US Foreign Policy stance toward Israel in an evolving global environmenr

Theodore Shull POLS 4314 – Dr. Peter Li

April 25, 2014

The Dilemma of American Leadership: Entrenched Policies vs. New Realities This paper examines the long-term foreign policy stance that the U.S. has applied to Israel, and why these policies have remained roughly unchanged for almost seven decades. This U.S. policy, which began with the creation of the state of Israel, has survived a diverse array of leaders in Israel and the U.S., and it has remained rigid and inflexible in the face of constantly changing regional circumstances and security challenges for the United States. The general foundation of U.S. policy towards Israel has outlived the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union (and the bi-polar international balance of power system), and is sometimes justified today as a crucial tool in the global war on terrorism. Ironically, the U.S. economic and military support provided to Israel on an annual basis is often cited as perfect fuel for the explosion of Islamic jihad against the west, and has caused deep seated hatred among many Islamic extremist groups and entities directed squarely at the United States.

I analyze the actions and inactions of U.S. leaders towards Israel through the domestic level of analysis, looking at influences within the United States that keep elected leaders from viewing the Israeli – Palestinian situation objectively, or keep them from speaking freely about the conflict because of fear of media attacks or reprisals, fueled by a multitude of reasons. The Rational Actor model best demonstrates the public actions of elected leaders, who despite indicators that the U.S. policies concerning Israel have become a liability for U.S. national security interests, face nearly insurmountable obstacles in presenting or implementing any 1|Page

changes in U.S. foreign policy. While the U.S. does have a significant Palestinian population, with lobby groups and organizations, their influence is woefully inadequate in the face of the history and tenacity of the factors that constitute America’s interests in Israel. It is the longterm implementation of this policy, a combination of non-competitive influences, that prevents an honest and open public debate about Israeli policies and the future consequences for the Palestinians, Israelis, and the U.S (Slater 2007).

Background and History of U.S. Foreign Policy towards Israel With the creation of the formal state of Israel, the U.S. gained a valuable democratic ally in a region that had previously known only monarchies and totalitarian dictators. The United Nations, which was heavily influenced by the United States, established the state of Israel in 1948 within the territory of Palestine. Israel became a shining example of democracy, and was widely admired and respected in the west after surviving immediate attacks soon after its formation. The initial reason for United States support, which remains a powerful force today, is that the U.S. has a moral obligation to help Israel defend itself from its Arab enemies on three sides. In the years immediately following World War II there was an especially strong feeling of obligation produced by guilt concerning the negative treatment of Jewish people over centuries of Christian and western anti-Semitism, culminating in the Holocaust.

Another reason for the formation of the U.S. Israeli policy was the cultural affinity between the two countries which has become more powerful as many people in the west are fascinated with the origin of its inhabitants, its values, and the kind of society it has sought throughout time, at least in principle. The interest in the U.S. in the shared “Judeo-Christian heritage” (Slater 2007) also created a large base of support here in the U.S. for the Jewish people, who 2|Page

trace their origins to ancient Israel. Another even more powerful religious movement has emerged recently among Christian evangelicals in the U.S., who believe that the defense of Israel is crucial to the realization of prophecies found in the New Testament. This movement has become known as Christian Zionism, which believes that the support of the occupation and repression of Palestine is justified in order to activate Biblical prophecies. This movement is determined to protest any two-state solution without even witnessing the current plight of the Palestinians.

As the Cold War began in the late 1940’s the U.S. viewed the new state of Israel as a great Middle Eastern ally against the Soviet Union. A nation that was strongly anti-Communist, proAmerican, and militarily powerful had suddenly emerged to counter the growing threat of Soviet expansion in the Middle East, a vital region for strategic resources for the United States.

Inevitably, the U.S. took an interest in this new nation as an ally in the struggle against global Communist domination, as both superpowers raced to find friendly governments in their respective spheres of influence. Since the end of the Cold War this particular logic for the support of Israel has shifted in justification as a dependable regional ally for the U.S. in the struggle against radical Islam and terrorism.

However powerful and enticing Israel appeared to the U.S. during the formation of the U.S. policy towards Israel, there is no historical precedent to account for the nearly unconditional support of Israel for nearly seventy years. Any other U.S. ally would have been publicly condemned by the U.S. press long ago for these flagrant violations of human rights and international territorial boundaries (Slater 2007). The media firestorm in the U.S. concerning the present circumstances in Ukraine and the territorial ambitions of Russia have been covered 3|Page

around the clock as imperialistic, but the massive land grab by Israel of Palestinian territory far beyond the Green Line 1into the West Bank has been portrayed as a simple security measure by U.S. media outlets (Slater 2007). Israeli actions towards the occupied Palestinian territories are perceived in the Middle East as either implicit or direct U.S. policy, which threatens the U.S. reputation as leader of the “free world”. The continued support of Israel portrays the U.S. as hypocritical, and violates the American principles of free and democratic governance.

How U.S. support of Israel poses potential threats to U.S. interests and credibility Since the early 1930s, as more Jewish refugees fled repression in central and eastern Europe, Jewish forces in Palestine have applied an “iron wall strategy” (MIT International Security Journal Abstract 2012)that utilizes overwhelming military power to eliminate Arab resistance and gain territory for a Jewish homeland. This strategy has been at the core of Israeli security policies in the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1948 to the present day. These military tactics have continually consisted of attacks on civilians and critical civilian infrastructure within Palestine. These attacks violate international “just war” moral principles of discrimination and non-combatant immunity (www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justtwar.htm): Principles of the Just War •

“A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

1 (Slater 2007) Page 93: The Green Line marks the area under Israeli sovereignty designated by the UN prior to 1967 war.

4|Page

•

“A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, selfdefense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

•

“A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

•

“The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

•

“The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.”

Operation Cast Lead2, or the 2008-2009 Israeli military incursion within the Gaza

Strip also violated the “just war” principles of just cause and last resort, which state that military actions can only be initiated for clearly identifiable and verifiable reasons, and even after that is established, diplomatic negotiations and alternative political actions must have been attempted and failed. Israel clearly did not meet the just cause (Human Rights Watch 2009)standard because Israel’s only objective was to crush the Palestinian Hamas resistance to its continued occupation and repression of the Gaza territory. Israel also refused to explore the political possibility that Hamas might be agreeable to a two2 (MIT International Security Journal Abstract 2012)

5|Page

state solution. Israel’s iron wall military strategy has long surpassed its necessity, and is now undermining instead of reinforcing Israel’s security, and also threatening U.S. national security and credibility with our allies.

Human rights observers were highly critical of Israel’s indiscriminate use of white phosphorous shells fired over highly-populated civilian areas during its operation in the Gaza Strip. The international organization Human Rights Watch released a 71-page report titled “Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorous in Gaza” (Human Rights Watch 2009), documenting the tragic effects of these incendiary munitions on civilian neighborhoods. The report claims that this is evidence of “war crimes” because they fired repeatedly, outside of the normal guidelines of the weapon’s use, and used the incendiary weapon when other safer munitions were available. The report concluded that “for the needless civilian deaths caused by the use of White Phosphorous., senior commanders should be held to account” (Human Rights Watch 2009).

A report released in 2014 by Human Rights Watch condemned Israel for shooting unarmed civilians in Gaza, investigating seven incidents where Israeli soldiers murdered four civilians, and wounded five others (including two journalists) near the border fence.

The report noted that Palestinians living in the tightly condensed population zone of Gaza Strip often use the land near the border fence for “agriculture, collecting rubble, scrap metal and other collectible items, and for recreation” (Al Bawaba 2014). The

6|Page

director for Human Rights Watch in the Middle East, Sarah Witson, stated that Israeli forces stationed near the border fence have routinely injured or killed Palestinian civilians who mistakenly crossed an “invisible, constantly shifting line which Israel has drawn” inside Gaza’s territorial line.

A spokesman for Israel’s armed forces, Lieutenant Colonel Peter Lerner, defended Israel’s actions by referring to “projectiles” hurled directly into southern Israel and accused Hamas leaders in Gaza for failing to prevent the bloody border skirmishes (Al Bawaba 2014). The projectiles the colonel was referring to were rocks or chunks of concrete thrown by Gaza youth. While these can certainly injure Israeli soldiers, these soldiers are confirmed to be wearing body armor and steel helmets which would minimize the damage these youth can inflict. Furthermore, the response of firing live rounds traveling at supersonic speed is a much greater use of force against Palestinians in regular clothing. The report noted that “Israeli soldiers do not face an imminent lethal threat from unarmed Palestinian civilians in areas of Gaza near the perimeter fence” (Al Bawaba 2014).

“Special Relationship with Israel” Media outlets in the U.S. have generally reported on events in Israel from one point of view, almost always highlighting the dangers that Israel faces, and under-reporting on the suffering and plight that the Palestinians endure under Israeli occupation. The New York Times in particular, the newspaper of record and most prestigious of all American newspapers, consistently emphasizes the dangerous plight of the Israelis and their search for peace, contrasted with the stubbornness and provocation of the Palestinians in negotiations.

7|Page

Compared with Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, which is often considered Israel’s most elite and prestigious daily print publication, the Times offers almost no debate or objective coverage of events in Israel. While Haaretz continually argues that Israel’s policies are damaging to its national security interests, the Times offers no balance in coverage and rarely questions Israel’s policy decisions. This appears to have had a trickle-down effect on other national and local news outlets and greatly impacting society as a whole in the U.S. The general consensus3 in the U.S. has become that the Palestinians are overwhelmingly responsible for the continuing violence within Israel and for the failure of any long-term peace negotiations or political settlements. This contrasts sharply with views from within the Palestinian territories and Israel, even among officials in the government that Israeli policies are to blame at least as much as Palestinian actions. A major contributor to the erroneous belief in the U.S. is the “largely uninformed and uncritical mainstream” press system concerning politics and policies in Israel (Slater 2007) .Due to the vigorous and self-critical discourse within Israel, the possibility at least exists for changes in public policies that have become damaging to comprehensive peace negotiations with the Palestinians. However, many journalists who are critical of Israeli policies state that the chance for significant change in these policies would be greatly influenced by demands from the U.S. government, especially if accompanied by prolonged diplomatic pressure.

However, as long as there remains no serious public debate or revelation in the United States, a balanced resolution remains beyond our reach. The New York Times has attained significant credibility in the U.S. over public debate on the Israeli – Palestinian issue, but this 3 (Slater 2007) Page 85

8|Page

influence is unwarranted. The Times coverage has been almost completely focused on its perceived Israeli interests, ignoring what is best for the U.S. in its evolving relationship with Israel and other regional allies. The overwhelming influence it enjoys among America’s elites has been especially harmful due to its biased editorials and coverage 4 The Times holds a significant share of responsibility for creating the mythology surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict here in the United States. This is especially true of handicapping the U.S. perception of why the initially promising peace negotiations at Camp David in July 2000 broke down into continued political deadlock and mutual violence over the last fourteen years. Thomas Friedman, chief foreign policy columnist for the Times, offered several editorials and columns that laid the foundation for this traditionalist view of the talks (Freidman 2001): that at the peace summit the Palestinians rejected a gratuitous Israeli olive branch of peace, and stubbornly and on reflex chose the mindless path of violence that has dominated the period since. Several precipitating stories followed and expanded on that premise as if it were irrefutable fact. This perception still dominates in the minds of the U.S. public, and set forth the dominant Israeli policies of the George W. Bush administration and the majority view of Congress.

According to this viewpoint, the Palestinians did not meet Israeli standards as a viable partner for peaceful coexistence or settlement. Freidman claimed that even if Yasser Arafat could not fully accept Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s proposals, this did not justify the Palestinian’s decision to walk away from negotiations and begin the intifada campaign.

Friedman and others argued that, at the very least, Arafat should have tried a counteroffer 4 (Slater 2007) Page 85-87

9|Page

along with continued diplomatic efforts to get a more amenable offer from Israel. Many U.S. journalists concluded that either the Palestinian leadership was only interested in gaining their Palestinian state by armed conflict, or that they had given up on the two-state solution entirely and had decided to pursue their actual goal of eliminating the state of Israel.

This proclaimed statement of fact has not held up to any serious scrutiny by scholars, journalists, or officials from any of the countries involved in the negotiations in Maryland in 2000. No one knows exactly how far Israeli Prime Minister Barak was willing to go to reach peace with the Palestinians, and he made no solid, verifiable offers at the negotiations. He refused to put anything in writing until the Palestinians had agreed to everything that he had verbally offered, and he even refused to meet with Yasser Arafat directly, which some Israeli officials claimed may have caused the failure of the summit (Slater 2007). Further investigation has revealed that if Arafat had accepted Israel’s “generous” offer, he would have only gotten a tiny, poor, and water-impoverished collection of divided enclaves all separated and surrounded

by Israeli land, army, roads, and housing settlements. The Israeli offer would also have denied full Arab control of East Jerusalem, and control of the mosques on the Haram al-Sharif. The Palestinian state that Barak was willing to concede depended entirely on his word, which the Palestinians had reason to doubt in the face of continued Israeli expansion of its settlements, bases and roads in the occupied territories, even as the negotiations were taking place (Slater 2007). Contrary to the mythology offered by the U.S. media, Arafat demonstrated at Camp David that he was willing to compromise. He showed his willingness to reach peace by conceding many of the components of Barak’s verbal offer, even the principle of Israeli control over the Jewish parts of Old Jerusalem and vast reductions in the size of a future Palestinian 10 | P a g e

state. There is also no evidence for the Times myth that Arafat was in control of the intifada5 or that his goal was to destroy Israel.

Haaretz is not the only media outlet in Israel criticizing current or former Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. Israel’s largest daily newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, has published subsequent interviews of former leaders of Israel’s Shin Bet6 – the internal intelligence/counterintelligence agency. These officials proclaimed that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians was “disgraceful…we debase the Palestinians…Nobody can take this. We too would not take it if it were done to us.”7 Another twenty-year veteran of Shin Bet recalled that “’Ehud Barak once said that if he were Palestinian he would join a terror organization’ and that he himself wouldn’t target civilians but would certainly fight against the foreign occupier,” (Levy 2005). In Israel it is very common to hear public debates concerning the linkage of occupation

by Israel with the resulting consequence of Palestinian terrorism, including from government officials. Here in the U.S. this connection is not even mentioned by the mainstream press.

What current forces constrain U.S. government leaders today, and why should U.S. policies change?

While the original reasons for the formation of the U.S. Israeli policy are still relevant to some extent, new forces have also emerged to keep the United States foreign policy rigid and inflexible in the face of growing security threats. Any U.S. government official who speaks out publicly (or even privately in some cases) about the consequences of continued U.S. support of

5 Both Jerome Slater and Adam Sabra have researched Arafat’s actual role in the Intifada. Sabra concludes that while Arafat may have played an initial role in the armed resistance movement, the group quickly turned against his philosophies.

6 (Journal of Palestinian Studies 2004) 7 (Slater 2007) Page 101-102

11 | P a g e

Israel, or who questions Israel’s policies towards Palestinians is immediately lambasted in the mainstream press, on nationwide outlets, which then disseminate the headlines down to local press outlets. Officials are immediately labeled anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, regardless of the context or the historical validity of their arguments. This smoke screen of anti-Semitism effectively silences the message and focuses all public attention on the messenger.

The supposedly private remarks of Secretary of State John Kerry at a meeting of world leaders on April 28, 2014 were immediately released to the press. Kerry said that “Israel could become an ‘apartheid state’” due to its repression of the Palestinian population within its territory. Several news outlets, including the New York Times, published Kerry’s remarks along with responses by AIPAC (The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) calling the statement “offensive and inappropriate” and the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) which called them “incendiary”. The remarkable irony was that Kerry’s secretly recorded remarks were not even original. They first appeared in a 2004 editorial in Haaretz, marking the one-hundred year anniversary of the founding of the Zionist movement, concluding “we must not be afraid to state that 21st century Zionism will not survive if the new interpretation of the ‘Jewish State’ is an apartheid state that rules over Palestinians against their will. We must remember that the suffering of the Palestinians who live under Israeli occupation is as desperate as that of the Jews of Europe in the late 19th century” (MIT International Security Journal Abstract 2012).

Since the precedent for Secretary Kerry’s remarks was voiced over 10 years ago by Israeli government officials in Israeli print media, why should it be so “offensive and inappropriate” for a U.S. Secretary of State to reiterate the statement within this country?

12 | P a g e

The fear of Islamic extremism here in the United States plays a big factor in the foreign policy calculus for supporting Israel, similar to preventing the expansion of Soviet influence during the Cold War. However, the U.S. policies are now causing ever-increasing hatred directed towards the U.S. from the very groups the U.S. is trying to neutralize, heightening the risk of retaliatory terrorist attacks within the U.S (Slater 2007).

Members of Congress often receive campaign contributions from pro-Israel and Christian evangelical interest groups, and are often encouraged to attack colleagues who go against the status quo. United States Senator Ted Cruz predictably called for Secretary Kerry’s resignation following his remarks on Israel, not fostering a societal debate on what is best for the U.S., but instead using age-old rhetoric and tactics to shut down any perceived opposition to existing Israeli policies.

In the U.S. and some other countries, a strong and unconditional backer of Israel has emerged from the Christian evangelical community which at first may seem unusual given their theological differences. But the marriage of convenience has allowed each actor to pursue their similar goals. One important reason for the Christian support of the state of Israel is the status of Jews, and Christians by extension, “as God’s chosen people”. Another is the belief of most evangelicals that the “return of Jews to the Promised Land, and particularly Jewish control over Jerusalem and all of Palestine, is necessary to fulfill New Testament prophecies” (Stewart 2013).

This group has become a dominant player in domestic politics and believes that Israel can do no wrong. They are theologically opposed to any two-state solution. They have become increasingly influential to the general public’s perception of the Palestinian conflict and events in Israel in general.

13 | P a g e

The military industrial complex in the U.S. has become a huge beneficiary of the peace dividends provided to Israel following the 1979 Camp David Accords, which continuously provides Israel with an annual economic and military assistance package. Out of the $3 billion Israel receives in military assistance annually, it must spend 75% of those funds on American manufactured weapons systems and equipment. This has created a real conflict of interest as weapons manufacturers continually lobby Congress and the President to keep the tap of funds flowing to Israel and then back into American industry (Foreign Aid in Budget 2013).

Laws passed by the U.S. Congress prohibit the U.S. State Department and the Department of Defense from furnishing military aid or selling weapons to any country that consistently violates internationally recognized human rights standards, or uses those weapons in an offensive rather than a defensive manner, (U.S. Congress. House. Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014, HR 5807 2014). According to the U.S. State Department, Israel engages in “torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons and other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or the security of people� (Documents and Organization, DOS n.d.).

Conclusion U.S. government leaders must keep U.S. national security interests at the forefront in their foreign policy objectives. This paper highlights many reasons why the continuation of the existing U.S. policies towards Israel have become harmful to other diplomatic relationships in the region. Our continued support of Israel inherently creates U.S. hostility towards Iran and other regional powers, which in turn foments deep anger and hatred from these nations and 14 | P a g e

separate terrorist groups directed back towards the U.S. The American people have been misled by mainstream media outlets for decades concerning the special U.S. relationship with Israel, and this has created an atmosphere in which public debate and questioning about this relationship are immediately deemed as anti-Israel or anti-Jewish. U.S. government officials have an obligation to protect American interests around the world. Yet, they are restricted in the performance of these duties with respect to Israel (because of the confluence of many different factors), and are forced as rational actors to continue with the overarching policies and the continuation of this cycle of support for Israel and resulting anger from other Middle East actors.

In the interest of U.S. security the U.S. must distance itself from the “Zionist� expansion and offensive military actions within areas of Israeli occupation. To do this, the allencompassing U.S. support of Israel must evolve to meet current realities. This will of course be very challenging because the public support of Israel is deeply entrenched in the American psyche. Some possible avenues for changing this societal belief are to introduce more objective and moderate press coverage, and encourage a more open and public debate among academia and bureaucratic officials whose political future is not intricately linked with public comments on this issue. The ideal outcome would be for our society to foster a more pluralistic outlook regarding Israel, with a policy open to expression of the interests of Palestinian and other Arab groups, as well as Israeli interest groups.

Works Cited Al Bawaba. 2014. Human Rights Watch slams Israel for shooting Gaza civilians. April 26. http://www.albawaba.com.

15 | P a g e

n.d. "Documents and Organization, DOS." US Department of State. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42621.pdf.

2013. "Foreign Aid in Budget." US AID - Budgets. www.usaid.gov/results-and-data.

2008. "Foreign Assistance Act of 2008, Public Law 113 -76."

Freidman, Thomas. 2001. "Mr. Arafat's Role." New York Times, August 8: 15.

Human Rights Watch. 2009. "Israel: White Phosphorous Use Evidence of War Crimes." Human Rights Watch. March 25. http://www.hrw.org. n.d. "Human Rights Watch Report." Yahoo News.

Journal of Palestinian Studies. 2004. "Former Heads of Shin Bet Reflect on Israel's Present and Future." Jounal of Palestinian Studies 177-185.

Levy, Gideon. 2005. "They Broke The Public's Heart." Haaretz, July 3: 1.

MIT International Security Journal Abstract. 2012. "Abstract." Cambridge.

Slater, Jerome. 2007. "Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: "The New York Times" vs. "Haaretz" 2000-06." International Security - The MIT Press: Volume 32, No. 2 84-120.

Stewart, Dona J. 2013. "Christian Zionism." In The Middle East Today, Second Edition, by Dona J. Stewart, 215. New York: Routledge.

2014. "U.S. Congress. House. Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014, HR 5807."

16 | P a g e