The Importance of the US Stance on Israeli-Arab Relations - Coursework Example

President Barack Obama           CC:           December 10, 2009 Re: U.S. Envoy to Israel Qualifications Introduction TheUnited States needs to appoint a Special Envoy to the Middle East in order to assure the tenuous peace in the area. Israeli-Arab tensions are higher than ever despite the ceasefire. Until your foreign policy is established in the region, a Special Envoy needs to be appointed to handle the sensitive situation. An American plan to promote a peace agenda needs to be formulated and followed by the Special Envoy. This plan needs to be approved by you with advice from the newly selected Special Envoy. The appointment of the Special Envoy to the Middle East is one of the most crucial appointments, even more important than the appointments of U.S. Ambassadors to the various Middle Eastern countries. The Special Envoy will travel from country to country in the Middle East to achieve the American Agenda in the region. Background The United States’ position on the Israeli-Arab relations has always been important. The U.S. has backed Israel since Israel became a state. Support for Israel allows the U.S. an ally in the Middle East that has a similar democracy. Saudi Arabia is an U.S. ally, but since Saudi Arabia is a monarch Israel is a more favorable choice. Still the U.S. must not anger the majority of Arab nations in the Middle East, especially since the heavy U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. The balance between doing what is right morally by promoting a democratic society and securing a good relationship with oil producing countries is the delicate balance an American Special Envoy must master. In order to achieve the balance of American interests, the Special Envoy has to negotiate with both the Israelis and Arabs. The United States Envoy to Israel must have special qualifications. Without the right qualification an envoy could harm not only Israeli-Arab relations, but harm U.S.-Israel-Arab relations at best and at worst plunge the whole region into a war. Qualifications all U.S. Envoys need are: Cultural awareness of both the Israeli-Arab peoples. Understanding the different customs and cultures of the Israelis, Palestinians, and other Arab countries in the Middle East. A history of the conflict in the region since the inception of the Israeli State in 1948. Strong negotiating skills. Realistic expectations. A clear understanding of U.S. motives for supporting Israel. An individual that can speak, read, and write Hebrew and Arabic. These traits will not only help Israeli-Arab relations, but advance U.S. interests in the area. These seven traits are necessary to ensure the fragile peace in the area remains intact. U.S. Israeli-Palestinian Position Any Special Envoy appointed to Israel must address the Palestinian issue. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians have elected Hamas to be Gaza’s leaders. Since Hamas has been recognized as the United States as a terrorist group, all talks are through the Palestinian National Authority. If Hamas would make concessions, the United States would consider opening talks through the Special Envoy. The recommended plan since 2001’s Mitchell Report for both Israel and Palestinians have been threefold: 1. “An immediate cessation of all violence. 2. Rebuilding of confidence in the Palestinian Authority (now the Palestinian National Authority). This includes PNA efforts to stop terrorism and the freeze of Israeli settlement activity.” (Mitchell, Demirel, Jagland, Rudman, & Solana, 2001) 3. A good faith effort at negotiations on both sides. Both Israel and the Palestinians have agreed that these measures would help promote peace in the region, but neither have made substantial progress. Recommendations A Special Envoy needs to have a cultural awareness of both Israeli and Arab people. Not all Israelis are Jews and not all Palestinians are Muslim. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the three major religions in the region. A Special Envoy needs to understand these religions and the customs that go along with those religions. An example would be if the Special Envoy was a woman, she would have to cover her hair when dealing with Islamic participants. Another example would be the recognition of Saturday being the Jewish Sabbath. Knowledge of every aspect of the conflict in this region should be learned by the Special Envoy. Both Israelis and Arabs have long memories. What an America sees as frivolous, the Israelis and Arabs will not. In order to avoid this mistake, all the knowledge that can be collected on this topic should be undertaken. The Special Envoy should be fully briefed on all matters. An individual with strong negotiating skills is necessary. Negotiation is a way of life between Israel and their Arab neighbors. In this region it is common for all parties to change their minds. An example would be the Siege of Bethlehem. On April 1, 2002, Israel sent troops into the West Bank to find terrorists (Doganis, 2002). During the operation around 200 civilian, wanted terrorists, and other Palestinians wanted for questioning were trapped inside the Church of the Nativity, the reported birth site of Jesus (Doganis, 2002). The IDF officer in charge, Colonel Lior Lotan, offered the Palestinians in the Church a deal on April 23 (Doganis, 2002). The Palestinians rejected the offer, but then accepted the same offer from the CIA on May 9. The negotiations were give and take on both parts, but the two sides do not want to agree with each other. The most important qualification for a Special Envoy to the Middle East is for the Envoy to have realistic expectations. The crisis in that area has been off and on for over two thousand years. The Israelis-Arab conflict is not going to be solved overnight. The best an Envoy can hope for is to keep a fragile peace, whether in a ceasefire or other negotiations. The goal is peace in the region, but when fighting and tensions breakout an Envoy must realize it is not their fault. The goal here is to keep trying. Conclusion The appointment of a Special Envoy to Israel is an important decision. The right choice will help keep the situation bearable in the Middle East. U.S. relations depend on keeping a balance between Israeli-Arab interests while taking into account what is best for American foreign policy. The Special Envoy to the Middle East must meet these recommend qualifications. Bibliography Goldvicht, I. (Producer), & Doganis, D. (Director). (2002). The Siege of Bethlehem [Motion Picture]. PBS. Mitchell, M., Demirel, S., Jagland, T., Rudman, W., & Solana, J. (2001). The Mitchell Report. United States Senate Comittee, Washington D.C. Israel has been a strategic partner in the Middle East since it became a state. Advantages included a foothold in the Middle East during the Cold War, agreeing and implementing American ‘suggestions’ during specific instances, and an unquestionable partner against terrorism. Disadvantages include the mistrust, resistance, and hatred from Arab countries. Although the United States has tried to balance their relationship between Israelis and Arabs, countries like Iran, Iraq, Syrian, and other Arab countries have ill will towards Americans. This ill will has resulted in terrorist attacks, kidnappings, and general tension between the Arab countries and the United States. The one other drawback is the investment of time, money, and manpower the United States spends every year to keep peace with both the Arabs and Israelis. Depending on how one perceives the issue, American support of Israel can hurt or help the United States agenda in the region. Advantages America’s intimate relationship with Israel does have some advantages. The first advantage was implementing the Containment Policy during the Cold War. The Containment Policy was the American policy of promoting democracy in countries in the midst of a revolution in order that communism would not flourish around the world and gain enough power to overrun the United States in a war. Israel was an emerging democracy at that time. Also Egypt was receiving military aid from the Soviet Union, especially Russian MiGs. The United States wanted to make sure the Soviet Union would not dominate the Middle East. Having a Middle Eastern country to monitor the Soviet activity in the area was very valuable during the Cold War. Over the years the U.S. has requested actions be taken or not taken by the Israeli government. One example that comes to mind is the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein shot SCUD missiles toward Tel Aviv. The U.S. had PATRIOT missiles intercept most of these SCUDs, but a couple got through. On the news, one Tel Aviv apartment building was shown as being hit. Saddam, all the Arab countries in the region, and the United States knew if Israel retaliated, every Arab country would attack Israel. Since the United States was using bases in Saudi Arabia, upsetting anymore Arab countries would mean Desert Storm could possibly fail. This is what Saddam wanted. The United States asked Israel to not retaliate. Israel was given assurances that the United States would intercept missiles shot toward Israel. For a country that has fought in major wars and won against more than one Arab country, asking Israel not to enter the war was a huge request. Israel agreed with the United States due to the good diplomatic relations between the two countries. Another earlier example was when the PLO tried to operate in Jordan in the late sixties and early seventies. The Israelis helped King Hussein solidify his power in Jordan. The Washington Post reported during that time: Israel proved its value in 1970 when the United States asked for help in bolstering King Husseins regime. Israels willingness to aid Amman, and movement of troops to the Jordanian border, persuaded Syria to withdraw the tanks it had sent into Jordan to support PLO forces challenging the King during "Black September.” (Reagan 1979: 25A) This request actually helped Israel, as well as Jordan and the United States. Jordan became another ally in the Middle East for the United States. The final advantage is Israel’s unwavering support in America’s war on terror. Most of the world, even American allies think terrorists like the Palestinians and other groups are freedom fighters. Some point out that the United States was formed by freedom fighters attacking the British. The problem with that line of reasoning is the American Patriots attacked British soldiers, not British woman and children. The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist are the targets. True freedom fighters are fighting a war, not terrorizing the population. The United States and Israel understand this concept better than anyone. If a plane is hijacked, especially by radical terrorists, Israelis and Americans are asked to be sacrificed first. Israel is an important ally against terrorism. Disadvantages One disadvantage of the close relationship between Israel and the United States is the animosity of the Middle Eastern countries, except for a few countries like Egypt, Jordon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and a few Emigrates. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, areas of Afghanistan, and Lebanon all have a negative image of the United States. Even after going in and taking Saddam’s oppressive regime out, Iraq’s do not want American help. Iraqis would rather suffer than have Americans on their soil. The mistrust of the United States due to the close relationship with Israel causes problems, then conflict arises. One author suggests: In the name of stabilizing the Middle East via bringing peace and opening way for economic development through connecting the region into global economy, and democratizing the regional countries, the U.S., since 1989, has realized many operations and headed many initiatives. But, when the picture above was scrutinized, unfortunately, it convince us to say that all operations, especially military ones, ended with failure, and initiatives have been abandoned. All these damaged the credibility of U.S., and even produced anger…because of misrepresentation by the United States, mistrust toward Western values in general- democracy, rule of law, liberal economy, etc.- and anger and enmity to U.S., in particular, are dominating the Middle Eastern approach. (Ahmadov 2009:145) The mistrust and animosity towards the United States from Middle Eastern countries due to Israel lead to a cycle of violence that has no end. The United States supports Israel with time, money, and manpower. Time is spent through endless negotiations due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Manpower is the diplomats, military personnel, and other Americans that work for peace in the region. The money spent is; well over $3 billion in military and economic aid sent annually to Israel by Washington is rarely questioned in Congress, even by liberals who normally challenge U.S. aid to governments that engage in widespread violations of human rights--or by conservatives who usually oppose foreign aid in general. (Zune 2002) With the United States economy in a slump three billion dollars could help stimulate the American economy instead of the Israeli economy. The support is a drain of American resources. The disadvantage is the only thing the United States gets in return is a tenuous peace in the region. The whole region is a powder keg. It seems like all the participants and the world expect the United States to solve the problem through time and money. These resources would be better spent on domestic issues. Conclusion The relationship between Israel and the United States is exceptionally close. The advantages in the past and today are factors in foreign policy between the two countries. The favors, support against terrorism, and support in the Middle Eastern region have let the relationship between the two countries blossom. Difficulties in the region include anti-America sentiment and a drain of resources on an already struggling American economy. In the long run, America should put the resources given to Israel and invest in domestic issues. The disadvantages just outweigh the advantages in this situation. Bibliography Ahmadov, R. The U.S. Policy toward Middle East in the Post-Cold War Era. Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations Vol. No.1 and 2. Spring and Summer 2005. Accessed 10 December 2009 http://www.alternativesjournal.net/volume4/number1/ramin.pdf Reagan, R. Recognizing the Israeli Asset. The Washington Post. 15 August 1979. p. 25A. Zune, S. Why the U.S. supports Israel. FPIF. 2002. Accessed 10 December 2009 http://www.fpif.org/papers/usisrael_body.html Read More