By Paul J. Gessing
The simultaneous timing of the unrest in Lebanon and the recent illness of Cuban leader Fidel Castro led me to contemplate the opposite albeit parallel roles that Cuba and Israel have played in American foreign policy over the decades. One nation, Israel, has been America’s darling. Having received nearly $85 billion since 1949 and the current recipient of one-third of our annual foreign aid budget, Israel is considered by many to be our greatest ally in the world and it is the only country in the Middle East that most Americans consider friendly.
The other nation, Cuba, has been on America’s blacklist for nearly 50 years. Travel and trade are almost completely prohibited and Uncle Sam wouldn’t think of giving foreign aid to the nation for any reason. Cuba is indeed a communist nation, but America trades with China and Vietnam, both of which are considered communist. Certainly, neither nation upholds President Bush’s vision of “Democracy on the March.” Considering the scars formed during the Vietnam War, the relationship between the United States and Vietnam is really quite impressive.
So, what gives? Why is Israel our best friend and why does Cuba remain isolated? Rather than resting in any principles of agreement or disagreement, it seems rather obvious that domestic political considerations are the answer. The staunchest supporters of Israel, the ranks of which are now filled with Evangelical Christians like President Bush rather than Zionist Jews, believe for both religious and political reasons that the United States must protect the Holy Land and keep it under Jewish or Christian control (as opposed to Muslim control). For some this is meant to fulfill prophesy and for others it is simply another battle in the ongoing Clash of Civilizations.
According to a July 2006 Pew survey, among religious groups, 59 percent of white evangelical Christians sympathized with Israel during the recent war with Lebanon, while 48 percent of white Catholics, 33 percent of mainline Protestants and 24 percent of seculars supported Israel.
Though Israel has a much deeper philosophical hold on the nation’s body politic in part because of the geopolitical importance of the Middle East, Cuba too plays a central role that is largely the result of domestic political considerations. The Cuban American community based in Florida has seen their power wane since the fall of the Soviet Union, yet the political and electoral importance of Florida has reinforced what may have otherwise been a more liberal Cuba policy in recent years. Yet, while the Cuban embargo remains ineffective in achieving its original goal of pushing Castro out of power, the United States largely tolerates a wealthier, yet equally dangerous ruler in the region in the form of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
If you don’t believe that Israel and Cuba are sacrosanct, I defy you to find the last presidential candidate from either party who called for trading freely with Cuba or for treating Israel as just another country in the Middle East as opposed to our greatest ally. To illustrate just how extreme the bias is towards Israel in this country, when Howard Dean said during the 2003 presidential primaries that, when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “It’s not our place to take sides” and that America should be “evenhanded” in its approach to the region, he was harshly criticized both by his opponents and the Anti-Defamation League.
It is clear that – as often occurs when a small, loud minority is able to dominate a particular debate – that our policies towards both nations have proven to be miserable failures for most Americans. Fidel Castro has been in power for nearly 50 years despite our best efforts and, when he does die, the United States will have little in the way of influence as we have limited trade and travel in the region, thus reducing our influence in the country. When Castro dies, it is likely that his brother Raul will take over and life in Cuba will change little.
The failure of our Israel policy is somewhat less obvious than that of Cuba, but it is more far-reaching because the Middle East has such an exaggerated role in our foreign policy debates. Of course, our Israel policy is a key factor in creating the Middle East turmoil that pushes it front and center. Rather than acting as an honest broker between Israelis and Palestinians, the U.S. has continuously favored Israel. Not coincidentally, our favoritism of Israel has been a constant thorn in the side of Palestinians and Arabs alike and has hurt our image and credibility in the region.
Ultimately, leadership is about doing what is best for the country as a whole and not caving to special interests whether they be corporate, union, or national. Unfortunately, for too long our political leaders have been all too willing to cave into special interests without considering the impact of their decisions on the nation as a whole. It may not be easy to overcome this problem, but if increasing numbers of Americans are willing to speak out against policies that benefit the narrow interests of some at the expense of us all, we will all be better off.
Paul J. Gessing is a Senior Editor of The Free Liberal and is a member of its founding committee. His writings have been published in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and U.S. News & World Report. Prior public policy jobs included working at the Marijuana Policy Project and Congressman Bernie Sanders' office.
He completed his B.A. in Political Science at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and received an MBA from the Robert H. Smith School at the University of Maryland. Paul resides in Albuquerque, New Mexico and manages a think-tank there.