US and Israel

7 Key excerpts on "US and Israel"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  US Foreign Policy in the Middle East

  The Roots of Anti-Americanism

  • Kylie Baxter, Shahram Akbarzadeh(Authors)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  CHAPTER 3

  Israel and the Arabs at War Superpower Dimensions and the Israeli–US Alliance

  INTRODUCTION

  The Arab states of the Middle East were created through a mixture of local alliances, imperial interest and the processes triggered by the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The state of Israel was voted into existence at the United Nations and consecrated through a costly regional war. The creation of Israel, although a fulfilment of the Zionist dream, had a dramatic and divisive impact on the region and its international relations. Few states in history have engendered the passionate responses that Israel has evoked in its short history. As explored in the previous chapter, the fractious final years of the Mandate notwithstanding, the major patron of the Zionist movement was the United Kingdom. However, in the late 1940s the United Kingdom’s power was waning, the devastation of the Second World War and the turbulent end of the colonial period sapping the strength of this one-time regional power-broker.

  For the United States, the establishment of Israel was to have a profound and lasting influence on the formulation of foreign policy. The limited role of the United States in the pre-state period reflects the balance of power in international relations in the first decades of the twentieth century. As the influence of the colonial powers of France and the United Kingdom diminished, the Cold War superpowers – the United States and the Soviet Union – gained increasing prominence in the Middle East. From 1948 onwards, and particularly in the pivotal war of 1967, the Israeli–US relationship gained strength. By the close of the Arab–Israeli war of 1973, Washington had gained a position unrivalled by other Western powers.

  The creation of a Jewish state in the heart of the Arab Middle East was both the culmination and commencement of a struggle between two peoples in one land. In the contemporary period, this conflict, which has ebbed and flowed for nearly one hundred years, is one of the greatest factors in the formulation of US policy in the region and a major contributing force to the dynamics of Arab anti-Americanism. This chapter will explore the conflicts that have characterized the Arab–Israeli relationship and the impact of Cold War bipolarity.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The End of the Middle East Peace Process

  The Failure of US Diplomacy

  • Samer Bakkour(Author)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  4 U.S.–Israel Relations

  DOI: 10.4324/9781003268819-4

  Solid and Extraordinary Relations

  Both the extent of the U.S.–Israel relationship and its level of bipartisan support are unique in the U.S. international affairs.1 This relationship has cultural, economic, political, and religious dimensions and is manifested in various forms, including the repeated use of the U.S. veto to strike down UN resolutions.2 Initially, it was characterised by short termism and then, in its later phases, developed into caution.3

  Schoenbaum describes a ‘strong and strange’ relationship that is without parallel in international relations. In addition, he adds there are few precedents of a powerful and large patron and a small dependent, resourceful, and determined client working together to leave such a substantial mark on the region and world.4

  Points of divergence and differing emphases notwithstanding, successive Democrat (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton) and Republican (Nixon and Reagan) administrations have upheld strong commitments to Israel.5 Relevant documents include the 1975 Egyptian–Israeli Disengagement Agreement (or Sinai II), the 1979 Camp David peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, and (1981 and 1988) memorandums of understanding that envisaged substantially enhanced cooperation across the economic, medical, military, and research sectors.6

  The U.S.–Israel relations are rooted in the U.S. domestic politics and are sustained by various constituencies of interest rooted in the U.S. commercial, political, and social life.7 Although diaspora groups have long been established, the end of the Cold War made it more likely that they would influence U.S. foreign policy. Said, however, questions this claim and argues they are only influential when their agendas align with the U.S. objectives.8

  In this regard, it is, however, instructive to note that the U.S. position has aligned with American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC), and not vice versa. Before 1967, the U.S. viewed Jerusalem as an international city. Afterwards, it claimed the holy places should be placed under international protection and called for the city’s future to be resolved through negotiations between Israelis and Arabs. The Clinton administration went even further and committed funds to the Jewish settlement of the so-called ‘Greater Jerusalem’.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Israeli Historical Revisionism

  From Left to Right

  • Derek J. Penslar, Anita Shapira, Derek J. Penslar, Anita Shapira(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Historiosophical Foundations of the Historical Strife in Israel *

  Uri Ram

  Since the 1990s Israeli collective identity and historical consciousness are much more heterogeneous and conflictual than ever before. Zionism, modern Jewish nationalism, emerged in Eastern Europe in the last third of the nineteenth century. It arose in the midst of a major shift in Jewish identity and an enormous wave of Jewish mobility and migration. In its first decades Zionism was a minority trend. It remained on the margins of this shift. Only a trickle of the Jews emigrating from Eastern Europe made their way to Palestine, and those who stayed there established the nucleus of the new Israeli society. The Holocaust of European Jewry, the emergence of a prosperous and influential Jewish community in the United States and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, all marked a new and different phase in modern Jewish and Israeli history. Today, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the old nineteenth-century nationalist paradigm has already passed its peak. Two new major paradigms struggle, sometimes very ferociously, over the hearts and minds of Israeli Jews: a Jewish ethno-nationalist paradigm, and an Israeli civic-liberal paradigm. It is as if the hyphenated Israeli-Jewish identity is breaking apart, and the “civic Israelis” and “ethnic Jews” are drifting in opposite directions. On the one hand, Israeli political culture is fast becoming ever more universalistic and globalist; on the other hand, Jewish political culture in Israel is becoming ever more particularistic and localist. These two trends will be referred to below as post-Zionism and neo-Zionism respectively. This struggle between three different paradigms of collective identity — the historic, the ethnic and the civic — underlies the historical strife that erupted in Israel in the 1990s. In question are the spatial and temporal dimensions of the collectivity, the boundaries of its membership, and hence, its historical meta-narrative.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Superpowers and Client States in the Middle East

  The Imbalance of Influence

  • Moshe Efrat, Jacob Bercovitch(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  The relationship between superpower America and the small state of Israel is difficult to explain in terms of conventional concepts concerning a ‘patron’ and a ‘client’. The influence relationship appears to be at odds with the conventional wisdom concerning how they should relate to each other. Typically, influence is thought of in terms of the efforts of one state to affect the behaviour or activity of another to the former’s advantage. This behavioural modification may take various forms and may be achieved through numerous and multifaceted techniques and methods, some of them publicly imperceptible. Influence efforts are rarely open and forceful in nature; rather, they tend to be exercised through more subtle means. Generally influence is not proportionate to power, narrowly defined, and the extent of success varies considerably. Power differentials resulting from differences in size or resource base do not always translate directly into influence. A great or greater power does not always have influence over a small or lesser power at all times as a function of the power calculus. The United States-Israel relationship illustrates the fact that massive differences in ‘power’ have not been translated into obvious differences in influence. Influence is not unidirectional — each actor seeks to influence the activity of the other, often at the same time.

  The mechanisms employed by the United States and by Israel to influence each other’s policies have included a variety of elements, some common to the relationships between any two states and others specific and special to the relationship between the United States and Israel. Both have utilized the ‘standard’ techniques of political and diplomatic pressure and persuasion, seeking to coerce and convince through the efforts of talented diplomats and public officials, and through ‘back-channel’, often non-official and unconventional means and individuals.

  The United States has had available to it a mechanism of some substance as a consequence of Israel’s dependence on it for political and diplomatic support. By necessity and choice, Israel has increasingly relied on the United States to help protect its interests in international forums such as the United Nations through the use of its veto and its ability to garner votes to support Israel’s position and/or to oppose and thwart anti-Israel proposals of Israel’s adversaries. Understanding this reliance colours Israel’s policies.

  United States economic and military assistance to Israel has become a salient aspect of the relationship. Aid for Israel has evolved from a rather modest, primarily technical and economic assistance effort, to a substantial and multifaceted programme. At the same time, Israel’s need for both economic and military assistance has grown considerably, especially since the early 1970s. Although some observers have suggested that the economic aid programme might be a useful lever to influence Israel’s policies, there has been no major effort of that sort in recent years. In fact, the US Congress, with its significant role in the foreign aid process, has been singularly reluctant to consider cuts in aid to Israel and, in general, has often increased the aid levels beyond those proposed by the President. In the battle for Capitol Hill, Israel often has been more successful than the executive branch of the United States government in securing economic and military assistance at levels and under conditions more favourable than those proposed by the administration. Various administrations have found that manipulation by means of aid can be a useful element in their efforts to influence Israel, but in recent years it has taken the form not of proposals to reduce assistance levels, which would require concurrence of an often reluctant Congress, but suggestions that additional amounts of aid, or more lenient terms, might help to reassure Israel or induce it to co-operate in a particular effort.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Israel and the United States

  Six Decades of US-Israeli Relations

  • Robert Freedman(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  2 The United States and the Arab-Israeli Conflict from 1945 to 2000 WHY THE ARABISTS ARE WRONG David Makovsky T HE HISTORY OF THE US-Israeli relationship since 1948 has not been linear, as bilateral relationships seldom are over the course of several decades. Yet it has largely been characterized by its vitality, and the strength of this relationship has been critical for advancing peace in the region. Not only has a Middle East peace process allowed the United States to expand its influence in the Middle East over the past few decades, but the growth of the US-Israeli relationship over time has effectively deterred conflict and contributed to regional stability. Because of the strength of the US-Israeli relationship, there has not been a regional war since 1973. This outlook is at odds with the emergence in the post-9/11 period of a liability school, which views Israel as a strategic liability to the United States as the latter seeks to bridge ties with the Arab world. This school has won headlines in recent years, as it is championed by two noted academics, the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer and Harvard’s Stephen Walt. 1 They are champions of the realist school. For realists, interests matter most. Values, though desirable, have, well, less value. Although they concede that during the Cold War, Israel may have been an asset to the United States, they suggest that in the post–Cold War period, whatever value the relationship had has long since been replaced by its costs. Their argument is that securing oil and good relations with the Arab world should be the primary US goal in the Middle East and that American association with and strong support for Israel impedes this aim. Specifically, they write that Arab and Muslim antipathy toward the United States results from their identifying the United States with Israel. This comes at a heavy cost, they assert

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Diversity and U.S. Foreign Policy

  A Reader

  • Ernest J. Wilson, III(Authors)
  • 2004(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  1 This study will attempt to illustrate the unique pattern of the American-Israeli relationship as a bond that combines a range of factors, but is dominated and backed by sincere public sympathy and sentiment. Both domestic and international politics no doubt contribute their share, yet it is the widespread and established concern for Israel that developed in the United States after World War II that is the cornerstone for American support.

  THE ORIGIN OF AMERICA’S PRO-ISRAEL POLICY

  Our study focuses on the period from the establishment of Israel in 1948 to the Yom Kippur War in 1973. It is our belief that the special relationship between the two countries was formed and established then, when Israel’s enemies were continuously threatening to destroy the state. This is not to say that U.S.-Israel relations have undergone major changes since 1973, although a different pattern has indeed developed now that peace initiatives have become the dominant element in U.S. Middle Eastern policy. Rather, it reflects the fact that America’s relationship with Israel between 1948 and 1973 differed significantly not only from its relationships with other friendly countries during the same period but also from its relations with Israel since 1973.

  What is of particular interest to us is an analysis of how and why U.S. policy toward Israel—only one of the small states in the Middle East with which the United States maintains friendly relations—has taken a completely different form from that followed elsewhere.

  Although research shows that American attitudes to Israel are dominated by a sense of moral obligation, which in itself is somewhat unusual even among friendly nations, moral obligations have also been a factor in U.S. relations with other countries, albeit to a lesser degree. Only in the case of Israel, however, has a moral commitment to the safety of another country been articulated by every single American president since 1949. Furthermore, the notion that the American commitment to Israel is outside the realm of political debate has not only been reiterated by every administration, also been manifested in the bipartisan record as well as in the media.2 In an exclusive interview published in U.S. News and World Report, Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger described the U.S. commitment to Israel in these terms: “We have a historic commitment to the survival and the well-being of Israel. This is a basic national policy reaffirmed by every administration.”3

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Reimagining the Promised Land

  Israel and America in Post-war Hollywood Cinema

  • Rodney Wallis(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Bloomsbury Academic

    (Publisher)

  At a time when the world was reduced to a polarity in which the ‘righteous’ West, led by the United States, faced off against the ‘atheist tyranny’ of the Soviet Union, the supposed kinship between Christians and Jews ensured that Israel would be seen by the United States as a key ally in the Cold War struggle. The alliance would take on even greater significance in the wake of Israel’s crushing defeat of its Arab neighbours in the Six Day War of 1967, with Israel subsequently being seen by Washington as the United States’ lone reliable friend in a region considered to be of immense strategic importance. Over the ensuing half century, the United States would provide Israel with crucial military support amid a seemingly endless cycle of wars with its Arab neighbours, unyielding diplomatic support amid increasing international consternation regarding Israel’s treatment of the displaced Palestinians living within its borders, and seemingly limitless economic support in the form of tremendous amounts of financial aid. The enduring symbiosis between the United States and Israel has come to be known as the ‘special relationship,’ and it is one that has continued to persevere in spite of ever-changing tides of both American and Israeli politics.

  Hitherto, there has been very little attention paid to the ways in which this relationship has played out in Hollywood cinema. A number of studies have examined Hollywood’s various representations of the state of Israel; however, they have largely appeared within broader examinations of cinematic representations of the figure of the Jew in both Hollywood and international cinema. Significant studies of cinematic representations of the figure of the Jew include Lester D. Friedman’s, Hollywood’s Image of the Jew (1982), Patricia Erens’ The Jew in American Cinema (1984), Omer Bartov’s The ‘Jew’ in Cinema: From the Golem to Don’t Touch My Holocaust (2005), and Nathan Abrams’ The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (2012).30

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book