Current Controversy in American Politics about the USA and Israel - Essay Example

Swarna1 Word count: 2237 P.Swarnalatha ID # 5448 Order # 194325 d 1st December 2007 The current controversy in American politics about USA and Israel The foreign relations between the USA and Israel have always been very close due to some strategic advantages by both the countries. If one analyzes the history of US relationship with Israel, it sounds correct. Israel has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance from the United States since 1976, and the largest total recipient since World war II (Clyde Mark, 2005). A major purchaser and user of US military equipment, Israel is also involved in the joint development of military technology and regularly engages in joint military exercises involving United States and other friendly forces. The relationship has deepened gradually over time, though, it was not a simple linear process of growing cooperation, but rather a series of tendentious bargaining situations with different strategic and political components in each. (Alan Dowty et al., 2004). It is a clear fact that the pro Israel foreign policy of USA was influenced by Israel lobby and political sympathizers. However, one should not forget the logic of USA to take care of its own interests while helping Israel. For example, during the first twenty years of Israels existence, United States policy in the Middle East was driven by two major policy concerns: The prevention of an arms race in the Near East, and the prevention of the spread of Soviet influence. Hence, the Israel lobby argues that their support of pro Israel foreign policy is very much justified as it favors the interests of the USA. With the passage of time, the USA-Israel ties further srengthened gradually. As a result, in 1987, the United States granted Israel the status of major non-NATO ally enabling it to compete equally with NATO and other U.S. allies for contracts and purchase advanced U.S. weapons systems. Similarly, Israel became the largest recipient of U.S. military aid in the world. In this context, the Israel lobby argued that USA got tremendus advantage through arm’s sale to Israel which is partially true. However, the anti Israel lobby made it clear that the foreign policy of USA did more harm than benefits. It is mainly because of more unrest created in the middle East. The combination of unwavering US support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized US security. In the later years, USA and Israel entered in to a memorandum of understanding to formalize and perpetuate the work of the bilateral U.S.-Israel military, security and economic working groups. Later, the U.S. government made efforts to bolster the Israeli governments military edge by permitting it to purchase $700m of the latest U.S. military equipment, including advanced fighters, attack helicopters and the Joint Direct Attack Munition system. A series of major joint military technology development projects was also initiated. It only indicated the scenario that the USA’s foreign relations with Israel further tightened and the role of Israel lobby was also ver much felt. Recently, extensive military cooperation took place under the present administration, with Israel placing major orders for F-161multirole fighters. During the 2006 Lebonon war, the United States provided a major resupply of jet fuel and precision-guided munition to replenish depleted Israeli stocks. The U.S. and Israel also collaborate jointly on a number of technology development programs, notably the Arrow missile system and the Tactical high energy Laser. The two countries conduct regular exercises together, including carrying out biennial exercises. The two countries also share intelligence and maintain a joint anti-terrorist working group, and offlate, their air forces committed to share information about mutually relevant procurements. As mentioned earlier, no doubt, the close military relationship between the U.S. and Israel has engendered a number of controversies over the years. The unilateral support of USA for Israel has strained the bilateral relations of USA with other nations in the Gulf region. This undoubtedly affected the relations of USA with Arab countries and this in turn affected the oil trade. For example, Operation Nickel Grass i.e. the U.S. resupply effort during the Yom Kippur war led to retaliation, as the Arab states declared a complete oil embargo on the United States, causing oil prices to skyrocket, fuel becoming scarce, and embroiling the United States in the1973 oil crisis. Hence the role of Israel lobby in supporting USA to take pro-Israel foreign policy has led to severe controversy. Similarly, Israeli use of U.S.-provided military equipment in the 1982 Lebanon war resulted in controversy, exposing serious differences between Israeli and U.S. policies. Similar controversies have again resulted due to Israels use of weapons supplied by the U.S. in the course of the PalestinianFirst Intifada and al-Aqsa Intifada as well as the 2006 Lebanon war. Several academecians and policy makers criticized the foreign policy of USA towards Israel. A research paper questioning the Israeli-US relationship has triggered intense intellectual ferment in American Jewish political and academic circles (Adla Massoud, 2006). Two US academics, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, have triggered a firestorm of controversy regarding the USA-Israel foreign relations in their book “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”. They opined that the United States has been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of Israel (Mearsheimer and Walt, 2006), and further that US middle east policy is driven primarily by the "Israel lobby," defined as a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Isrel direction." It was also supported by some other researchers. America spends $3bn a year in largely military assistance - one-sixth of its direct aid budget - to help a prosperous, nuclear-armed country, and strongly backs Israel in negotiations on Middle East peace (Henry Astier, 2007). But according to Mearsheimer and Walt, the US gets remarkably little in return. They reject the argument that Israel is a key ally in Americas "war on terror". On the contrary, they contend, US patronage of Israel fuels militant anger - as well as fostering resentment in Arab countries that control vital oil supplies. They also reject the common view of Israel as a democratic outpost that needs protection from deadly enemies. It is indeed a vibrant democracy, but also a regional giant ready to use its considerable firepower against civilians. The real reason behind US support for Israel is domestic - the activities of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and like-minded groups and think tanks. Pro-Israeli contributions to US campaigns dwarf those of Arab-Americans or Muslim groups. Like other interest groups, the Israel lobby also influences debate by rounding on politicians and commentators who take positions it does not like - but it does it particularly effectively, according to Mearsheimer and Walt. Those who might think of questioning US support for Israel know they are in for a fight, making it more trouble than it is worth. The resulting lack of discussion has skewed US policies across the Middle East. Most controversially, it argues that the lobby played an important role in the Iraq war. It was also conceptualized that the relevance of pro-Israel foreign policy of USA has little meaning with the end of cold war era. Hence the influence of a powerful pro-Israel lobby on American policy set off a firestorm as charges of anti-Semitism, shoddy scholarship and censorship ricocheted among prominent academics, writers, policymakers and advocates. Hence, Israel has become a strategic liability for the United States. Even then, no aspiring politician is going to say so in public or even raise the possibility because the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful. It is argued that the lobby was responsible for shutting down talks with Syria and with moderates in Iran, preventing the United States from condemning Israel’s 2006 war in Lebanon and with not pushing the Israelis hard enough to come to an agreement with the Palestinians. This recent approach of USA to continue with its traditional pro-Israel policy has been facing severe controversy over its relevance in the present era. The Israel lobby argues that USA has shown resistance to Israel n some occasions and hence its foreign policy should not be treated as completely soft towards Israel. As long as the interests of USA are protected, the pro-Israel policy has been followed. Otherwise, USA always negated the issues even with Israel. For example, even though Israel supports US to maintain its qualitative defense edge in the region, it withheld certain types of U.S. military technology from Israel before it stopped selling arms to China (Jerusalem Post, 2000). It only reflects that USA has been very critical in supporting the Israel as long as its own interests are not jeopardized. Hence the Israel lobby argues in favor of the present foreign policy of USA. To overcome the hurdles occurred in between, USA has also taken damage control measures, as argued by the critics of pro-Israel foreign policy. For example, in late June 2005, Israel and the United States drafted a memorandum stating that the two countries are "strategic partners" regarding arms sales to other nations (Aluf Benn, 2005). Each country will be considerate of the others concerns about weapons and technology being transferred to other countries that could be classified by one as threats. This agreement ended an export crisis between Israel and the U.S., which began in late 2004 after the U.S. demanded that Israel not return spare parts of military drones to China that had been sent to the U.S. for repairs. This bitter conflict over military technology sales was one of the most serious to occur between the two countries in decades, and was met with grave concern on both sides. The U.S. administration claimed that Israel had kept secret some details of their arms deal with China to improve assault Harpy UAV drones, and promptly cut relations with the Israel Defence Ministry. Sanctions were also enacted on defense ties with Israel during the period of the crisis. The new agreement, which is called the "Declaration of Understanding on Technology Exports," will hopefully ensure that both countries maintain transparency with weapons sales to other countries, especially nations that one country may consider a security threat. It also ensures that America will not try to force Israeli defense businesses out of the international marketplace. The supporters of pro-Israeli policy further argue that the Israel’s interests have to be protected by USA to maintain the peace in the region. The Hamas takeover of Gaza is deeply disturbing, increasing the danger to Israeli citizens already under attack from rockets fired indiscriminately from the Gaza territory. These rockets have killed several people. Hence Israel which has helped USA in different time periods should be assisted. As opined by Hillary Clinton, Democrat, the United States must continue to support Israel, as it defends itself against these attacks and insist that Hamas cannot be recognized until it renounces terrorism and recognizes Israels right to exist. Israel and the international community are committed to supporting the new government of Palestinian Authority (PA). But she recommends a different approach to establish peace in Middle East. The security of Israel and of the Middle East is best served by helping to create a Palestinian Authority that can provide tangible benefits and a better life for its people, in contrast to the violence and isolation offered by Hamas. Similarly, Fred Thompson, Republican opined that Israelis have gone to incredible lengths to stop the war against them without harming Palestinian non-combatants. It has been tested for its patience in the recent years. It is unfortunate to observe that the elected Hamas government regularly repeats its official promise to destroy Israel entirely and replace it with an Islamic state. If the world doesnt act to stop Irans nuclear ambitions, it must be prepared for the consequences of Israel defending itself. Conclusion The foreign policy of USA towards Israel has always been very close and soft as it served its own interests. Though it is opined that the Israel lobby has influenced the pro-Israel foreign policy, its direction has been mainly driven by the self interest of USA. However, with the end of cold war era, there is a strong necessity to change the direction of foreign policy of USA. As the strong role of Israel lobby was witnessed in the recent Lebanon war (2006) which has led to severe controversy, it is proper to debate the relevance of pro-Israel foreign policy and make necessary amendments keeping the peace in middle East and security and trade interests of USA. References Adla Massoud. 2006. A harsh light on Americas Israel lobby. Aljazeera. Dated 8th June 2006. Alan Dowty. 2004. In Abraham Ben-Zvi, Lyndon B. Johnson and the Politics of Arms Sales to Israel: in the shadow of the hawk, p. vii. Routledge, ISBN 0714655805. Aluf Benn. 2005. Israel, U.S. draft agreement for openness, equality in arms deals. Haaretz, dated 27th June 2005. Clyde R. Mark. 2005. Foreign Affairs Defense and Trade Division Dated 26th April 2005. Henry Astier. 2007. US storm over book on Israel lobby. BBC News. Dated 22nd November 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7104030.stm. Jerusalem Post. 2000. U.S. Plans to Punish Israel for China Sales, Dated 24th February 2000. Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen. 2006. The Israel lobby, London Review of Books, 28 (6) dated 23rd March, 2006. Read More