Taking Stock of US-Israel Relationship

GEOPOLITICS OF USA - ISRAEL RELATIONSHIP

 In geopolitics, we are frequently confornted with what appears to be a great deal of movement. Sometimes it is current geopolitical reality breaking apart and a new one emerging. Sometimes it is simply meaningless motion in a fixed geographical reality - nothing more than illusion of maneuver generated for political reasons as players maneuver within a fixed framework for minor advantage or internal political reasons. In other words, we need to distinguish between geopolitics and politics.

Nowhere it is more important than in the Middle East, which has come to be defined in terms of Arab-Israeli equations for reasons I fully don’t understand. Leaving that aside, in recent months we have seen a lot of endless happenings and rumours of happenings. The current impasse between US and Israel, Flotilla Crisis, Iran’s outbursts against Israel, Turkey is no longer a trusted ally, etc. Israel has always been invoked as an ally of US against “War on Terror” (though this term is no longer used) - or even the very reason why US is in the war in first place. Some will say that Israel maneuvered the US into Iraq to serve its own purpose. Some will say it orchestrated 9/11 for its own ends. Others will say that , had US supported Israel more resolutely, there would have been no 9/11.

There is probably no relationship on which people have more diverging views than on that between US and Israel. This seems to be an opportune time to consider the geopolitics of US-Israeli relationship.

Let us begin with some obvious political points. There is relatively small Jewish community in the United States, though its political influence is magnified by its strategic location in critical states like New York and the fact that it is more actively involved in politics than some other ethnic groups.

The Jewish community, as tends to be the case with groups, is deeply divided on many issues. It tends to be united on one issue - Israel - but not with the same intensity as in the past, nor with even semblance of agreement on the specifics. The American Jewish community is as divided as the Israeli Jewish community, with a large segment of people who don’t care much. At the same time, this community donates a huge amount of money to American and Israeli organizations, including groups that lobby on behalf of Israeli issues in Washington. These lobbying entities lean toward the right wing of Israel’s political spectrum, in large part because the Israeli right has tended to govern in the past generation and these groups tend to follow the dominant Israeli strand. It is also because American Jews who contribute to Israel lobby organizations lean right in both Israeli and American politics.

The Israel lobby, which has a great deal of money and experience, is extremely influential in Washington. For decades now, it has done a good job of ensuring that Israeli interests are attended to in Washington, and certainly on some issues it has skewed US policy on the Middle East.

There are however two important questions. The first is whether this is in any way unique. Is a strong Israel lobby an unprecedented intrusion into foreign policy? The key question though, is whether Israeli interests diverge from US interests to the extent that the Israel lobby is taking US foreign policy in directions it wouldn’t go otherwise, in directions that counter the US national interest.

Begin with the first question. Prior to both world wars there was extensive debate on whether the US should intervene in the war. In both cases, the British government lobbied extensively for US intervention on behalf of UK. The British made two arguments. The first was that US shared a heritage with England - code for the idea that white Anglo-Saxon Protestants should stand with white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The second was that there was a fundamental political affinity between British and US democracy from German authoritarianism.

Many Americans, including President Franklin Roosevelt, believed both the arguments. The British lobby was quite powerful. There was German lobby as well, but it lacked the numbers, the money and the traditions to draw on.

But from geopolitical viewpoint, both the arguments were very weak. The US and UK not only were separate countries, they had fought some bitter wars over the question. As for political institutions, geopolitics as a method, is fairly insensitive to the moral claims of regimes. It works on the basis of interest. On that basis, an intervention on behalf of UK in both wars made sense because it provided a relatively low cost way of preventing Germany from dominating Europe and challenging American sea power. In the end, it wasn’t the lobbying interest, massive though it was, but geopolitical necessity that drove US intervention.

The second question, then is: Has the Israel lobby caused the US to act in ways that contravene US interests? For example, by getting the US to support Israel, did it turn Arab world against the Americans? Did it support Israel against Palestinians, thereby generate an Islamist radicalism that led to 9/11? Did it manipulate US policy on Iraq so that US invaded Iraq on behalf of Israel? These allegations have all been made. If true, they are very serious charges.

It is important to remember that US-Israeli ties were not extraordinarily close prior to 1967. President Harry Truman recognized Israel, but the US had not provided major military aid and support. Israel, always in need of an outside supply of weapons, first depended on the Soviet Union, which shipped via Czechoslovakia. When the Soviets realized that Israeli socialists were anti-Soviet as well, they dropped Israel.

Israel’s next patron was France. France was fighting to hold on to Algeria and maintain its influence in Lebanon and Syria, both former French protectorates. The French saw Israel as a natural ally. It was France that really created the Israeli air force and provided the first technology for Israeli nuclear weapons.

The US was actively hostile to Israel during this period. In 1956, following Gamal Abdul Nasser’s seizure of power in Egypt, Cairo nationalized the Suez Canal. Without the canal, the British Empire was finished, and ultimately the French were as well. UK and France worked secretly with Israel, and Israel invaded the Sinai. Then, in order to protect the Suez Canal from and Israeli-Egyptian war, a Franco-British force parachuted in to seize the canal. President Dwight Eisenhower forced the British and French to withdraw - as well as the Israelis. US Israeli relations remained chilly for quite some time.

The break point with France came in 1967. The Israelis, under pressure from Egypt, decided to invade Egypt, Jordan and Syria - ignoring French President Charles de Gaulle’s demand that they do not do so. As a result, France broke its alignment with Israel.

This was a critical moment in US-Israeli relationship. Israel needed a source of weaponry as its national security needs vastly outstripped its industrial base. It was at this point that the Israeli lobby in the United States became critical. Israel wanted a relationship with the US and Israeli lobby brought tremendous pressure to bear, picturing Israel as a heroic, embattled democracy, surrounded by bloodthirsty neighbours, badly needing US help. President Lyndon B. Johnson, bogged down in Vietnam and wanting to shore up his base, saw a popular cause in Israel and tilted toward it.

But there were critical strategic issues as well. Syria and Iraq had both shifted into pro-Soviet group, as had Egypt. Some have argued that, had US not supported Israel, this would not have happened. This, however, runs in face of history. It was US that forced the Israeli out of Sinai in 1956, but the Egyptians moved into the Soviet camp anyway. The argument that it was uncritical support for Israel that caused anti-Americanism in the Arab world doesn’t hold ground either. The Egyptians became anti-American in spite of an essentially anti-Israeli position in 1956. By 1957 Egypt was a Soviet ally.

The Americans ultimately tilted toward Israel because of this reason, not the other way round. Egypt was not only providing the Soviets with naval and air bases, it also was running covert operations in the Arabian Peninsula to bring down the conservative sheikdoms there, including Saudi’s. The Soviets were seen as using Egypt as base of operations against US. Syria was seen as another dangerous radical power, along with Iraq. The defense of the Arabian Peninsula from radical, pro-Soviet Arab movements, as well as the defense of Jordan, became a central interest of US.

Israel was seen as contribution by threatening the security of both Egypt and Syria. The Saudi fear of PLO was palpable. Riyadh saw the Soviet inspired liberation movements as threatening to Saudi’s survival. Israel was engaged in a covert war against PLO and related groups, and that was exactly what the Saudis wanted from late 1960s until early 1980s. Israel’s covert capability against PLO, coupled with its overt military power against Egypt and Syria, was very much in the American interest and that of its Arab allies. It was a low cost solution to some very difficult strategic problems at a time when US was either in Vietnam or recovering from the war.

The occupation of the Sinai, the West Bank and Golan Heights in 1967 was not in US interest. The US wanted Israel to carry out its mission against Soviet backed paramitlitaries and tie down Egypt and Syria, but the occupation was not seen as part of the mission. The Israelis intially expected to convert their occupation of the territories into peace treaty, but that only happend much later, with Egypt. At Khartoum summit in 1967, the Arabs delivered the famous 3 NOes: NO NEGOTIATIONS, NO RECOGNITION & NO PEACE. Israel became an occupying power.

The claim has been made that if US had forced Israelis out of Gaza and West Bank, then it would receive credit and peace would follow. There are 3 problems with that theory:

1. Israelis did not occupy these areas prior to 1967 and there was no peace then,
2. groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have said that a withdrawal would not end the state of war with Israel, and therefore,
3. the withdrawal would create friction with Israel without any clear payoff from the Arabs.

It must be remembered that Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace treaties with Israel and does not seem to care about the Palestinians. The Saudis have never risked a thing for the Palestinians, nor have Iranians. The Syrians have, but they are far more interested in investing in Beirut hotels than in invading Israel. No Arab state is interested in the Palestinians, except for those that are actively hostile. There is Arab and Islamic public opinion and non state organizations, but none would be satisfied with an Israeli withdrawal. They want Israel destroyed. Even if US withdrew all support for Israel, however, Israel would not be destroyed. The radical Arabs do not want withdrawal; they want destruction. And the moderate Arabs don’t care about the Palestinians beyond rhetoric.

Noe getting to the heart of the matter. If US broke all ties with Israel, would the US geopolitical situation be improved? In other words, if it broke with Israel, would Iran or al Qaeda come to view US in a different way? Critics of the Israel lobby argue that,except for the Israeli lobby’s influence, the US would be much secure.

Al Qaeda does not perceive Israel by itself as its central problem. Its goal is the resurrection of the caliphate - and it sees US support for muslim regimes as the central problem. If US abandoned Israel, al Qaeda would still confront US support for countries such as Egypt, Saudi and Pakistan. For al Qaeda, Israel is an important issue, but for US to soothe al Qaeda, it would have to abandon not only Israel but also its allies in Middle East. As for Iran, the Iranian rhetoric has never matched its action. During Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian military purchased weapons and parts from the Israelis. It was more delighted than anyone when Israel destroyed the Iraqi  nuclear reactor in 1981. Iran’s problem with US is its presence in Iraq, its naval presence in Persian Gulf and its support for the Kurds. If Israel disappeared from the world map, Iran’s problems would still remain the same.

It has been said that Israelis inspired the US invasion of Iraq. There is no doubt that Israel was pleased when, after 9/11, US saw itself as an anti-Islamist power. Let me clarify that, benefitting from something does not mean you caused it. However, it has never been clear that Israelis were all that enthusiastic about invading Iraq. Neoconservative Jews like Paul Wolfowitz were enthusiastic, as were non Jews like Dick Cheney. But the Israeli view of a US invasion of Iraq was at the most mixed, and to some extent dubious. The Israelis liked the Iran-Iraq balance of power and were close allies of Turkey, which certainly opposed the invasion. The claim that Israel supported the invasion comes from those who mistake neoconservatives, many of whom are Jews who support Israel, with Israeli foreign policy, which was much more nuanced that the neoconservatives. The Israelis were not at all clear about what the Americans were doing in Iraq, but they were in no position to complain.

Israeli-US relations have gone through three phases. From 1948 to 1967, the US supported the Israel’s right to exist but was not its patron. In the 1967-1991 period, the Israelis were a key American asset in the Cold War. From 1991- the present, the relationship has remained close and little bumpy lately but it is not pivotal to either country. Whether it will remain in the 3rd phase or the relationship will enter into a new phase, only time can say. The fact is US cannot help Israel with Hezbollah or Hamas. The Israelis cannot help US in Iraq or Afghanistan. If the relationship were severed, it would have remarkably little impact on either country - though keeping the relationship is more valuable than severing it.

To sum up:

There is a powerful Jewish, pro Israel lobby in Washington, though it was not very successful in first 20 years or so of Israel’s history. When US policy toward Israel swung in 1967 it has far more to do with geopolitical interests than with lobbying. The US needed help with Egypt and Syria and Israel could provide it. Lobbying appeared to be the key, but it wasn’t; geopolitical necessity was. Egypt was anti-American even when US was anti-Israeli. Al Qaeda would be anti-American even if the US were anti-Israel. Rhetoric aside, Iran has never taken direct action against Israel and nor does it seem to be a real possibility.(existential threat notwithstanding- I will cover that part in my next note).

Portraying the Israeli lobby as super powerful behooves 2 groups: Critics of US Middle Eastern policy and the Israel lobby itself. Critics get to say the US relationship with Israel is the result of manipulation and corruption. Thus, they get to avoid discussing the actual history of Israel, US and Middle East.

The lobby benefits by projecting robust power because one of its jobs is to raise funds - and the image of a killer lobby opens a lot more pockets than does the idea that both Israel and US are simply pursuing their geopolitical interests and that things would go on pretty much the same even without slick lobbying.

The great irony is that the critics of US policy and the Israeli lobby both want to believe in the same myth - that great powers can be manipulated to harm themselves by crafty politicians.

The British did not get US into the World Wars, it was not anti-Nazism that led US to war, similarly the Israelis aren’t maneuvering the Americans into being pro-Israel. Beyond its ability to exert itself on small things, Israeli lobby is powerful in influencing Washington to do what it is going to do anyway.

What happens next in Afghanistan or Iraq  is not up to the Israeli lobby - though Israeli lobby and Saudi Embassy have a different story for it.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

This entry was posted on 28. August 2010 at 05:45 and is filed under Middle East, Geopolitics, Israel, United State of America. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print