Brown 1

Israel and the United States The relationship of Israel and the United States is very important throughout the entire world of international politics. The country of Israel has a very unique and controversial history, which helps put an emphasis on their relationship to the world and the United States in particular. The relationship with Israel designates the foreign policy of the United States in regards to the rest of the Middle East. This thereby impacts foreign policy throughout the world. “The centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.” (Mearsheimer and Walt, 1) The United States did not take an overly "sympathetic" position on the Zionist movement until the second decade of the 1900s. One main reason for their new support was the establishment in 1914 of the Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs. On September 21, 1922, the United States Congress passed the Lodge-Fish resolution, which lent the support of the United States for Zionists to establish a homeland in Palestine. In May of 1942 at the Biltimore Conference, the Zionists made the declaration that Palestine needed to be recognized as a "Jewish Commonwealth." (Oren, 442) The end of the Second World War brought about two changes in the Middle East. The first of these changes was the decolonization of the Middle Eastern states; Britain and France withdrew from some of their colonies early on, but remained in others for more years to come. The second of these changes was the involvement of the Middle East in the Cold War. “The most controversial of all withdrawals,

Brown 2 however, was that from Palestine: the British tried initially to continue the balancing act of the pre-war years, but this now proved impossible. Zionist forces emerged stronger from World War II and enjoyed much greater sympathy; they were now more determined than ever on an independent, internationally recognized, Jewish state.” (Halliday 110, 111) The United States kept a policy of "acquiescence" in regards to the Zionist movement. One reason for this policy was that the way the United States acted in regards toward Israel could have dictated the natural resources of the Middle East - mainly oil. With the rapidly declining bad treatment of Jews after WWII, the United Nations saw fit to draw up the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. This plan would create both an Arab and a Jewish state. Jews supported the plan, whereas the Arabs rejected it. There were several issues that concerned the officials of the United States. The first was that their support of a Jewish state would have an effect on the rest of the Middle East. They did not want to worsen their relations to the Middle East and affect their supply of oil. They also did not want to weaken the region by throwing it into chaos. The United States became the first to give "de facto" acknowledgment to Israel, once it was declared a Jewish state on May 14, 1948. Administrations During the Eisenhower administration, Israel was given monetary and economic aid from the United States (mainly food aid). However, it got quite a bit more funding from Germany's war reparations. During this time, the Suez Crisis occurred. Egypt sought to nationalize the Suez Canal and create a symbol of independence and also to gain revenue. President Gamal Abdel Nasser accomplished this on July 23, 1956. In response, Israel attacked and took control of the Canal for a brief period. Israel teamed up with Great Britain and France in order to gain

Brown 3 control of the Suez Canal from President Nasser. However, the forces had to withdraw because of outside influences of the United States and the USSR. In this crisis, the United States did not side with its long-time allies. The country took a neutral position, and demanded a withdrawal of forces from the region. The United States took this stance because they were trying to prevent a spread of communism in the Middle East by teaming up with the Soviet Union, and also to gain a better footing throughout the rest of the Middle East. This event also brought the Cold War into the Middle East in a way that no other events had previously. The Six-Day War of 1967 changed U.S. foreign policy toward Israel. In this six day military operation, Israel fought against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The war began on June 5th with Israel launching a surprise air attack on Arab forces. Israel won and took control of the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Before the Six Day War, the United States had never openly and unequivocally favored Israel in its dealings in the Middle East. After Israel won this major victory, the United States changed its foreign policy and clearly started making Israel its favorite in the region. This caused distrust and dislike by the Arab nations in the Middle East, which had otherwise been much more muted or toned down. With growing hostilities in the region, the United States leaders were put into a precarious position. They were expected to take a side in the struggles, and taking the side they took created a dramatic impact on the region with a lot of negative repercussions. The USS Liberty was attacked by Israelis via torpedo and aircraft bombings. Israel claimed to have thought the boat was an Egyptian craft called "El Quseir." Though the United States government believed that Israel actually made a mistake, many citizens and people throughout the world thought that the incident was in fact on purpose. It is still a cause of controversy today. After the Six-Day War, the United States believed that most of the

Brown 4 Middle East had fallen under Soviet influence. Therefore, Congress approved Phantom fighters to be sold to Israel for defense. This act designated Israel as the favorite in this region and set the precedent that the United States still follows today. In the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. While Israel faltered for a few days, they eventually gained ground from their foes. At first, the United States did not interfere with the war. After some time, President Nixon ordered that Israel be airlifted supplies and weapons, against the advice of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. This war again brought tension to the Cold War. The United States sided with Israel while the Soviet Union sided with Egypt and Syria. In this time, the United States went to DEFCON three because things were so tense in the region with Israel trapping Egypt's Third Army. Henry Kissinger noticed the precarious position that Egypt was in, and took advantage of it. Egypt depended on the United States to keep Israel from destroying their army. The United States then made sure that Israel did not destroy the army, which helped gain favor with Egypt. After the Yom Kippur War ended, the United States again used their persuasive powers on the region and had Israel withdraw from the Arab lands they had conquered. This helped peace start in the region between the Jews and Arabs. "Israel’s restraint from launching a first strike allowed the United States to not be perceived as siding with an aggressor and to cement its role as an ‘honest broker’ in the conflict. Even though the war resulted in a partial oil-embargo, the conflict and America’s role in it actually strengthened the U.S. position in the Mid-East by facilitating Sadat’s turn away from the Soviet Union." (Roth 11) President Carter's administration was marked by a lot of events occurring in the Middle East. Carter began the peace process known as Camp David. The Camp David Accords are a series of negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President

Brown 5 Anwar El Sadat. It was facilitated by President Jimmy Carter at the presidential get-away location, called Camp David. Some may wonder why Egypt sought to make this pact with Israel. Shibley Telhami gave insight as to Egypt’s motives. "Egypt was inclined towards a bilateral treaty with Israel, even at the cost of Egypt's relations with other Arab states. This... centered on Egyptian competition with Israel for alliance with the United States." (Telhami 630) There were two agreements made at Camp David between the countries. The first is called "A Framework for Peace in the Middle East. The Second is called "A Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel." The first framework held three components. The first part was that both parties decided to establish an autonomous authority in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. It gave rights to the Palestinians as a people. The last part was that Israel's troops would withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank. The second part of the agreement gave the framework for a treaty. It contained specifics on what to happen surrounding the Sinai Peninsula. Israel agreed to have its forces withdraw from the area and to have its residents leave the premises. The land would be given back to Egypt. In return, Israel could expect free passage through the Suez Canal, cordial diplomatic relations between the countries, and a limit to how many forces Egypt could place in the region. The Israelis withdrew from occupied territories, under pressure from Carter. Carter himself was a known supporter of Palestinian rights and a Palestinian homeland. This put him at odds with the Likud Party in Israel, which was in power in the government at that time. President Reagan's administration saw a strengthening of ties between the United States and Israel. The main reason for this is that Reagan held very similar views on matters of importance at the time, such as the Soviet Union and terrorism. During this time, the United States provided roughly three billion dollars annually in foreign aid to Israel. In 1983, Israel and

Brown 6 the United States formed the Joint Political Military Group to discuss the national security of both countries. It still meets twice a year. The United States put in action a free trade agreement with Israel in 1985. In 1989, during the second Reagan administration, Israel was given "major non-NATO ally" status. This gave Israel the opportunity to put bids on United States defense contracts and also gave them an expanded weapons system. However, this relationship was not without its own trials and tribulations. When Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Baghdad, Reagan had their military aircraft shipment suspended. He spoke out against this action, called Operation Opera. Tensions increased during the 1982 Lebanon War. The United States told Israel that the weapons the country was provided with were for defensive operations only. Israel was then forced to contend suspended cluster ammunition shipments from the United States. While these upsets occurred in the Israel-United States relationship, this did not stop the United States from favoring Israel still. This administration is considered by many as being the most pro-Israeli out of all the administrations so far. However, some Israelis believe the end of the administration was left on a negative note, because the United States opened a dialogue with the PLO, or Palestinian Liberation Organization. The end of the Reagan administration seemed to also end the extremely pro-Israeli thoughts in the United States. President George H. W. Bush called Israel out, by saying that East Jerusalem was not a sovereign territory of Israel, but an occupied territory. This did not sit well with the Likud Israeli government, which had annexed East Jerusalem in 1980 (which was not recognized by most world governments). Bush's secretary of state also made a public statement to AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, stating that Israel needed to stop its expansionist policies. This tension between the two countries did not last, however. With the start of the Persian Gulf War, the two countries became close. The United States came to Israel's

Brown 7 defense when it became known that Israel was a target of Iraqi missiles. Israel was commended by the United States for not striking back at these threats and bombings by Iraq. Israel took a hit because of their lack of retaliation. “Immediate, massive retaliation had always been the bedrock of Israeli deterrence. It was a cardinal principle of Israeli politics: the Arabs must always know that whenever they attacked the Jewish state, Israel would respond with overwhelming force.” (Baker 385) The United States jumped back into the peace process for the Arabs and Israelis right after the Gulf War. The Bush Sr. administration tried to use their victory to help influence peace in the region. Author Michael Oren gave a summary of a speech that was given by Bush Sr. on how he planned out a new order for the Middle East. "The president proceeded to outline his plan for maintaining a permanent U.S. naval presence in the Gulf, for providing funds for Middle East development, and for instituting safeguards against the spread of unconventional weapons. The centerpiece of his program, however, was the achievement of an Arab-Israeli treaty based on the territory-for-peace principle and the fulfillment of Palestinian rights." (Oren 569) The administration did not plan to give more money in foreign aid for these peace negotiations. This administration saw through the Madrid Peace Conference in October 1991. The countries' relationship started to see better days after the Labor Party beat the Likud Party in the 1992 Israeli election. President Clinton's administration saw some good changes in the peace status of the Middle East. Firstly, during this time the PLO and Israel gave each other mutual recognition on September 10th, 1993. After that, President Clinton announced that the United States would reopen its dialogue with the PLO. Clinton gave Israel fifty million dollars for an anti-missile laser weapon, one hundred million dollars for anti-terror activities, and two hundred million dollars for Arrow anti-missile deployment. President Clinton did not see eye-to-eye with Israel's

Brown 8 President, Benjamin Netanyahu, on several key issues. Clinton thought Netanyahu purposely delayed the peace process. Clinton also did not agree with Netanyahu's policy of expansionism. The George W. Bush administration saw a good relationship in the beginning between the officials of both countries. However, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Sharon accused Bush of appeasing the Palestinians in an attempt to gain the support of the Arab nations, at the Israelis' expense. After the United States proclaimed this idea as wrong and offensive, Sharon said the United States misunderstood the remark he made. In regards of a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, Bush made a statement about how it would be impossible to accomplish this with the objectives asked for in 1949, because too much has happened since then for these terms to be acceptable. The relationship between Israel and the United States became even more "strained" when President Obama took office in 2009. The negotiations between Israel and Palestine did not go smoothly for the first year or so, because Israel proposed a deal where they would freeze settlements but they did not give up East Jerusalem or housing projects already under way. Palestine did not accept these terms. Things got worse for United States-Israeli relations when Israel announced that they would continue constructing houses in the East Jerusalem area. This was deeply frowned upon by the United States. After this happened, Hilary Clinton, the Secretary of State, was asked by President Obama to deliver an "ultimatum" to Israel. It came in four parts: Israel was to stop all housing projects in East Jerusalem; cancel the approval of housing units; free Palestinian prisoners in a show of good faith for negotiations; and finally, make Israel discuss a partition of East Jerusalem. Obama and Netanyahu tried to come to an agreement in Netanyahu's stay at the White House In March of 2010, though nothing was formally approved. The next year, Obama made a speech where he called Israel out and asked

Brown 9 them to go back to the borders they had before 1967. This was met with "objection" by the Israelis. AIPAC AIPAC holds great influence on the United States’ foreign policy with Israel. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, called AIPAC for short, is the lobbying body that fights for pro-Israel legislation and action to the United States Congress and to the Executive branch. It was created in 1951 by Isaiah Kenen. The main purpose of this committee is to pressure congress members into voting in a pro-Israel manner. The committee cannot donate money to candidates, though money plays a key role. Soft money donations are integral to this committee's role in politics. AIPAC hosts events to gain a pro-Israel attitude. AIPAC members regularly meet with members of congress to get their word out. AIPAC is a known supporter of the peace process with Palestine. They say that the moderate Palestinians are the ones to work with, because their demands will be more reasonable to comply with by the Israelis. AIPAC is a proponent for creating two nations (using Israel's borders) for both Israel and Palestine, thus ending the feud. They are against Iran's pursuit of having status as a nuclear power, and they therefore lobby members of Congress about Iran's pursuit of these weapons by demanding sanctions against Iran. Just how much of an impact does AIPAC make? “Jewish Americans have organized politically to exert strong pressure on U.S. foreign policy. With 65,000 members residing in all 50 states, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has achieved a level of NGO influence exceeded only by the National Rifle Association.” (Hook 288) On AIPAC's website, there is a list of achievements that AIPAC has contributed to in regards to six fields. The first field is Keeping America and Israel Secure, and states: "Working

Brown 10 with Congress to ensure that Israel is able to defend itself. The Jewish state needs more than $3 billion in critical security assistance to remain capable of facing increased threats posed by terrorist groups and those sworn to its - and America's - destruction." The second headline is Sanctioning Iran, which states: "Achieving passage of more than a dozen bills and resolutions imposing tough sanctions on Iran during the past 15 years. As the Islamic Republic continues to be the world's leading sponsor of terrorism--including insurgents fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq--and develop a nuclear weapon, America must exert economic pressure on the regime and slow its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability." The third is Working Together to Achieve Peace, which follows with "Supporting America’s efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors. Real peace with all its neighbors has eluded the Jewish state for more than 60 years, but the two times its Arab neighbors have been willing to talk were through direct negotiations supported by the United States. We supported these, and all efforts to achieve peace through direct talks." The fourth is Defending Citizens from Terrorist's Missiles, which says: "Enhancing U.S.-Israel defense cooperation through securing hundreds of millions of dollars each year for key U.S.-Israel defense programs, including the Arrow missile defense system and Iron Dome rocket defense system." The fifth is Ensuring Israel's Right to Self-Defense, stating: "The de-legitimization of Israel and its right to self-defense is constantly in question. Congressional resolutions, letters and statements of support for Israel’s defensive actions in the face of terrorism by groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah has helped send a strong message to the Jewish state's adversaries." The sixth and final headline is Securing Our Homeland, which is followed by: "Increasing U.S.-Israel Homeland Security cooperation by passing landmark legislation creating an office within the Department of Homeland Security to support joint research and development projects between the United States and key allies, such as Israel."

Brown 11 (AIPAC 1) While these claims on the website make the organization look good, they must also be taken with a grain of salt, meaning that most organizations give themselves more credit than they deserve. The AIPAC website seems to skew facts that, while mainly true, are not the whole truth. However, that is not to take away from the fact that AIPAC has had a large role in determining U.S. policies that have been created in regards to Israel. Controversial Support Throughout the past decades, supporting Israel as much as it has, has caused the United States to be a large source of controversy, both domestic and foreign. Even though the United States is heavily scrutinized, it maintains its support for Israel. One main reason for this continued support is the fact that the United States depends on Middle Eastern oil. "America’s major strategic interest in the Middle East is oil, and protecting access to this commodity mainly depends on preventing any single country from controlling the entire region.” [Mearsheimer and Walt (2007:71)] Regional hegemony in that region would be a barrier to the United States because that country could threaten their access to Middle Eastern oil. This is very important, because Israel is perceived to be a vulnerable nation. It has many enemies, and though it has nuclear capabilities, it is still threatened on a regular basis (especially by the Iranian government). "America’s oil interests, which are its core interests in the region, are best served by reassuring Israel that it is not without allies. Reassuring Israel that it does not stand alone moderates Israeli behavior. Such moderation contributes a measure of tranquility in a region that is both dense with conflict but also with values which are vital to American interests…. support for Israel in fact enables the United States to pursue other goals in the region without the fear of a panicked and unrestrained Israel bringing a cataclysm to the Middle East and to vital U.S. interests there." (Roth 2, 3) There are varying opinions of people throughout the United States

Brown 12 about its close relationship with Israel. Some Americans believe that this relationship helps strengthen their position in the Middle East, while others believe that these ties are the cause of distrust and unrest in Arabic countries around Israel. Conclusion The United States and Israel have a unique relationship that affects foreign policy throughout the globe. This relationship impacts how the United States acts in regards to the Middle East. Though Israel and the United States have not always been very closely linked as allies, when Israel was formed in 1948 the United States became the first to recognize it as a state. Throughout the presidential administrations that have followed since the formation, the United States has supported Israel in not only foreign aid but by name association as well. The United States has given other nations a deterrent in acting against Israel - retaliation by a superpower. The United States has supported Israel even though the relationship is the cause of much controversy, both global and domestic. Through President Jimmy Carter, the United States was able to help facilitate a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, called the Camp David Accords. Israel has a strategic location in the Middle East, which brings the United States close to its precious supply of oil. Some Americans believe that our involvement with Israel is just right. Others believe that the United States’ strong relationship with Israel causes the United States to be disliked by the neighboring Arab countries. The organization that impacts diplomacy and legislation towards Israel is AIPAC. AIPAC has great influence over the policies adopted by the United States. The group lobbies for pro-Israeli legislation daily, holds events, and even pays Congress to do its bidding (though it is soft money). The United States has maintained its alliance with Israel, and does not appear to be changing that any time soon.

Brown 13

Brown 14 Works Cited Baker III, James A. Thomas M. Defrank. The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War and Peace 1989– 1992. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1995. Halliday, Fred. The Middle East in International Relations: Power, Politics and Ideology. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Hook, Steven W. U.S. Foreign Policy: The Paradox of World Power. CQ Press, 2011. Mearsheimer, John J. Walt, Stephen M. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2007. Oren, Michael. Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present. Copyright Sike, Inc, 2007. Roth, Ariel Ilan. "Reassurance: A Strategic Basis of U.S. Support for Israel." International Studies Perspectives, Volume 10, Issue 4. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. November 2, 2009. Telhami, Shibley. Evaluating Bargaining Performance: The Case of Camp David. Political Science Quarterly, 1992.