asymmetrical nature of the geopolitical and diplomatic ties, and both delve deeply into the political events and cultural experiences undergirding those ties that, for one, have produced effective outcomes for Israel on the world stage but have mystified and frustrated the Arab-speaking Middle East as well as today's New Left in the United States and Europe.A thoughtful academic, Mitelpunkt puts forth three propositions undergirding the sturdy and steady U.S. support of Israel. First and foremost, in addition to the Judeo-Christian commonality, is perforce the recognition that Israel from its modern founding is a society of “citizen-soldiers.” Volunteering to defend Israel fit into the belief of Americans during and after World War II that military service is a national duty, a crucible of citizenship in a democracy. The survival of a free society depends, so argued and argue U.S. intellectuals and politicians, on people willing to defend and die on behalf of freedom and democracy. The reestablished Jewish state became a prime example of such duty and valor from 1948 on. In the United States, the citizen-soldier ethos has remained the dominant prism through which both top-rung elites and publics across a wide political spectrum viewed and view Israel.For me professionally, prime examples of this prism were three prominent anti-interventionist, anti-Vietnam war U.S. senators in the 1960s and 1970s—Frank Church (D-ID), with at most 100 Jewish families living in his rural western state and with whom I worked for five years; Clifford Case (R-NJ); and Charles Mathias (R-MD). This bipartisan trio vigorously and effectively opposed U.S. militarism in Southeast Asia and the imperial presidency at home but argued for U.S. backing of the Israeli state and army. “Americans in the 1960s and early 1970s,” Mitelpunkt observes, “looked at Israel as a militarily effective state (and) as a force to advance divine prophecies” (p. 5). Israeli citizens went to the front lines to fight for their democratic, Jewish state.Mitelpunkt holds that a second overarching attraction for Americans has been Israeli exceptionalism. A “vibrant democracy that could fight and win in difficult circumstances,” it stood in contrast to the incomplete or failed U.S. experiences in Korea and Vietnam. (Iraq and Afghanistan can now be added to this list.) This point was particularly appreciated by the general populace of the American South and Southwest who see to this day Israel's willingness to fight for its existence. As “an exceptional society,” Mitelpunkt writes, Israel has maintained “a liberal society of independent and satisfied citizens (even as it remains militarily steadfast)” (p. 284).Third, diplomatic and political changes arose in the region after the October 1973 war, whose outcome was questionable at the outset—Henry Kissinger's shuttling among capitals, Anwar Sadat's visit to Jerusalem followed by the breakthrough Camp David Accords of 1979, the 1982 Lebanon war, and turmoil surrounding the first Intifada in 1987–1988. Mitelpunkt explores how the U.S. paradigm of protector and peacemaker became the dominant theme from which Washington, at least until the inchoate Trump presidency, has since operated, with Jerusalem and Ramallah responding.In the midst of peacemaking pressures on Israel, strong political forces came to the fore in Washington to promote Israel in an “alliance” that included the United States sharing technology and providing guaranteed arms to Israel; a greatly enlarged and politically forceful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) operating at the grassroots in all 50 states (full disclosure: I directed AIPAC from 1980 to 1993); a politically vocal Christian evangelical community with Israel as a central part of its agenda (first led by Reverend Jerry Falwell and Reverend Pat Robertson in the 1980s, then in the 21st century by Pastor John Hagee of Christians United for Israel and his pro-Israel apocalypse-minded evangelicals as a precursor to the second coming); plus the rise of a security-oriented grouping called “neo-conservatives” in support of an assertive U.S. foreign policy, partnering with Israel.In this context, Mitelpunkt graphically portrays a more complex and diverse arrangement of political forces at play in U.S.-Israel relations in the 1980s and 1990s. He does not, however, hide his personal distaste toward rightwing players in Israel, such as the Likud Party leadership of Menachem Begin and Benjamin Netanyahu and conservative figures in the United States such as Ronald Reagan, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Pipes, and Donald Trump's crew. Harvard's Pipes spoke for many in arguing that “Israel's interests and those of the United States were identical since the two were fighting different forms of terrorism” (p. 290). To this day, the neo-conservatives frequently cite the dramatic Israeli rescue of hijacked hostages from the Entebbe Airport in Uganda in 1976 as a model of toughness and bravery under enormous pressure and threat that the United States should emulate.Judging from the book, Mitelpunkt is a liberal in a conservative era. In the later chapters, he portrays Israel as a troubled, conflicted, and war-weary society that exerts military control over another people. Yes, I am a big believer in a two-state resolution. But weak peace camps in the Israeli and Palestinian polities hinder a sustained push toward peace negotiations, and Mitelpunkt does not consider the obstacles in depth. He makes no mention of Israel's robust economic growth rates led by the high technology and export sectors, its growing diplomatic and intelligence ties with counterparts in key Arab Sunni countries, and its relatively amicable relations with Russia and India. He wishes Americans were more sympathetic to the Palestinians, and that the United States would “pressure Israel” (p. 339) to the point of actively moving Israelis and Palestinians toward negotiations, thus addressing grievances and achieving two recognized side-by-side states at peace. Nevertheless, as Israel in the American Mind portrays from beginning to end, the deep Israeli roots in U.S. soil and soul are thriving in a staunch and steadfast bilateral relationship. Public opinion polls consistently show Israel's favorability to be greater than 60 percent. As Grose and Mitelpunkt demonstrate in detail, U.S. bonds with the Holy Land are tight, both societies tied together by a precious biblical and contemporary golden thread.