Israel and the U.S

GoldRush4821

I'd like to hear your views on the relationship between Israel and the U.S. Although for a long time I thought America had very little to gain from having Israel as an ally, and thought of it as more of a loyalty thing, there is also the view that Israelis can carry out killings for the US any time it wants, as it has done and continues to do without repercussions from the UN or anyone else. So, what do you guys think?

Overheal

GoldRush4821 wrote: »

I'd like to hear your views on the relationship between Israel and the U.S. Although for a long time I thought America had very little to gain from having Israel as an ally, and thought of it as more of a loyalty thing, there is also the view that Israelis can carry out killings for the US any time it wants, as it has done and continues to do without repercussions from the UN or anyone else. So, what do you guys think?

I think before this goes anywhere, you'd want to flesh out that point, citing references and examples.

Not only that, but surely you have your own opinion on the matter? Which is it? Or is that it?

Manic Moran

Although for a long time I thought America had very little to gain from having Israel as an ally

Israel is the most stable country in the Middle-East. If you're going to want a sustainable friend, it's as good a bet as any you can come up with.

The US's biggest military ally in the Mid-East is actually Egypt, though it's not often remarked upon. The current goings-on there are a perfect example of Israel's relative stability: Israel's not a country likely to suffer a coup or a popular uprising.

NTM

scallioneater

In my opinion, the reason for U.S. support for Isreal is neither because it is a stable nation nor because it can carry out assasinations. The real reason for American support of Isreal is because Evangelical Christian voters who use Isreal to ensure that American Christians have access to the holy sites mentioned in the Bible. It is absolutely true that most Americans will never travel to Isreal, but any politician who said America should withdraw support from Isreal would find it hard to get elected, especially in the South. Supporting Isreal is just a given in American politics.

Einhard

scallioneater wrote: »

In my opinion, the reason for U.S. support for Isreal is neither because it is a stable nation nor because it can carry out assasinations. The real reason for American support of Isreal is because Evangelical Christian voters who use Isreal to ensure that American Christians have access to the holy sites mentioned in the Bible. It is absolutely true that most Americans will never travel to Isreal, but any politician who said America should withdraw support from Isreal would find it hard to get elected, especially in the South. Supporting Isreal is just a given in American politics.

That's true to an extent, but it's too simple an explanation. Democratic politicians can be just as hawkish when it comes to Israel as their Republican colleagues, and it's not because they're courting the Evangelical vote. And the Jewish vote is far too small to be of such great influence. The reaons for America's support for Israel are numerous and complex- electoral concerns certainly impact on it, but so, as Manic points out, does the fact that Israel is democratic, stable, not to mention powerful, and also reasonably secular, and therefore an unsurprising choice of ally for the US. It's ironic to note that in the early days of the Israeli state, Washington viewed Israel with some suspicion, and actually saw it as a potential agent of Soviet and Communist policy in the region.

GoldRush4821

Maybe a little poorly phrased, but what I was getting at was the fact that the Mossad carry out killings all the time against the leaders of factions which threaten them (Mahmoud al Mabouh a while back although not proven - there are many other examples). The UN doesn't do anything to sanction them and even if they did, the US would use their veto and the process would get nowhere. Had the US not used their veto, there would be 95 resolutions imposed on Israel at this time rather than 66.

So clearly, Israel can carry out killings without punishment. I was more trying to put it up to you if you thought that the US might be using Israel as a gun for hire. Clearly there isn't any record of such assassinations taking place but it's not out of the question that its been done. Btw Einhard, could Israel really be considered powerful if America wasn't on their side? Would like to hear you views on that Tbh I've only become aware of the complexity of the whole issue of the middle east in the last few months and think its fascinating so just trying to gauge what you all think about it

Overheal

Without punishment? You just said they've received 66 sanctions out of a proposed 95. If the US veto'd 29 of them it veto'd 29 of them. But you're admitting they've been sanctioned, even if 30% of those proposed have failed ratification.

GoldRush4821

Those sanctions are mostly for show, rarely adhered to and don't concern the covert killing of opposition party leaders and figures of importance in Palestine and further afield... Any resolution drafted that would pose a genuine threat to Israel is quickly discarded by the US. Even UN resolutions don't necessitate Israeli co - operation. Resolution 242 is the perfect example of that - passed around 44 years ago calling on Israel to remove themselves from parts of West Bank and Gaza after 6 day war. Israel don't care about resolutions and condemnation by the UN because ultimately the UN can't do anything about it.. The UN are about as powerless to stop Israel as the League of Nations was to stop the Abyssinian Crisis or Hitler's remilitarisation of the Rhineland etc...

This is why I say that the US could be delegating political tasks to the Israelis who have no fear of reprisal from the larger authorities. Let's say Ahmadinejad was assassinated in the midst of all the nuclear tension surrounding Iran today, should word come out that America themselves performed the deed, there would be uproar from so many human rights groups and international organisations, not to mention the Iranians, that it almost wouldn't be worth the trouble. But who would say anything about Israel performing it, considering Ahmadinejad's views on Israel and the Jews in general, and furthermore the possibility that nuclear development could result in the annihilation of Israel, a country which Iran doesn't even recognise as legitimate. Israel can justify a lot of heinous things today, and I'm not sure they've really got the reasoning to back up those justifications, but its not beyond the realms of possibility that they help out their greatest supporter by performing assassinations from time to time ( I'm not implying these happen regularly ), something they do quite well.

SamHarris

Why would the US fear reprisal for doing something themselves?

Seriously doubt the US would have a problem taking out a foreign national if they tought they posed a threat to US security, or getting another government in the region to arrest them.

I wouldnt be a fan of US unconditional support for Israel, although I equally dislike the idiotic romanticised view many people have of the conflict.

I'm also semi convicinced in the centuries ahead US efforts in the region will be a poster child for how to control a nations interests in an extremly volotile region. Think of the hatred there, yet all major governments remain "allied" with the US. Incredible really.

Even the recent events in Egypt, which some on the far left are hawking on about as being "the end of the US empire maaaan" will almost certainly be US - friendly even if democratic. Israeli-friendly is another story.

The moral component is the obvious enormous suffering of the Palestinians, which again I say should not be overly romanticised but is undeniable. The US forcing Israel to make more concessions for such a downtrodden people would probably be better for everyone in the long run.

Nodin

GoldRush4821 wrote: »

Maybe a (.......)

There are no UN sanctions against Israel at all.

You're looking at resolutions passed by the general assembly of the UN condemning Israel, which carry no penalty at all. It requires a UN security council resolution to pass UN sanctions, which is of course where various powers can veto anything not to their liking.

Nodin

scallioneater wrote: »

In my opinion, the reason for U.S. support for Isreal is neither because it is a stable nation nor because it can carry out assasinations. The real reason for American support of Isreal is because Evangelical Christian voters who use Isreal to ensure that American Christians have access to the holy sites mentioned in the Bible. It is absolutely true that most Americans will never travel to Isreal, but any politician who said America should withdraw support from Isreal would find it hard to get elected, especially in the South. Supporting Isreal is just a given in American politics.

There are any number of schools of thought on this. Of the sane, you could probably divide it roughly into these...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-israel-lobby-by-noam-chomsky

I take the view that while the lobby certainly helps in keeping criticism of US policy down, it is really the belief amongst the US body politic that Israel is a useful ally that keeps it where it is, nothing else. Certainly theres a strong view that Ariel Sharon, looking at what appeared to be (and in hindsight was only momentarily) a pacified Iraq decided that this new foothold would lessen Israels position with the US and thus decided to withdraw from Gaza and concentrate resources on consolidating a hold on the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem.

Byron85

I think Finkelstein said it best when he said that "The best that could ever happen to Israel, if they get rid of these American Jews who are war mongers from Martha's Vinyard, and they're war mongers from the Hamptons, and they're war mongers from Beverely Hills, and they're war mongers from Miami. It's been a disaster for Israel. It's the best thing if they can ever get rid of American Jewery. It's a curse".

GoldRush4821

Fair point about the sanctions Nodin but that does strengthen my argument, considering the UN are so reluctant to impose such sanctions on Israel, no matter what they do. I mean, going back to resolution 242, if ever there was such defiance worthy of trade sanctions or something of that nature, this would be it. But I mean they've just forgotten about the thing all together. There just doesn't seem to be anyone there to hold them to account. That's where my theory ties in. (Should I say at this point that it was a theory my history teacher suggested to me, nothing concrete, but something I thought could be a possibility)

Whereas neither Israel or America would really be "sanctioned" for carrying out such political espionage, it is more the societal aspect of the subject I'm getting at. Clearly, Israel doesn't think twice about such actions because they don't care what the rest of the world thinks of them, as long as they've got the US on their side. But America is very concerned with public opinion. If wikileaks were to release documents detailing American involvement in recent assassinations, it would destroy the small amount of credibility it has left on the world stage. We can't be so naive as to think that the US hasn't carried out many assassinations, and continues to do so. The question is; do they get someone else to do their bidding?

cheesehead

Extremely complex issue. Two places (with differing views) to start your reading on the issue:


http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/default.asp

http://jstreet.org/about/about-us

scallioneater

Nodin wrote: »

There are any number of schools of thought on this. Of the sane, you could probably divide it roughly into these...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-israel-lobby-by-noam-chomsky

I take the view that while the lobby certainly helps in keeping criticism of US policy down, it is really the belief amongst the US body politic that Israel is a useful ally that keeps it where it is, nothing else. Certainly theres a strong view that Ariel Sharon, looking at what appeared to be (and in hindsight was only momentarily) a pacified Iraq decided that this new foothold would lessen Israels position with the US and thus decided to withdraw from Gaza and concentrate resources on consolidating a hold on the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem.

Hi Nodin, you say that the US support for Israel is based on its status as an ally, but I don't see the many other US allies being treated in a similar manner. The size of the military and economic aid is hugely disproportionate and few other US allies have ever had a security council veto exercised by the US, and never so frequently. It seems like Israel is outside the norm when it comes to its relationship with the United States.

The reasons commonly presented are some military alliance or the influence of Jewish voters or lobby groups. I don't buy either reason because neither is sufficient to explain the great lengths that the US has gone to in protecting and financing the continued existence of Israel.

Militarily, the US would curry more favor with its existing oil producing allies if it was to abandon Israel. As a strategic ally, Israel does more harm than good for the US. Tactically, there is a small advantage, but the US can deploy from Spain, Italy, Turkey, Gulf Emirates, or even Iraq.

The Jewish lobby argument is more substantial, but I always compare Israel and Ireland in this regard. The Irish American and Jewish American lobbies are similar in composition, but Ireland doesn't get billions every year in aid, doesn't get Security Council backing to do anything it likes, and doesn't get treated with the same deference.

I am convinced that the fundamental thing behind the U.S. support of Israel is a desire among the vast majority of American Christians to maintain access and control over Jerusalem and other pilgrimage sites.

Holybejaysus

Slightly off topic, but it's spelt 'Israel'. ISRAEL.

That is all.

jank

Manic Moran wrote: »

Israel is the most stable country in the Middle-East. If you're going to want a sustainable friend, it's as good a bet as any you can come up with.

The US's biggest military ally in the Mid-East is actually Egypt, though it's not often remarked upon. The current goings-on there are a perfect example of Israel's relative stability: Israel's not a country likely to suffer a coup or a popular uprising.

NTM

Israel is stable domestically but anything but sustainable. Take out American aid and never mind the fact that there are 4+ million displaced Palestinians on its borders, well Israel as we know it now is anything but sustainable.

jank

My opinion is that this alliance has done more harm than good in the region and that the whole thing is a bit of a sham. It benefits Israel of course but can the same be said of the US?

Nodin

scallioneater wrote: »

Hi Nodin, you say that the US support for Israel is based on its status as an ally, but I don't see the many other US allies being treated in a similar manner. The size of the military and economic aid is hugely disproportionate and few other US allies have ever had a security council veto exercised by the US, and never so frequently. It seems like Israel is outside the norm when it comes to its relationship with the United States.

The reasons commonly presented are some military alliance or the influence of Jewish voters or lobby groups. I don't buy either reason because neither is sufficient to explain the great lengths that the US has gone to in protecting and financing the continued existence of Israel.

Militarily, the US would curry more favor with its existing oil producing allies if it was to abandon Israel. As a strategic ally, Israel does more harm than good for the US. Tactically, there is a small advantage, but the US can deploy from Spain, Italy, Turkey, Gulf Emirates, or even Iraq.

The Jewish lobby argument is more substantial, but I always compare Israel and Ireland in this regard. The Irish American and Jewish American lobbies are similar in composition, but Ireland doesn't get billions every year in aid, doesn't get Security Council backing to do anything it likes, and doesn't get treated with the same deference.

I am convinced that the fundamental thing behind the U.S. support of Israel is a desire among the vast majority of American Christians to maintain access and control over Jerusalem and other pilgrimage sites.

Historically the US has supported - directly and/or indirectly - such dubious regimes as Apartheid South Africa, Iain Smiths Rhodesia, Pakistan (when it was conducting a genocide in Bangladesh in the early 1970's) Chile, Guatamala (during the Generals era), El Salvador and so on. It still backs the Saudi Regime. The US will do what it deems is in its own interests, regardless. Should Israel become secondary to requirements, I'd imagine its reigns will be pulled in shortly after.

GoldRush4821 wrote:

Fair point about the sanctions Nodin but that does strengthen my argument, considering the UN are so reluctant to impose such sanctions on Israel, no matter what they do. .

It's not the UN thats reluctant, its the security council, specifically the US, which vetoes condemnations, calls for sanctions etc. Where the UN a democracy, Israel would have been under sanctions since the early 1970's. Its a similar situation with China and Tibet.

GoldRush4821

jank wrote: »

Israel is stable domestically but anything but sustainable. Take out American aid and never mind the fact that there are 4+ million displaced Palestinians on its borders, well Israel as we know it now is anything but sustainable.

Something I find interesting, after Israel declared itself a state in 1948, the US was the first to recognize its legitimacy. Who was second? Russia. Should the US ever withdraw from Israel, wouldn't it be more than possible for Israel to ally itself with Russia, who could provide substantial support. Especially considering the influx of Russian Jews over the past 30/40 years, there would seem to be a strong case for a promotion of good relations between the two. So, were America to withdraw, you can't necessarily say that Israel would be unsustainable. Russian Jews in Israel are nearly hitting a million (if they haven't already), which is a sizeable chunk of the population, so I think it makes a strong case that Israel could find support elsewhere should it be absolutely necessary.

Now Israel is a nuclear power, it further complicates the situation. It's no wonder America are so against Iran's nuclear enrichment program. Not only are Iran hostile against Israel, but should Iran develop such technology, you would see the rest of the middle east claiming the right to go nuclear, resulting in an arms race of sorts. Probably the best excuse the US has for dissuading Iranian progression with nuclear power is the security of Israel. If they left Israel, they'd lose a great bargaining position and possibly persuasive power as well.

jank

GoldRush4821 wrote: »

Something I find interesting, after Israel declared itself a state in 1948, the US was the first to recognize its legitimacy. Who was second? Russia. Should the US ever withdraw from Israel, wouldn't it be more than possible for Israel to ally itself with Russia, who could provide substantial support. Especially considering the influx of Russian Jews over the past 30/40 years, there would seem to be a strong case for a promotion of good relations between the two. So, were America to withdraw, you can't necessarily say that Israel would be unsustainable. Russian Jews in Israel are nearly hitting a million (if they haven't already), which is a sizeable chunk of the population, so I think it makes a strong case that Israel could find support elsewhere should it be absolutely necessary.

Now Israel is a nuclear power, it further complicates the situation. It's no wonder America are so against Iran's nuclear enrichment program. Not only are Iran hostile against Israel, but should Iran develop such technology, you would see the rest of the middle east claiming the right to go nuclear, resulting in an arms race of sorts. Probably the best excuse the US has for dissuading Iranian progression with nuclear power is the security of Israel. If they left Israel, they'd lose a great bargaining position and possibly persuasive power as well.

Your first point. I dont think Russia would really be a keen allay as the US has been. There is a reason why so many Jews have fled Russia in the first place. Of course if Israel was looking for a new allay then Russia for the short term could fill that gap but long term Russia will look after Russia. Israel wags the tail on the American dog.

Iran is going to go nuclear. Israel and the US can only delay when this is going to happen. Israel is already a nuclear power as you said. Maybe the nuclear arms race started when it got the atomic weapons? no?
Also forget what the president of Iran has to say, he has NO say what so ever in military matters so the image of a mad theologian having the keys to a nuclear weapon might play well on fox news but in the real world that wont happen. The control of Nuclear weapons will go through a chain of mostly military command much like the rest of the world.

Iran is never going to use these weapons. But what it will do is have a restraining effect on Israel and the US on how they conduct affairs in the middle east. The main goal of US forgein policy in this region is to prevent a single nation from dominating the region given the importance of oil. Support for Israel, democracy, civil rights etc are all marketing terms to sell the the American public. A nuclear Iran will put pressure on that policy.

GoldRush4821

Well to say there's a reason jews left Russia in the first place is a little ambiguous. True there were a lot of pogroms in Russia in the 19th and 20th century but the diaspora was also due to the easing restrictions on travel post - Stalin and subsequently even less restrictions around the 70's onwards. I get where you're coming from but I certainly think it's a possibility that Russia and Israel could be allies long term should the need arise.

I do have another question which I hope someone could answer. With all the talk about the importance of oil in the middle east, I don't know why Israel is considered such an advantage for the US when currently they're raping Iraq and Afghanistan for all their resources. Or am I wrong here? Yes it's a strategic advantage but I'd like someone to explain why Israel makes a difference in terms of monopolising oil in the middle east, when they themselves account for very little production.

coonecb1

I never understood how Israel could openly humiliate the US by refusing to compromise on settlements and yet no US politician dared say anything negative about them.

Compare that with the way France was villified when it dared to question US foreign policy re the Iraq war.

Are they both allies? Is Israel THAT much more important to the US than France?