In a two-part essay begun as an academic paper, guest writer Zack Swan dissects the anatomy of the arguments for and against the close U.S. alliance with Israel. Though one of the most politically and emotionally charged issues for Americans today, the following piece (Part One) manages to present the pros of our relationship with Israel and why those outweigh the possible drawbacks to supporting another country nearly unconditionally.
Introduction
What makes a nation an ally of
the United States? Moreover, what makes
a nation a good ally of the U.S.? From
an ideological perspective, a nation that shares America’s values and whose
beliefs resonate with the American people has the foundations to be a “good”
ally. However, given that the United States has historically allied itself with
dictators, tyrants, mass murderers, and authoritarian regimes, it is safe to
say America’s decision to ally with a nation has no pre-requisite of
ideological similarity. A likelier candidate for what makes a “good” U.S. ally
is a nation whose strategic importance outweighs the political, ideological,
and even moral costs of the relationship.
There is no better example of
these characteristics, both ideologically and strategically, than the state of
Israel. Based on the unconditional diplomatic support and large amounts of U.S.
aid received by Israel, there is strong evidence that most American
policymakers believe that Israel is indeed a strategic asset and quite possibly
America’s most important ally. There also plenty of critics of the alliance
that argue the costs of the United States’ “special relationship” with Israel
are no longer being balanced by its benefits, and that in fact the affiliation
has had grave consequences for U.S. foreign policy, security, and global
influence.
Critics, such as John J.
Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, allege that being so closely allied with
Israel is undermining relationships with other U.S. allies, casting doubt on
America’s wisdom and moral vision, helping inspire a generation of
anti-American extremists, and complicating U.S. efforts to deal with a volatile
but vital region[1]. Some argue that Israel is worth keeping as an
ally, but that it is no longer in American’s best interest to support Israel
unconditionally and unanimously. Others claim that there was a time when Israel
was an important strategic ally but that that is no longer the case today.
Conversely, supporters of the
relationship, such as Foreign Policy
author Michael Oren, believe that Israel is America’s ultimate ally, assisting
in protecting American citizens on and off the battlefield, stimulating the U.S
economy, enhancing American intelligence, and that as a consequence America
needs Israel more than ever[2]. While
there is an abundant amount of historical evidence supporting the Israel’s
strategic importance, there are those who believe a change in policy may be in
order. Despite these differences in opinions, nearly all critics and supporters
can agree that it is important to continually reevaluate America’s
relationships and foreign policy.
With that in mind, the aim of
this two-part article will be to assess the pros and cons of the United States
being strategically aligned with Israel, and to assess what extent the U. S.
should or should not align its foreign policy with Israel. My aim in writing
this article is not to sway readers to one side or the other but rather to
objectively present two sides of an important debate. In Part One, I will
present the arguments of those who support the current “special relationship”
Israel and the United States share. In Part Two I will assess the arguments of
the alliance’s critics. Given that this is such an emotionally charged issue
for so many people, I could never hope to instill objectivity in the opinions
of all readers. I do, however, hope to present information that is at once
enlightening, informative, and perhaps even a bit disturbing. Enjoy.
Part One: Israel, Our Greatest Friend
A Yarmulka with both Israeli and American flags. Photo by Idobi.
Despite what many might believe,
the United States and Israel have not always been the closest of allies.
Throughout the 1950s, the U.S. took actions that in fact were detrimental to
the fledgling Jewish state, such as the countermeasures taken by the U.S.
against Israel in the Suez Crisis of 1956. The relationship with Israel changed
in 1962 under the administration of John F. Kennedy when he decided to sell the
Hawk ground-to-air missile to Israel. In a statement made by Kennedy to Prime
Minister Golda Meir on December 27, 1962, Kennedy gave insight to his thinking
behind this reversal in policy: “The United States has a special relationship
with the Israel in the Middle East really only comparable to that which it has
with Britain over a wide range of affairs…I think it is quite clear that in the
case of invasion, the U.S. would come to the support of Israel. We have that
capacity and it is growing”[3].
Support for Israel grew under the
Johnson administration and under the Nixon administration, during the 1969-70
War of Attrition aid to Israel steadily increased during the conflict. This
sharp increase reflected both Kissinger and Nixon’s belief that steadfast
support for Israel would reveal the limited value of Soviet aid and eventually
convince Moscow’s Arab clients to realign with the United States[4].
This Cold War rationale would become the straightforward case for Israel’s
strategic value until the collapse of the Soviet Union; by serving as America’s
proxy in the Middle East, Israel was able to help contain Soviet expansion in
the vital region as well as occasionally help the United States handle other
regional conflicts.
Today, one of the leading
arguments for the U.S. to continue its strategic relationship with Israel is
that they share nearly identical views on major issues in the international
system. According to Michael Oren,
author and the current Israeli Ambassador to the United States, “Israel has
always sided with the United States on major global issues. At the United
Nations and in other international institutions, the two countries' voting
patterns are virtually identical, as are their policies on human rights and
international law”[5].
Compared to its other allies, there are few, if any, that can compete with Israel
in their steadfast support and shared interests. America's European allies
including Britain, France, Germany, and Italy are restricting the conditions
under which their forces fight alongside those of the U.S. and drastically
slashing defense budgets, which will leave the U.S. unable to call on them for
support in the event of the crisis. The Israeli Defense Force is believed to be
twice the size of the French and British armies combined and able to be
deployed in a number of hours, giving it clear military advantages over other
U.S. allies.[6]
This ability to assist militarily
in the event of a crisis is one part of a broader argument for Israel’s
strategic security value to the United States. According to Robert Satloff,
Executive Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the U.S.
and Israeli militaries have conducted contingency planning since 1983 and the
U.S. has stocked war reserves worth over a billion dollars in Israel. Israel
has also proven to be a prime source of effective counterterrorism/counterinsurgency
tactics, which have played a significant role in U.S. success in Iraq.
Israel has been an outstanding
innovator in the technology, tactics, techniques, and procedures of unmanned
aerial vehicles, which the United States now relies upon extensively in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen in dismantling terror networks[7]. Along
with its assistance to the U.S. in the War on Terror, Israel’s destruction of
nuclear reactors in Iraq and Syria has lowered global risk of a nuclear attack.
Supporters of the alliance also note that Israel serves as the best deterrent
against a nuclear Iran. Aluf Benn, editor-in-chief of Haaretz Newspaper, noted
that the “IDF [is] the only serious force able to standup against Iran and its
proxies in the Middle East”[8].
The concept of being “partner[s]
against terrorism” emerged as a new rationale for the U.S.-Israel alliance
following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and has become exponentially more
important following the attacks of 9/11. In an address to congress in 2006,
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared, “Our countries do not just share
the experience and pain of terrorism. We share the commitment and resolve to
confront the brutal terrorists that took these innocent people from us”[9].
Olmert’s successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, echoed this idea in an op-ed in the
Chicago Sun Times declaring, “No grievance, real or imagined, can ever justify
terror…American power topples the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and the
al-Qaeda network there crumbles on its own. The U.S. must now act similarly
against other terror regimes-Iran, Iraq, Yasser Arafat’s dictatorship, Syria,
and a few others”[10].
George Bush and Ehud Olmert. White House photo.
Several U.S. policymakers have
echoed these ideas. Senator Charles Shumer declared in December 2001that “the
PLO is the same as the Taliban, which aids, abets and provides safe haven for
terrorists. And Israel is like America, simply trying to protect its home
front”[11]. This
year, President Barak Obama gave a speech to a conference held by the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee where he said “the enemies of Israel should
have no doubt that regardless of Party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in
our commitment to Israel’s security”. The support seen in the executive branch
can also been seen in Congress, where in April and May 2002 an overwhelming
majority passed two nearly identical resolutions declaring that “the United
States and Israel are now engaged in a common struggle against terrorism”[12].
Israel’s strategic importance to
the United States is not only military but also geopolitical. With its strong
control of the East Mediterranean littoral and the cross roads of North Africa
and Southwest Asia, Israel has enabled the U.S. to minimize its military
deployments in the area. This stands in stark contrast to the situation in the
Persian Gulf where the U.S. lacks such a steadfast ally with strategic depth, and
has consequently been forced to commit thousands of troops and hundreds of
millions of dollars. A quote from former Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig's
made 30 years ago resonates today: "Israel is the largest American
aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one
American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security."[13]
There are those who believe that
a strong Israel, with a strong U.S.-Israel relationship at its core has been
instrumental to the peace processes in the Middle East since the U.S.
dramatically strengthened its alliance with Israel after 1973. Since then,
according to Robert Satloff, the Arab-Israeli arena has changed dramatically in
favor of U.S. interest, citing the peace agreements between Israel, Egypt, and
Jordan as well as thirty-seven years of peace on the Syrian border and
seventeen years of diplomacy with the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
Additionally, he notes one of the greatest achievements of this strategic
alliance has been reducing the Arab-Israeli
conflict into a Palestinian-Israeli
conflict[14].
Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat, and Yitzak Rabin at the signing of the Oslo Accords.
White House photo.
From an economic perspective,
proponents of the relationship argue that the U.S. also reaps a number of
fiscal benefits from its alignment with Israel. Satloff explains this argument:
“It is to America’s advantage to have in Israel an economy that is so closely
associated with ours and that is such an innovator in the information and technology
field, in high-tech medicine, and in green technologies like the electric car”[15]. Despite
having a population of just 7.7 million people, Israel is America’s 20th-largest
customer in the world, which puts it before both Russia and Spain. Between 2000
and 2009, direct U.S. investment in Israel totaled $77.2 billion while
Israelis, with their vastly smaller population, invested $54.2 billion during
that same period. Furthermore but long forgotten is that the United States
first free trade agreement was signed with Israel over 25 years ago.
Whether for military, geopolitical,
or economic reasons, advocates of the close U.S.-Israeli alliance certainly
have plenty of ammunition to support their claims. Yet as I will demonstrate in
Part Two, the relationships detractors have just as many arguments against the
alliance as do those who favor its continuation for it.
[1]
Mearsheimer,
John. Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and
US Foreign Policy. New York, Penguin Books. 2007
[3]
Public
papers of the Presidents of the USA, John F. Kennedy, 7 January 1963-22
November 1963 (Washington, DC 1964), 307.
[8]
Aluf Been, “Our Kind
of Realism”, Foreign Policy, April
25, 2011
[9]
“Entire Text of Olmert
Speech to Congress,” Jerusalem Post,
May 24, 2006
[10]
Benjamin Netanyahu,
“Three Principles Key to Defeat of Terrorism”, Chicago-Sun Times, January 7, 2002.
[11]
Press release, Office
of Charles Schumer, U.S. Senate, December 3, 2001
[15]
A Debate on the Vale
of the US-Israel Relationship, Robert Satloff and Chas Freeman.
all Iraq News here http://www.alhadath-tv.com/iraq_news/
ReplyDelete