This is an Essay I wrote for my American Foreign Policy class. I thought since I had not blogged in a while I would post this for anyone to read. There is some very interesting information here and while I think it is a bit disjointed in spots overall its worth reading.
The relationship between the United States and the State of Israel has been a long and often uncomfortable one. The foreign policy approach to Israel by the U.S. has changed over the years. The U.S.-Israeli relationship is a controversial one in a region noted for its strategic value, and ongoing turmoil. The U.S. should reconsider its Israeli policies however, given that a broader Middle Eastern policy inclusive of Israel while more inclusive of Arab priorities would increase U.S. prestige in the region and facilitate diplomatic solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflicts.
This paper will be a brief overview of U.S. Foreign Policy pertaining to Israel, how it has developed, and implications of the U.S.-Israeli alliance.
Israel was created by U.N. Mandate in 1948 (Spiro 2012). The mandate was for a two-state partition of Palestine, one state a Jewish homeland, the other a Palestinian state composed mostly of Muslims, with a Christian minority. The partition was to be based on demographics, land areas with a majority Arab Population going to the Palestinians, a Jewish majority becoming part of Israel (Spiro 2012). Jerusalem was to be an international city (Spiro 2012). Multiple neighboring Arab states declared war on Israel including Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Iraq and Lebanon (Spiro 2012). This was the beginning of a series of conflicts between Israel and her neighboring Arab states (Spiro 2012) which have continued off and on into the 21st century.
President Harry Truman officially recognized Israel on May 15th 1948 (Mark 2002); the initial U.S. policy was sympathetic to the Jewish state, to some degree from sympathy for those who survived the holocaust. The U.S.-Israeli relationship has changed over the years, with Israel becoming the primary U.S. ally in the Middle-East.
However in some degree this is a continuation of the foreign policy initiated by the Allies at the end of World War One. Policies which tended to antagonize both the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab States. Much of this begins with the Balfour Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 penned by Great Britain’s Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Shlaim 2005), was a crucial element in Israeli history while it was embraced by Jewish Zionists who immigrated to Palestine, it was rejected by Palestinians and in the broader Arab-Muslim world. The Balfour Declaration promised to give Palestine as the Jewish homeland. However this ran counter to what Hussein Sharif of Mecca and his son Prince Feisal had been promised by the British (Shlaim 2005). Hussein and Feisal had used their influence to support the British against the German allied Ottoman Empire. Feisal in conjunction with British troops, and advised by the legendary T.E. Lawrence, led an Arab rebellion against the Turks. This rebellion helped secure Palestine and assisted in the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. However an Arab Kingdom united under Feisal with a “Jewish Province” was to be a short lived dream. France under the Sykes-Picot agreement took control of “Greater Syria” (modern Syria, Jordan and Lebanon) while Britain had the mandate in Palestine (Shlaim 2005). The British Mandate lasted until 1948 and the creation of the State of Israel (Shlaim 2005). The Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Agreement led to a feeling of betrayal by the European powers and contributed to friction in the Middle East beginning from 1920 to the 1948 war and after. To this day Balfour and Sykes-Picot are contentious issues of debate regarding Middle Eastern diplomacy.
The U.S. has often fielded multiple competing policies in the Middle East. Since the 1960’s Israeli security has been an American interest, partly for containment of the Cold War Soviet threat. The Soviets had interest in many Arab countries, particularly Egypt and Syria, meaning the U.S. had to maintain its interest in Israeli security and maintain relations friendly enough with the Arab states to mitigate Soviet influence (Mark 2002). The U.S. did this while developing open markets and free trade and security of the large oil reserves located mostly in Arab states, a tricky balancing act (D.L. 2019).
The foreign policy relationship of the two nations however was not without its share of problems. Initially the U.S. did not supply arms to Israel, even though Israel was surrounded by actively hostile nations. The Eisenhower Administration was opposed to the combined Israeli/British/French attempt to gain control of the Suez Canal in 1956 (Oren 2002). The U.S. has often been critical of Israeli retaliatory strikes, and cautioned Israel both in 1967 and in 1973 not to strike first even with Arab armies poised on Israeli borders. In 1967 the Israelis did strike first, and went on to a stunning series of victories in the Six-Day War (D.L. 2019), in 1973 Israel did not strike first and was caught by attacking Arab armies who nearly reversed the territorial gains from 1967. Only intervention (non-military) (Mark 2002) by the United States averted disaster for Israel. After the Six-Day War the U.S. began supplying arms to the victorious nation (Crewdson 2007). Trade relationships that continues to this day, and creates friction among Arab states that are, interestingly, also arms customers of the United States (Oren 2002).
As a peace broker the U.S. has been heavily involved in the peace process, such as the agreement between Anwar Sadat’s Egyptian regime and Israel, facilitated by the Carter Administration at Camp David, a peace deal that cost President Sadat his life by assassination. The Clinton Administration was involved in the peace process with President Clinton signing the September 28th Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians (Papp, Johnson and Endicott 2005).
During the Reagan administration Israel was granted “non-NATO ally” status and granted more access to U.S. weapons stockpiles. After Iraq initiated Scud missile attacks during the Persian Gulf War, the U.S. provided Israel with Patriot missile batteries.
An interesting point of friction between the U.S. and Israel was an incident that occurred during the Six-Day War. An American Naval intelligence vessel, the U.S.S. Liberty was attacked by forces of the Israeli military (Crewdson 2007). This attack was carried out over the course of several hours and included both aerial and surface attacks, including a torpedoing which nearly sunk the Liberty. (Anthony 2002). Crewmembers stated they were over flown by Israeli aircraft for hours before the attack and felt as if they had been identified as American. Later, and in international waters, the attack began and continued for several hours. Several crewmen were killed and many more were wounded (Anthony 2002) (Crewdson 2007). The incident was written off as a case of mistaken identity and the U.S. accepted Israel’s apology for the incident (Anthony 2002). Reparations were paid to surviving crewmen, and to the families of sailors killed in the attack (Anthony 2002). Speculation suggests the Israelis did not want the American spy ship to listen in on Israeli plans for an attack into the Sinai desert the next day (Crewdson 2007). Wars have been predicated on much less; however the U.S. went on with no further discussion about the incident. Even today there is little mention of the Liberty Incident in the history books or by either government.
As a matter of foreign policy the U.S. gives financial aid to many nations around the world, including the Middle East. Israel has been the recipient of much of that aid. Since 1949 Israel has received: $74,157,600,000. In foreign aid grants and loans, other U.S. aid (12.2% of foreign aid) $9,047,227,200., interest to Israel from advanced payments $1,650,000,000 total equaling out to $84,854,827,200 total benefits per Israeli $14,630 (US Financial aid to Israel-figures, facts and impact 2011). To break this down even further the cost of all of this to the U.S. taxpayer is: Interest costs $49,936,680,000, total cost to American taxpayers $134,791,507,200, cost per taxpayer per Israeli citizen $23,240 (US Financial aid to Israel-figures, facts and impact 2011).
Additionally many of these loans have been forgiven; between 1974 and 1989 $16.4 billion in military loans were converted to grants. Congress has contributed to Israel’s claim of never having defaulted on a loan from the U.S. by forgiving virtually all loans given to Israel (US Financial aid to Israel-figures, facts and impact 2011).
The nation of Israel receives approximately one-third of the resources the United States has budgeted for foreign aid. If Israel were an emerging nation there would be more justification for such generous ongoing financial aid. However Israel is not an emerging nation, at least not now. With a GNP exceeding the combined GNP’s of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Gaza, and the West Bank, Israel ranks as a relatively wealthy and well-off nation (US Financial aid to Israel-figures, facts and impact 2011); it begs the question as to why so much is paid by the American taxpayer. Especially now considering the ramifications of the newly discovered Leviathan gas field in the Mediterranean Sea and the potential for energy independence and revenue generation this find represents. Strong lobbies in Washington such as AIPAC, and the Christian-American Zionist movement (The Economist 2010), are part of the unconditional defense for continuing financial aid and military sales to Israel.
Israel certainly has the right to exist and defend itself and is clearly a partner with the U.S.; however a more equitable relationship is needed. Israel is able to stand on her own economically but given the disparity in numbers between Arab and Israeli armed forces a continuing military alliance is advisable. If the U.S. continues as a peace broker, and distributes aid more evenly, U.S. credibility should build in the region. This will lay a broader foundation for stability; stability in the Middle East is in everyone’s best interest.
Dead In The Water - The Sinking of the USS Liberty. Directed by Christopher Mitchell. Performed by Nigel Anthony. 2002.
Crewdson, John. "New revelations in attack on American spy ship." Chicagotribune.com. October 2007. http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/eedition/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,43090.story (accessed March 2012).
D.L. "Israel and American foreign policy." economist.com. October 10, 2019. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/10/israel_and_american_foreign_policy (accessed March 2012).
Lind, Michael. "Distorting U.S. foreign policy: The Israel lobby and American power." The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. May 2002. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docview/218805853?accountid=8289 (accessed March 2012).
Mark, Clyde R. "Israeli-United States Relations." policyalmanac.org. October 17, 2002. http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/crs_israeli-us_relations.shtml (accessed March 2012).
Oren, Michael B. "Does the U.S. finally understand Israel?" Commentary. July/August 2002. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docview/195882296?accountid=8289 (accessed March 2012).
Papp, Daniel S, Loch K Johnson, and John E Endicott. American Foreign Policy: History, Politics, and Policy. Pearson Education, Inc., 2005.
Shlaim, Avi. "The Balfour Declaration and its Consequences." In Yet More Adventures with Brittania: Personalities, Politics and Culture in Britain, by Roger Louis William, 251-270. London: I.B. Tauris, 2005.
Spiro, Rabbi Ken. "The state of Israel." aish.com. 2012. http://www.aish.com/h/iid/48961671.html (accessed March 2012).
The Economist. "American Zion(ism)." Democracy in america. October 2010. www.economist.com (accessed March 2012).
"US Financial aid to Israel-figures, facts and impact." rense.com. September 2011. www.rense.com (accessed March 2012).
