Back to list.

U.S. and Israeli Relations-Past, Present, and Future

Since Israel’s creation in 1947, the United States has been a strong ally and supporter of the Jewish nation. And for just about as long, that relationship has been the focus of much consternation from Arab countries in the region, and other critics of Israel. There are logical reasons why Israel has been so strongly supported by the U.S. in the past and reasons why our relationship with Israel must evolve going forward.

Before any clear discussion of why the U.S. supports Israel, and if it strategically makes sense to do so, one must give proper context of Israel itself. If Israel is simply painted as an arrogant, greedy occupier, and an irrational aggressor, against the Palestinian people, it makes it easier to question why the United States would be so supportive, politically, militarily, and financially. However, to over-simplify, and make Israel out to be “bad” and its Arab neighbors, namely, the Palestinian Authority, to be “good” in order to justify this change in policy towards Israel, does an enormous disservice to attempting to understand this very complicated issue. I found John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt’s piece titled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” to contain more than a few simplistic, and indeed biased evaluations of Israel’s history, thus tainting their conclusions of her strategic and moral value to the United States.

Indeed, according Mearsheimer and Walt (2006), it appears every action Israel has taken has been self-serving, unnecessary, and usually in violation of international law. In their piece, they point out the estimated number Arab deaths committed by Israel, but fail to point out the number of murders and terrorist attacks committed against Israel, which is likely to be in the thousands.

Instead, they argue, “Israeli personnel have tortured numerous Palestinian prisoners, systematically humiliated and inconvenienced Palestinian civilian, and used force indiscriminately against them on numerous occasions” (p.12). Yet, according to the “Jewish Virtual Library” (2008) an online division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, “Israeli law prohibits arbitrary arrest of citizens. Defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty and have the right to writs of habeas corpus and other procedural safeguards. Israel holds no political prisoners and maintains an independent judiciary. Some prisoners, particularly Arabs suspected of involvement in terrorism, were interrogated using severe methods that have been criticized as excessive. Israel's Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in 1999 prohibiting the use of a variety of abusive practices. The death penalty has been applied just once, in the case of Adolf Eichmann, the man largely responsible for the "Final Solution. No Arab has ever been given the death penalty, even after the most heinous acts of terrorism.”

Only since 2006, has Hamas removed its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto, and Iran, who funds both Hamas and Hezbollah, continues to call for Israel’s annihilation. Yet Mearsheimer and Walt (2006) claim that extremist Palestinian groups only want Israel out of the Westbank and Gaza, not eliminated all together. They say “Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the west’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip” (p.5).

Mearsheimer and Walt (2006) paint the United States’ support of Israel as completely irrational, our foreign policy dictated, not by experts, scholars, or even politicians, but simply by a powerful group of lobbyists, they call the “Israel lobby.” While lobbyists no doubt have some influence over the political process, a strong enough case has not been made that this influence translates to U.S. policy, such as going to war with Iraq, as is suggested in their piece. What is clear is that statements such as “…the creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved explicit acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres, and rapes by Jews” (p.12) and loaded references to Israel as “the occupiers” litter their foreign policy assessment of the very complicated relationship the U.S. has with Israel.

All this is supposed to paint a dark picture of Israel, a country not worth supporting according to some. The case is also made that since we receive very little from Israel strategically, and because even being friends with Israel costs us diplomatically, that that should justify a break in our relationship. The U.S. does not have allies because they are popular. If we did, we would have even less moral credibility than we have today. We have allies because they share our values, and because it’s the right thing to do. As I’ve shown, Israel is not simply some terrorist regime, warring with its innocent neighbor, Palestine. Israel has for sure been guilty of some serious mistakes, but most have only been as response to attacks from its neighbors. There is truth however that in critically assessing the relationship that the U.S. has with Israel, that Israel has still benefited more from the U.S. than any other country in the region, and yet strategically, has a limited value to the United States. So what does that mean the U.S. should do about Israel?

For one, it seems our relationship with Israel has not evolved. We seem to be stuck in a big brother mentality, viewing Israel as our young, baby brother, that needs our constant support and protection. This might have made sense in the first 10-20 years of Israel’s existence. There were constant attacks against the young nation from its Arab neighbors and thus our policy of aggressive political and financial support could be defended during those years. However, according to the IMF, Israel’s 2006 GDP was $195 billion, and per capita GDP was $31,767, which puts it economically on par with France and Italy, two countries that have required very little, or no U.S. assistance in recent years. While the U.S. has reduced its financial support to Israel from $3 billion a year to around $120 million a year since 1998, an argument can be made its still $120 million too much (Israel GDP, Wikipedia).

Secondly, the U.S. has long claimed that Israel is our most valuable ally in the region, yet because of Israel’s unpopularity in the Middle-East, it has rarely been able to assist the U.S. in its military operations in the middle-east, nor lend its airspace, or troops to any mission in the region. Any cooperation and support from our Arab allies in a military operation would be soured if Israel were to be involved. Extremists, and likely some moderates, would be galvanized against our cause if Israeli troops were in their country, fighting along-side the U.S. While this does limit Israel’s strategic value, the U.S. does receive from Israel valuable intelligence and satellite information on our mutual enemies in the middle-east. Much of the information we know about Iran and Syria’s nuclear programs have come from Israeli intelligence. Israeli intelligence was also used in making the case for war with Iraq, back in 1991, and in 2003. This will and should continue to be an important part of our strategic relationship with Israel.

Israel can also be counted on to do the dirty, but necessary work the United States doesn’t want to do itself. On June 7, 1981, Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak Nuclear research facility, effectively ending Iraq’s nuclear weapon capability (Neff 1995). On September 6, 2007, Israel bombed a suspected secret nuclear facility inside Syria. Many believe that if the international community is to slow in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, Israel will take action to end the program unilaterally. Obviously, this has its own repercussions, and action such as this could drag the U.S. into a war, in defense of Israel. However, U.S. officials might be willing to take that risk if U.N. Security Council Sanctions fail to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

While preemptive, unilateral military action is one of the things that makes Israel such a lightning rod for radical Islam, Israel’s successfully functioning government has also likely served as a powerful contrast to the corrupt regimes that surround it. Most Muslims who live and work in Israel, stay there because they know their life is much better under the government and economy of Israel, than its Arab neighbors. In fact, 1.4 million Arabs (roughly 20% of Israel’s total population) currently live and work in Israel (Israel GDP, Wikipedia). The economic and political success of Israel has planted the seed for Moderate Muslims that democracy is the best chance for their future as well. These movements have been seen in Lebanon, Egypt, the Palestinian Authority and others. The U.S. policy towards Israel, and indeed Israel’s actions itself, should shift, so that Israel can be come more a lightning rod for these pro-democracy movements, than for extreme Islam.

The first thing that needs to change is the United States financial support. As mentioned before, Israel has a thriving economy, and its trade with the U.S. benefits both countries. That should not change, and indeed should be encouraged by both sides. However, there is no U.S. obligation to continue the $120 million in financial support the U.S. continues to provide to Israel each year. Unless we are prepared to spend this on every country in the Middle-East, the U.S. will always appear to be unequally supporting Israel over its neighbors. The U.S. has lost its credibility as an impartial mediator for Mid-East peace partly due to this unequal distribution of aid. The fact that Israel is a strong, independent country, only highlights why the money previously going to Israel should now go to supporting infrastructure, education, political reform, and economic stability to other countries in the Middle-East. The bulk of this aid should go where it’s most needed, and most likely to have some success, such as Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Palestinian Authority. The biggest reason terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah have risen to such prominence in the region, is through ingratiating themselves into the system by providing food, and other necessities to people who have nothing. They have filled a void that the U.S. and its allies could very easily have filled, and in the process, gained thousands of new supporters, and people who are willing to die to support their cause. We must immediately begin to reverse this trend, by showing the universal compassion and humanity of the United States, and Western Liberal Democracy, and not the selective generosity most see as currently favoring Israel. Poverty and hopelessness are a breeding ground for extremism, and alleviating them must be a primary use of the aid previously directed toward Israel.

The U.S., EU, and our Arab allies that are in better financial shape, such as Saudi Arabia and Dubai, should pull their resources in creating a Palestinian State. Each country will have a shared responsibility in assisting the Palestinian Authority with creating a society with functioning schools, businesses, infrastructure improvements such as roads, electricity, and clean water, police and military that are trained to reign in extremists within the country, and assistance in creating a functioning government and functioning economy. This will no doubt be a long, arduous process, but will be a much wiser investment of U.S. aid and efforts, that ongoing stalemate in the region. Stability in Palestine, aided by a credible and impartial United States and the subsequent peace between Israel and its neighbors that will hopefully be achieved, will do more to reduce the appeal of terrorism against the United States, and indeed Israel, than our past aid to Israel ever did.

Israel’s location is unique from our other allies in that it is surrounded by countries who are opposed to its existence. For many years to come, it will likely be under periodic attack, and as long as Israel responds to those attacks, it’s response will always be viewed by many in the region as unjustified. As long as Palestinians attack Israel, Israel will respond, and the likelihood of peace in the region, and a Palestinian state will never be realized. It’s a cycle that has and will prevent progress, as long as the structure of the region remains as it is today.

A drastic change in foreign policy must be enacted to end this cycle of violence. This new policy would be extraordinary but necessary. NATO should be used to provide the security for Israel and the Palestinian Authority, especially during the process of creating a Palestinian state. The NATO force would be charged with keeping order, reigning in extremists, and providing protection, primarily along the border regions where the majority of violence takes place. Once the force is in place, and satisfactorily carrying out its duties, the U.S. should convince Israel to reduce the size and scope of its military, and shift some of the funding it previously spent on its own security, to help fund and support the NATO mission. Again, the extreme poverty of the region must be significantly reduced in order to change the cycle and culture of violence. People must have an opportunity for a better life, or all prospects of peace will evaporate.

Lastly, Israel’s sometimes heavy handed response to terrorism, and it’s incredibly fierce military, which is aided by an occasionally complicit United States, has probably done more to hurt U.S. credibility in Mid-East issues than anything else. In the past, the U.S. has often stayed silent, or simply “urged restraint” on the part of Israel, fearing perhaps that full U.S. condemnation would invite or justify more attacks on Israel. This is understandable, but an unacceptable foreign policy. The U.S. must never be afraid to criticize allies or enemies alike when it has done something wrong. A policy that is any less fair invites cynicism and legitimate suspicion. Just because two countries are allies, does not mean they won’t disagree from time to time. The Iraq war gave us plenty of examples of this. Some believe the Israel Lobby has wielded so much power that the President and congress never chastise Israel when it does something inconsistent with promoting peace and security in the region. This appears to be an overstatement. “Whatever an individual lawmaker’s own views, the lobby tries to make supporting Israel the “smart” political choice” Mearsheimer and Walt (2006) write (p.16). Yet President George W. Bush, who is often criticized for his unquestioned support of Israel, is actually criticized by some in the foreign policy community for not being supportive enough of Israel. In a piece called “U.S. Fans Terrorism by Pressuring Israel”, Michael Mandelbaum (2002), a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says “Last week, the administration demanded that the Israeli army end operations in several West Bank cities, which President George W. Bush called “unhelpful”…American efforts to restrain those operations undercuts that message and thus encourages continued Palestinian assaults on Israelis” (p.1). Let us not forget that the U.S. also went against Israel and our allies in the Suez Canal incident. Still, more than not, the U.S. has taken Israel’s side in conflicts, and to become a credible, impartial negotiator for peace in the world, the U.S. must begin to hold Israel to the same standards it holds others.

Israel and the United States have enjoyed a supportive and sometimes lucrative relationship. This relationship has sometimes cost us our credibility, and support from other nations in the world. The U.S. must never turn its back on Israel because it’s the popular thing to do, or because some question its strategic value. The U.S. also must no longer treat Israel as the fair-haired child of the international community. Equal treatment of Israel will allow the United States to once again regain its credibility and ability to create the structure for peace and hope in the Middle-East, and in the long run, ensure a peaceful, hopeful existence for Israel as well.

Citations

  • Mearsheimer, John, J. and Walt, Stephen M. (March 23, 2006). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. London Review of Books Vol. 28, No. 6 (pp 1-42).
  • Mandelbaum, Michael (March 19, 2002). U.S. Fans Terrorism by Pressuring Israel. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from www.cfr.org
  • Neff, Donald (June, 1995). Israel Bombs Iraq's Osirak Nuclear Research Facility. Washington Report. Retrieved from http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0695/9506081.htm
  • Bard, Mitchell (2008). Myths and Facts Online; Human Rights in Israel and the Territories. Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf18.html#u
  • Israel’s GDP. (N.D.). Retrieved March 15, 2008 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel

Back to list.


READ MORE OF
MY WORK AT:

FIND ME BELOW!