-Abstract-
The convoluted
relationship between the United States and Israel is sometimes difficult to
understand. Since Israel founding in 1948, United States foreign policy seemed
to have heavily leaned in favor of Israel especially in the years following the
Cold War. During the Cold War, United States support for Israel was justified
because it was one of the few states in the region that embraces Western ideals
and oppose to communist ideology. But
after the Cold War, it is not clear to many people why United States foreign
policy still favors the Jewish State particularly when U.S such foreign policy puts Washington at odd
with the Arabs world. Moreover, there is another element that this paper will
address as well. What roles do neoconservatives and pro-Israel lobbyists play
in maintaining this dubious U.S-Israel alliance? In this paper, the author
argues that neoconservatives and pro-Israel lobbyists support policies that
have made U.S- Israel alliance a political and economic liability for the
United States?
-Literature
Review and Analysis-
The pro-Israel advocates like AIPAC,
Neoconservatives and American Jews in the United States argue that the United
States national security interests are intricately linked to security and peace
of the Jewish State. To them, for the United States to secure it regional
interests in the Middle East, it is very important that Israel is kept secured
from some of the regional rogue states and actors that surrounded the Jewish
State (Walt, 2007, pp. 49-77). They argue that United States unlimited support
to Israel is a matter of a mutual benefit.
This argument sometimes does not meet the
basic justifications worth the cost that the United States pays for its
unlimited support to Israel. However, this has been the case through the six
decades that this convoluted alliance has existed. First, United States has
been giving a lot to Israel and it getting very little or none back in return.
The United States spends billions of dollars and diplomatic assets of unlimited
value every year to support Israel and it’s expected no reciprocity from Israel.
Second, Israel unlike rest of the
countries in the region, Israel does not have substantial natural resources
like oil or natural gas that the United States needs for its economic
prosperity. Yet it’s spent billions of dollars to support a country that does
not provide any economic incentives that may justify why United States should
commit to keep such alliance. Third, Israel geopolitical location and its significance
are overemphasized by those who argue that Israel is an important asset to the
United State geopolitically. There are
states like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Gulf states that are homes
to United States military bases yet United States doesn’t spend the same amount
of resources in these countries to maintain its military interests in the
region.
Instead, the United States unchecked
support for Israel creates uncertainty that is threatening its strategic allies
in the region. Fourth, these people
argue that Israel is a weak and a besieged state surrounded by aggressive
states that seek to wipe Israel off the map. While this is a true statement,
there is a problem with such argument as well.
This applies to early years following the founding of Israel when it was
still young and weak a nation. Today,
Israel is not the same nation as it was in 1948 or 1950. It’s no longer a small
state and neither is it weak state anymore.
Today, Israel is by any account has the
most powerful military capability compared to most of its neighbors. It’s even
has nuclear weapons which makes it one of the few nations on earth that possess
such capability. Israel is powerful enough that it defeated six Arabs nations
in a single battle and for that reason alone, it should not be considered as weak
and a besieged nation. In fact, the opposite
is true. Israel has been the one besieging it neighbors which is contrary to
what pro- Israel and neoconservatives would want people to believe.
The point is Israel does not have any
special strategic value to the United States that supersedes that of other U.S
allies in the same region. The truth should be, United States support for
Israel has been based on historical guilt or moral dilemma created by holocaust
and it has little to do with strategic
alliance that those who promote
U.S unlimited support for Israel seemed to promote. The point is those who
argue that United States support for Israel is a matter of national and
regional security missed the bigger picture or they have failed to recognize
the negative consequences of this alliance.
Unfortunately, this narrative has
saturated the public discourse in the United States because of the way the
neoconservatives and other pro- Israel have steered the debate. Their common narrative has been that, it is
in the best interest of the United States to ensure that Israel is safe and
secured from its neighbor. They argue that when Israel achieves security;
United States would eventually become safe as well according to neoconservatives
and pro-Zionists theory. The other theory that neoconservatives throw around
very often is the notion that Israel and the United States share common idea e.g.
commitment to human freedoms and democracy.
They argued that Israel is a democratic state in a tough region of the
world and that its needs U.S support to preserve Israel’s democracy (Walt,
2007, pp. 78-81). Whatever their arguments are, this paper argues that United
States continues support for AIPAC and Israel in general has turned into a
political liability and does not serve the United States regional security interests
anymore.
Sure, Israel did play a significant role
during the Cold War and it deserves recognition for its role in fighting
communism. No doubt, during this
challenging time for the United States, Israel played a role that was in the interest
of the United States. Not only that, Israel action in 1981 to destroy nuclear
reactor site in Iraq for example was one of the few instances where Israel
could be argued as an ally for the
United States. But again, it could be argued that Israel took out Iraq nuclear reactor
for its own security concerns. However, in that context, Israel action to
destroy Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor was a rare instance of a mutual
interest between the two countries (Gold, 2006). While this action and others
few instances pointed to a period in which Israel and United States alliance
seemed to have thrived on mutual interest, it is not the case anymore. Middle
East has changed in a way that threatens this dubious alliance particularly in
this age of terrorism.
First, even if people in the U.S. think that Israel is its ally,
Israel does not behave like one. Since it’s founding in 1948, Israel has acted
unilaterally in land grasping from it Arabs neighbors of which it sometimes never
had any consultation with United States on how to approach some of the land
disputes that it has with it Arabs neighbors.
The several regional wars that Israel fought with its neighbors is a
testimony to this Israel’s thirst for land conquest both which some of have
affected the United States negatively. Over the years, Israel has been antagonizing
its Arabs neighbors and United States has suffered lots of collateral damages
associated to Israel poor decisions. For
instance, the bombing of United States military barracks in Beirut and U.S.
Embassy both which resulted into death of more than three hundreds United
States citizens occurred because of the United States support to Israel.
Second, this perceptual sentiment in the
region has become a base of anti Americanism in the Middle East which in
general sense does not serve United States regional interests. It has transpired into radical fundamentalism
which threatens United States national security as well as it Middle East
interests. Osman Bin Laden for example
blamed suffering of the Palestinians and other Arabs in the region on the
United States continue support for Israel's policies that resulted into
occupation and oppression of the Arabs. As a result, Bin Laden said, he was
forced to rise up against Zionists and their sympathizers.
Third, Not only is this continue United States
support for Israel is becoming
recruiting tool for Islamic
fundamentalism in the region, there are states in the region that once respected
United States and have at one point in
the past been considered allies to the United States. States like Jordan, Egypt
and Lebanon had worked with United States or neutral toward the United States.
However, in the last few years, United
States have lost Jordan as an ally, Lebanon is slipping away as a result
of Hezbollah influence inside Lebanon and Egypt is going through a transition
and nobody knows the outcome of the Egyptian’s political situation. If Islamic
Brotherhood ascends into power, there is a great danger that United States is
going to lose Egypt-U.S alliance. All these happened as a consequence of the
United States continue support to Israel.
Fourth, pro-Israel lobby in Washington, DC
and across America exercise an enormous power to the extent that scares policy
makers to offer harsh criticism against Israel’s government. As a consequence
United States policy makers are forced to operate with a divided loyalty
because of political pressure coming from Israelis lobbyists. It’s a disservice
to the United States citizens to have their leaders and legislators to be held
hostage by neoconservatives and lobbyists who support foreign government
interest rather than that of their own nation. Not only that, owing allegiance
to a foreign government or cause that doesn’t serve the true interest of the
United States is contrary to moral value, [the pledge of allegiance ] that many
of the so called neoconservatives pride themselves with.
Fifth, Israel is becoming an economic burden
to the United States not much because of the financial assistances that Israel
gets each year from the United States government… but as consequences of Israel
bad decisions and behaviors towards the Arabs world. The 1970 crises in the
Middle East [ 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel invasion of Lebanon both in 1981 and
2006, and rise of radical Islamic fundamentalists ] both which Israel is either
responsible for initiating or come as a negative consequence of perception that the Arab world have about
the United States position on Israel (Walt, 2007, pp. 51-58).
To put this into perspective, during the
1973 Yom Kippur war for example, American economy suffered because of the oil
embargo that the Arabs imposed on the United States as a punishment for United
States support for Israel. In addition, allow me to phrase deceased Al Qaeda’s
leader who once said, “Stop supporting Israel or else, I would bankrupt America
to an extent that America wouldn’t be able to support itself let alone
supporting Israel.” Sadly, Bin Laden was right.
Today, American’s economy is nearly bankrupted if it not already
bankrupted because of two wars on
terrorism that the United States is fighting against radical groups like Al Qaeda and Taliban both
which emerged because of hate in the
Arabs world against the United states.
In summary, the argument that United
States national security is intricately linked to Israel security needs to be
re-examined. By examining the United States-Israel alliance, it may shed some lights
on why United States unlimited support for Israel has turned into political and
economic liability. The United States needs to realize that it will never
achieve a total democratic world. Therefore, it needs to stop meddling in the
affairs of the Middle East especially when the United States national and
regional interests are not at stake. This automatic support for Israel that
many pro-Zionists and neoconservatives advocate for undermines the United
States quest for a world ruled by laws of nations. It’s about time that Americans realize that
until the Israel starts acting within the international norms should U.S-Israel
alliance be a worthy endeavor. Moreover, re-examining the scope of this U.S
unlimited support for Israel may provide American public with new perspectives
as to why U.S-Israel alliance may not be in the best interest of the country.
References
Gold, Dore. (2006).
The basis of the U.S.-Israel alliance: An
Israel response to the Mearsheimer-Walt assault. Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs, 5, (20). Retrieved October
28, 2011, from: http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief005-20.htm
Sniegoski, Stephen.
(2006). Israel: Strategic ally or liability? Retrieved October 28, 2011, from: http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2010/07/70788.php
Mearsheimer, J. John, &
Walt, M. Stephen. The Israel lobby and
U.S. foreign policy. New York, New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.
No comments:
Post a Comment