Why is Israel such a close ally to the U.S.?
June 6, 2008 9:49 AM Subscribe
Why is Israel such a close ally to the U.S.?
This might seem like an obvious question but I haven't lived in the U.S. for too long. What's the history behind the U.S. Israel relationship? Why is it that the AIPAC has such heavy influence in the U.S. government? It seems like Israel has been rather reckless in handling matters in the middle east and the U.S. is just playing the role of spoiling parents.
This might seem like an obvious question but I haven't lived in the U.S. for too long. What's the history behind the U.S. Israel relationship? Why is it that the AIPAC has such heavy influence in the U.S. government? It seems like Israel has been rather reckless in handling matters in the middle east and the U.S. is just playing the role of spoiling parents.
Two reasons, as I see it:
Historical -- England and France sided with Israel to make a bid for control of the Suez Canal during the Suez Crisis. While the US opposed that action, siding with Israel, it placed Egypt and other Arab states firmly in the the Soviet camp during the cold war. The Soviets were already making inroads in other post-colonial nations in the Middle East. To balance Soviet power, the US had little choice but to back the only non-Arab (and hence non Soviet leaning) power in the region.
Political -- There are many more Jews in the US, who tend to have more access to money than US Muslims. These Jews have organized themselves into lobbying groups, and some/many are single issue voters who will oppose any person who does not support Israel. Further, there are a lot of Jews in Florida, a critical swing state in US presidential elections, which makes it very hard for any presidential candidate to seem anti-Israeli.
posted by Maastrictian at 10:05 AM on June 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
Historical -- England and France sided with Israel to make a bid for control of the Suez Canal during the Suez Crisis. While the US opposed that action, siding with Israel, it placed Egypt and other Arab states firmly in the the Soviet camp during the cold war. The Soviets were already making inroads in other post-colonial nations in the Middle East. To balance Soviet power, the US had little choice but to back the only non-Arab (and hence non Soviet leaning) power in the region.
Political -- There are many more Jews in the US, who tend to have more access to money than US Muslims. These Jews have organized themselves into lobbying groups, and some/many are single issue voters who will oppose any person who does not support Israel. Further, there are a lot of Jews in Florida, a critical swing state in US presidential elections, which makes it very hard for any presidential candidate to seem anti-Israeli.
posted by Maastrictian at 10:05 AM on June 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
It's a prosperous Western-style Democratic state in the middle of a region that's otherwise somewhat-to-very hostile to us in a cultural and religious sense.
It's of extreme importance to many American Jews, who as a group have influence on government far beyond what their numbers would otherwise imply.
And a significant portion of fundamentalist Christians believe that Jewish control of the region is vital for religious reasons relating to the End of the World.
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:07 AM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
It's of extreme importance to many American Jews, who as a group have influence on government far beyond what their numbers would otherwise imply.
And a significant portion of fundamentalist Christians believe that Jewish control of the region is vital for religious reasons relating to the End of the World.
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:07 AM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
It's a non-Arab state surrounded by Arab countries. Those Arab countries have oil.
Very secondarily: there are Israeli supporters who have some influence with the US government.
In total: those supporters, the Israeli state & the US government have (at the minimum) non-conflicting interests.
posted by selton at 10:36 AM on June 6, 2008
Very secondarily: there are Israeli supporters who have some influence with the US government.
In total: those supporters, the Israeli state & the US government have (at the minimum) non-conflicting interests.
posted by selton at 10:36 AM on June 6, 2008
2nding the Cold War connection as important - Egypt and many of the other post-colonial Arab states were recipients of aid and other overtures from the Soviet Union so the Jewish - Arab conflict served as another proxy war between the superpowers.
Also, another theory I've heard advanced, though I'm not sure how mainstream the idea is nor whether it's motivated by anti-Semitism, is that there's some legacy of guilt among Western powers from unsuccessfully opposing the genocide of the Ashkenazim during the Nazi era in Germany. (That kind of makes sense but it also seems kind of polemical, like it would be followed up by an argument that there's no "real" reason for modern Israel to exist.)
posted by XMLicious at 10:36 AM on June 6, 2008
Also, another theory I've heard advanced, though I'm not sure how mainstream the idea is nor whether it's motivated by anti-Semitism, is that there's some legacy of guilt among Western powers from unsuccessfully opposing the genocide of the Ashkenazim during the Nazi era in Germany. (That kind of makes sense but it also seems kind of polemical, like it would be followed up by an argument that there's no "real" reason for modern Israel to exist.)
posted by XMLicious at 10:36 AM on June 6, 2008
In part because Israel lobbies very hard to keep it that way.
posted by Artw at 10:39 AM on June 6, 2008
posted by Artw at 10:39 AM on June 6, 2008
Israel is a proxy/client state. There are a number of countries that have filled this role since the end of world war 2 (El Salvador, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Columbia are just a few), and Israel is critical because of where it is located and its dependability. What does a proxy or client state do? Whatever the U.S. government wants it to do (google Israel with "iran contra" or "south africa"). In return, it gets permanent support and heavy aid.
People who link it to Jewish "control" are, for the most part, wrong. Some of this is rooted to antisemitism and some of it is just bad thinking.
posted by history is a weapon at 10:41 AM on June 6, 2008 [3 favorites]
People who link it to Jewish "control" are, for the most part, wrong. Some of this is rooted to antisemitism and some of it is just bad thinking.
posted by history is a weapon at 10:41 AM on June 6, 2008 [3 favorites]
I thought it was because the US helped established Israel as the zionist state for the Jews after the war. Palestine claims that it is their holy land, and now the two groups are fighting over the territory, and the US is backing Israelis in their decision. Not saying that this the entirety of the alliance, but a significant part of it. Please correct me if I am wrong.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:46 AM on June 6, 2008
posted by iamkimiam at 10:46 AM on June 6, 2008
All of the above, plus, it is the only democracy in the region.
posted by LarryC at 10:48 AM on June 6, 2008
posted by LarryC at 10:48 AM on June 6, 2008
It is an extraordinarily stable democracy in an area of the world where that is hard to come by. I think the biggest reason is that they a major customer for US arms sales.
posted by JJ86 at 11:02 AM on June 6, 2008
posted by JJ86 at 11:02 AM on June 6, 2008
I thought it was because the US helped established Israel as the zionist state for the Jews after the war.
Not true. Israel was established by the Jews themselves, and there was intense debate in the U.S. government about whether to recognize the new state. Truman went against the strong opposition of much of his cabinet and did so. Clark Clifford remembers:
posted by languagehat at 11:17 AM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
Not true. Israel was established by the Jews themselves, and there was intense debate in the U.S. government about whether to recognize the new state. Truman went against the strong opposition of much of his cabinet and did so. Clark Clifford remembers:
The President regarded his Secretary of State, General of the Army George C. Marshall, as "the greatest living American." Yet the two men were on a collision course over Mideast policy, which, if not resolved, threatened to split and wreck the Administration. British control of Palestine would run out in two days, and when it did, the Jewish Agency intended to announce the creation of a new state, still unnamed, in part of Palestine.Clifford also notes: "Since at the time a significant number of Jewish Americans opposed Zionism, neither the President nor I believed that Palestine was the key to the Jewish vote. As I had written in 1947, the key to the Jewish vote in 1948 would not be the Palestine issue, but a continued commitment to liberal political and economic policies."
Marshall firmly opposed American recognition of the new Jewish state; I did not. Marshall's opposition was shared by almost every member of the brilliant and now-legendary group of men, later referred to as "the Wise Men," who were then in the process of creating a postwar foreign policy that would endure for more than forty years. The opposition included the respected Undersecretary of State, Robert Lovett; his predecessor, Dean Acheson; the number-three man in the State Department, Charles Bohlen; the brilliant chief of the Policy Planning Staff, George F. Kennan; the dynamic and driven Secretary of Defense, James V. Forrestal; and a man with whom I would disagree again twenty years later when we served together in the Cabinet, Dean Rusk, then the Director of the Office of United Nations Affairs.
Some months earlier, during one of our weekly breakfasts at his elegant Georgetown home, Forrestal had spoken emotionally and frankly to me concerning his opposition to helping the Zionists, as advocates of the creation of a Jewish state were called. "You fellows over at the White House are just not facing up to the realities in the Middle East. There are thirty million Arabs on one side and about six hundred thousand Jews on the other. It is clear that in any contest, the Arabs are going to overwhelm the Jews. Why don't you face up to the realities? Just look at the numbers!"
posted by languagehat at 11:17 AM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
It's not anti-semitic to suggest that the jewish population of the US has something to do with our alliance. 40% of the world's jew's are in the US. 40% are in Israel. And the rest are scattered around the rest of the world, in very small numbers. Anti-semitism is more common in most of the world than it is in the US. It's much more normal to see swastikas or to hear random anti-semitic talk in europe than it is in america. European philosophers even write about "the jew as other" and so forth as a big cultural metaphor and so forth, because it really is still a cultural rift. Whereas, at least in New York, being Jewish is pretty much assimilated, or anyway, the degree of "otherness" is much less openly noted.
Which is not to say that zionism is equal to not being anti-semitic (well that was a mess of a sentence but you know what I mean) or that there is no anti-semitism in america or anything, but I think the numbers do play an important role.
posted by mdn at 11:19 AM on June 6, 2008
Which is not to say that zionism is equal to not being anti-semitic (well that was a mess of a sentence but you know what I mean) or that there is no anti-semitism in america or anything, but I think the numbers do play an important role.
posted by mdn at 11:19 AM on June 6, 2008
Ah, a religious component also exists. If you read the Christian Bible, the End Times will not occur until a certain set of criteria come to pass regarding Israel. First, the Jews will return to it. The Antichrist will make a pact with Israel. A temple will be rebuilt. So on and so forth.
I don't believe a word of it, but a politically connected segment exists who do believe that, to make sure Jesus comes back, Israel will have to fulfill these prophecies. Therefore, Israel must exist to do so.
Wacky, I know. It's a big cargo cult, as far as I can tell, only instead of little bamboo air towers, we've created nation states as a landing strip for the Big JC.
posted by adipocere at 11:25 AM on June 6, 2008 [4 favorites]
I don't believe a word of it, but a politically connected segment exists who do believe that, to make sure Jesus comes back, Israel will have to fulfill these prophecies. Therefore, Israel must exist to do so.
Wacky, I know. It's a big cargo cult, as far as I can tell, only instead of little bamboo air towers, we've created nation states as a landing strip for the Big JC.
posted by adipocere at 11:25 AM on June 6, 2008 [4 favorites]
It's a non-muslim democratic foothold in a vast sea of muslim theocracies.
posted by Kololo at 11:31 AM on June 6, 2008
posted by Kololo at 11:31 AM on June 6, 2008
In fact the US was indifferent to or at odds with Israel until the Suez Crisis -- allying with Israel because of objections to British behaviour.
Historical -- England and France sided with Israel to make a bid for control of the Suez Canal during the Suez Crisis. While the US opposed that action, siding with Israel, it placed Egypt and other Arab states firmly in the the Soviet camp during the cold war
Could someone who knows more about Suez than I do please clarify this? My understanding is that, at the beginning of the crisis, Britain, France, and Israel acted together, invading Egypt on two fronts. The US opposed this action, and exerted political pressure on Britain and France to withdraw their armies. Britain caved first and withdrew--an action which led to long-term resentment in France, the rise of Gaulism, the French nuclear program, and the lasting Anglo-American/European political rift. Without their British allies, France was forced to withdraw. Israel remained in the Sinai for a while longer though. What exactly was going on between the US and Israel during the Suez crisis? How did US pressure against the Britain/France/Israel alliance lead to a lasting alliance between Israel and the US?
posted by mr_roboto at 11:46 AM on June 6, 2008
Historical -- England and France sided with Israel to make a bid for control of the Suez Canal during the Suez Crisis. While the US opposed that action, siding with Israel, it placed Egypt and other Arab states firmly in the the Soviet camp during the cold war
Could someone who knows more about Suez than I do please clarify this? My understanding is that, at the beginning of the crisis, Britain, France, and Israel acted together, invading Egypt on two fronts. The US opposed this action, and exerted political pressure on Britain and France to withdraw their armies. Britain caved first and withdrew--an action which led to long-term resentment in France, the rise of Gaulism, the French nuclear program, and the lasting Anglo-American/European political rift. Without their British allies, France was forced to withdraw. Israel remained in the Sinai for a while longer though. What exactly was going on between the US and Israel during the Suez crisis? How did US pressure against the Britain/France/Israel alliance lead to a lasting alliance between Israel and the US?
posted by mr_roboto at 11:46 AM on June 6, 2008
The above comments are generally correct, but tend to underestimate the size of the Israeli economy relative to its neighbors -- Israel's GDP is bigger than Jordan's, Syria's and Lebanon's combined. Israel's economy is smaller than Egypt's overall, but measured per capita, it's about five times as much, and Israel's economy is not oil-based like everyone else's.
Just on those merits alone, setting aside the history, it makes sense for the U.S. to be buddy-buddy with Israel.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:24 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
Just on those merits alone, setting aside the history, it makes sense for the U.S. to be buddy-buddy with Israel.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:24 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
the only non-Arab (and hence non Soviet leaning) power
I thought the Iranians weren't Arabs either, but Persians, even if much of the country is Muslim.
posted by weston at 12:29 PM on June 6, 2008
I thought the Iranians weren't Arabs either, but Persians, even if much of the country is Muslim.
posted by weston at 12:29 PM on June 6, 2008
mr_roboto: It largely boils down to one of the guiding US philosophies of the Cold War--the enemy of my enemy is my friend. (Yeah, we've seen how THAT works out...) The Soviets were making inroads with Egypt, Syria, etc. and we picked up the opposing entity, which was Israel.
I would agree with a lot of the reasons cited here.
Paradoxically--and this is something one can argue at length--I've seen more than one Israeli and Arab author (a book by Netanyahu I read comes to mind first) making the argument that the Arab nations aren't hostile to the US because of it's connection to Israel, but rather they're hostile to Israel because of its connection to the US.
Really, there's not a lot of genuine sympathy from the Arab states for the Palestinians. There's lip service, propaganda and just enough funding of terrorist activities to keep the pot stirred, but if there were genuine empathy and concern, we'd have a very different situation. In fact, the Palestinians have routinely been left hanging and treated like shit by the Arabs (regardless of how the Israelis have treated them). Given this lack of sympathy, it's not hard for me to believe that the Arab nations aren't so much appalled that the Palestinians were conquered/robbed of their land/pick your phrase, but rather that they wound up with heavy Western interests in their midst because of it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:34 PM on June 6, 2008
I would agree with a lot of the reasons cited here.
Paradoxically--and this is something one can argue at length--I've seen more than one Israeli and Arab author (a book by Netanyahu I read comes to mind first) making the argument that the Arab nations aren't hostile to the US because of it's connection to Israel, but rather they're hostile to Israel because of its connection to the US.
Really, there's not a lot of genuine sympathy from the Arab states for the Palestinians. There's lip service, propaganda and just enough funding of terrorist activities to keep the pot stirred, but if there were genuine empathy and concern, we'd have a very different situation. In fact, the Palestinians have routinely been left hanging and treated like shit by the Arabs (regardless of how the Israelis have treated them). Given this lack of sympathy, it's not hard for me to believe that the Arab nations aren't so much appalled that the Palestinians were conquered/robbed of their land/pick your phrase, but rather that they wound up with heavy Western interests in their midst because of it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:34 PM on June 6, 2008
The Soviets were making inroads with Egypt, Syria, etc. and we picked up the opposing entity, which was Israel.
Ahhh... So since the Suez crisis pushed Egypt towards the Soviets (and away from the NATO powers that invaded), the US had to look to Israel as its regional client state. I see.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:41 PM on June 6, 2008
Ahhh... So since the Suez crisis pushed Egypt towards the Soviets (and away from the NATO powers that invaded), the US had to look to Israel as its regional client state. I see.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:41 PM on June 6, 2008
Israel was part of the British Mandate for Palestine, established by the League of Nations after World War I from part of the former Ottoman Empire. The November 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine called for establishing a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine. A civil war started almost immediately, sparked by Palestinian Arabs' perception of the partition plan as unfair. (Ironically, the proposed partition would have resulted in more land for the Palestinians than any likely settlement would do now.)
Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948. The United States recognized Israel eleven minutes after the Declaration of Independence was signed; Iran was the second country to recognize Israel. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria attacked Israel almost immediately that same day, starting the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The 1949 Armistice Agreements ended the war and established the Green Line as Israel's new border. ""A key feature of the Arabs' plans was the complete marginalization of the Palestinians." Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.
After a series of border clashes in May 1967, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan massed troops on Israel's borders, and Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on June 5, 1967, starting the Six Day War. Israel conquered what became known as the "occupied territories": Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The Green Line became the border between Israel and the occupied territories. (Israel attacked the USS Liberty during the war.) Israel has been establishing settlements in the occupied territories since 1967.
In November 1967, UN Security Council Resolution 242 called for:
Egypt started the limited 1968-1970 War of Attrition to try to regain the Sinai Peninsula. Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on October 6, 1973, starting the Yom Kippur War. The 1978 Camp David Accords resulted in the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty; Egypt regained control of the Sinai Peninsula in 1979.
After the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel turned the Gaza Strip over to the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) in 2005. At the 2007 Annapolis Conference Israel and the PNA agreed to pursue a "two-state solution." Most proposed two-state solutions would establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The Israel-US relationship doesn't have some of the usual characteristics of alliances. The US doesn't have troops based in Israel (at least openly). Israel didn't fight alongside the US in either war against Iraq, and the US didn't fight alongside Israel in any of its wars against the Arab countries. A resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict would be in the US national security interest since resentment of American support for Israel is one of the motives for terrorism against the United States, including the 9/11 attacks.
That's correct, mostly; 51% of Iranians are Persian, 24% are Azerbaijani.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:00 PM on June 6, 2008 [8 favorites]
Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948. The United States recognized Israel eleven minutes after the Declaration of Independence was signed; Iran was the second country to recognize Israel. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria attacked Israel almost immediately that same day, starting the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The 1949 Armistice Agreements ended the war and established the Green Line as Israel's new border. ""A key feature of the Arabs' plans was the complete marginalization of the Palestinians." Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.
After a series of border clashes in May 1967, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan massed troops on Israel's borders, and Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on June 5, 1967, starting the Six Day War. Israel conquered what became known as the "occupied territories": Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The Green Line became the border between Israel and the occupied territories. (Israel attacked the USS Liberty during the war.) Israel has been establishing settlements in the occupied territories since 1967.
In November 1967, UN Security Council Resolution 242 called for:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;There's a semantic argument about whether "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" means some or all of the occupied territories.
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
Egypt started the limited 1968-1970 War of Attrition to try to regain the Sinai Peninsula. Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on October 6, 1973, starting the Yom Kippur War. The 1978 Camp David Accords resulted in the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty; Egypt regained control of the Sinai Peninsula in 1979.
After the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel turned the Gaza Strip over to the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) in 2005. At the 2007 Annapolis Conference Israel and the PNA agreed to pursue a "two-state solution." Most proposed two-state solutions would establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The Israel-US relationship doesn't have some of the usual characteristics of alliances. The US doesn't have troops based in Israel (at least openly). Israel didn't fight alongside the US in either war against Iraq, and the US didn't fight alongside Israel in any of its wars against the Arab countries. A resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict would be in the US national security interest since resentment of American support for Israel is one of the motives for terrorism against the United States, including the 9/11 attacks.
I thought the Iranians weren't Arabs either, but Persians, even if much of the country is Muslim.
That's correct, mostly; 51% of Iranians are Persian, 24% are Azerbaijani.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:00 PM on June 6, 2008 [8 favorites]
What's the history behind the U.S. Israel relationship?
It's quite complex (see below, or kirkaracha's awesome comment), but I'd suggest that it boils down to the fact that it's human nature to regard conflicts as being between "good guys" and "bad guys," and that in the US, the Israelis are still mostly regarded as being the "good guys" (in particular because of the 1948, 1967, and 1973 wars). In the US political system, elected officials are also unusually susceptible to pressure from public opinion and organized interest groups; see Anthony King, Running Scared.
There's a number of key turning points in the US-Israeli relationship. One is the decision in 1948 to recognize Israel; see languagehat's comment. One caveat:
Clifford also notes: "Since at the time a significant number of Jewish Americans opposed Zionism, neither the President nor I believed that Palestine was the key to the Jewish vote. As I had written in 1947, the key to the Jewish vote in 1948 would not be the Palestine issue, but a continued commitment to liberal political and economic policies."
Nevertheless, historians usually contend that domestic political considerations (e.g. popular and Congressional support for a Jewish state) did play a role in Truman's decision, along with humanitarian motives: at the time of the 1945 Harrison report, there were one million Jewish refugees living in Europe in extreme conditions. See John Snetsinger, Truman, the Jewish Vote, and the Creation of Israel (1974); the full text is available through Google Books. See in particular Chapter 2, "Truman Seeks a Policy." A grad student paper by Nilay Saiya, The U.S. Recognition of Israel: A Bureaucratic Politics Model Analysis (2005), describes the competing views within the US government at the time.
mr_roboto: So since the Suez crisis pushed Egypt towards the Soviets (and away from the NATO powers that invaded), the US had to look to Israel as its regional client state. I see.
I'm afraid there's a ton of misunderstandings here.
At the end of World War II, the US was on fairly good terms with the Arabs--unlike Britain and France, it had no colonial history in the Middle East.
During the Cold War, the US had close relationships with several other states in the Middle East, not just Israel. Saudi Arabia is an obvious one: the US had to ensure that oil from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states would continue to flow to Western Europe. John Ciorciari describes the strain on this relationship following the 1967 war: Saudi-U.S. Alignment after the Six Day War.
In the initial stages of the Cold War, the "Northern Tier" states of Turkey and Iran--those bordering on the Soviet Union--were key, being most vulnerable to Soviet pressure. Hence the Iran crisis of 1946, the Truman doctrine, and the NATO alliance with Turkey. See Bruce Kuniholm, The Origins of the Cold War in the Near East: Great Power Conflict and Diplomacy in Iran, Turkey, and Greece.
Iran and Saudi Arabia were described as the "twin pillars" of US foreign policy in the Middle East.
Throughout the Cold War, at least up to the Reagan administration, the US has been extremely wary of the impact that US support for Israel would have on its relationships with other states in the Middle East.
Initially, US diplomats regarded Israel as a moral commitment, unwisely taken on by Truman: having supported the creation of Israel, the US had an obligation to try to prevent it from being destroyed by its hostile neighbors. They feared that Israel wouldn't be strong enough to defend itself, requiring US intervention. (Marshall, in 1948: it was "dangerous to base long-range policy on temporary military success.")
I would suggest that the 1967 war was much more important than the 1956 Suez Crisis: it demonstrated Israel's military strength, and therefore its possible usefulness as an ally in the Cold War. Judith Klinghoffer:
It's quite complex (see below, or kirkaracha's awesome comment), but I'd suggest that it boils down to the fact that it's human nature to regard conflicts as being between "good guys" and "bad guys," and that in the US, the Israelis are still mostly regarded as being the "good guys" (in particular because of the 1948, 1967, and 1973 wars). In the US political system, elected officials are also unusually susceptible to pressure from public opinion and organized interest groups; see Anthony King, Running Scared.
There's a number of key turning points in the US-Israeli relationship. One is the decision in 1948 to recognize Israel; see languagehat's comment. One caveat:
Clifford also notes: "Since at the time a significant number of Jewish Americans opposed Zionism, neither the President nor I believed that Palestine was the key to the Jewish vote. As I had written in 1947, the key to the Jewish vote in 1948 would not be the Palestine issue, but a continued commitment to liberal political and economic policies."
Nevertheless, historians usually contend that domestic political considerations (e.g. popular and Congressional support for a Jewish state) did play a role in Truman's decision, along with humanitarian motives: at the time of the 1945 Harrison report, there were one million Jewish refugees living in Europe in extreme conditions. See John Snetsinger, Truman, the Jewish Vote, and the Creation of Israel (1974); the full text is available through Google Books. See in particular Chapter 2, "Truman Seeks a Policy." A grad student paper by Nilay Saiya, The U.S. Recognition of Israel: A Bureaucratic Politics Model Analysis (2005), describes the competing views within the US government at the time.
mr_roboto: So since the Suez crisis pushed Egypt towards the Soviets (and away from the NATO powers that invaded), the US had to look to Israel as its regional client state. I see.
I'm afraid there's a ton of misunderstandings here.
At the end of World War II, the US was on fairly good terms with the Arabs--unlike Britain and France, it had no colonial history in the Middle East.
During the Cold War, the US had close relationships with several other states in the Middle East, not just Israel. Saudi Arabia is an obvious one: the US had to ensure that oil from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states would continue to flow to Western Europe. John Ciorciari describes the strain on this relationship following the 1967 war: Saudi-U.S. Alignment after the Six Day War.
In the initial stages of the Cold War, the "Northern Tier" states of Turkey and Iran--those bordering on the Soviet Union--were key, being most vulnerable to Soviet pressure. Hence the Iran crisis of 1946, the Truman doctrine, and the NATO alliance with Turkey. See Bruce Kuniholm, The Origins of the Cold War in the Near East: Great Power Conflict and Diplomacy in Iran, Turkey, and Greece.
Iran and Saudi Arabia were described as the "twin pillars" of US foreign policy in the Middle East.
Throughout the Cold War, at least up to the Reagan administration, the US has been extremely wary of the impact that US support for Israel would have on its relationships with other states in the Middle East.
Initially, US diplomats regarded Israel as a moral commitment, unwisely taken on by Truman: having supported the creation of Israel, the US had an obligation to try to prevent it from being destroyed by its hostile neighbors. They feared that Israel wouldn't be strong enough to defend itself, requiring US intervention. (Marshall, in 1948: it was "dangerous to base long-range policy on temporary military success.")
I would suggest that the 1967 war was much more important than the 1956 Suez Crisis: it demonstrated Israel's military strength, and therefore its possible usefulness as an ally in the Cold War. Judith Klinghoffer:
There is little doubt but that the Six Day War discredited the incremental Vietnamese policy of the Johnson Administration. Not only soldiers, but generals, too, resented the speedy Israeli victory. The mood of the military was well captured in a Conrad cartoon published in the Los Angeles Times and reprinted in the NYT showing the 4 members of the JCS, their eyes covered with a "Dayan Patch" placing a map of Vietnam covered with bold arrows telling startled LBJ "Now here's our plan..."After the 1967 war, US policy on arms sales shifted, e.g. with Lyndon Johnson's decision in 1968 to sell Phantom jets to Israel. Mitchell Bard:
[The policy of US evenhandedness] was best explained by Peter Solbert, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. In a letter to Senator Len Jordan, Solbert wrote that the [Johnson] Administration refrained from supplying large amounts of arms to either the Arabs or Israel because it wished to remain impartial, but that the United States was willing to make limited sales to both sides to strengthen the ability of Middle Eastern countries to defend themselves. "In no case, however, will the U.S. contribute to providing one state in the area a military advantage against another." This statement is highlighted because it reveals a fundamental difference between U.S. policy prior to the Phantom sale and after. That is, the Phantom sale represented a shift in U.S. policy from maintaining a stance of neutrality to one of providing and maintaining Israel with the arms it needed to build and keep a qualitative advantage over its Arab neighbors.Another key turning point was the Reagan administration. Mitchell Bard:
... Reagan was the first President to see Israel as a potential contributor to the Cold War.Leon Hadar:
Prior to his election, Reagan had written: "Only by full appreciation of the critical role the State of Israel plays in our strategic calculus can we build the foundation for thwarting Moscow's designs on territories and resources vital to our security and our national well-being."
The Israelis wisely played up their capability to deter the Soviet Union, while the Arab states refused to join the "strategic consensus" that Alexander Haig tried to create to oppose Soviet expansionism in the region. The Arabs insisted the greatest threat to them was not Communism, but Zionism. The Israelis never considered the Soviets their principal threat either, but were prepared to say otherwise to win Reagan's favor.
They began to reap the benefits of this approach on November 31, 1981, when the two countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) termed "strategic cooperation." The agreement was diluted by opposition from the Pentagon and State Department and did not provide for joint exercises or a regular means of cooperation. Worse, it was used as a stick to beat Israel with a month later when the MOU was suspended because of American dissatisfaction with Israel's decision to annex the Golan Heights. Still, for the first time, Israel was formally recognized as a strategic ally.
The end of the Cold War should have made the Israel-as-a-strategic-asset paradigm obsolete. But after 9/11 and against the backdrop of the Iraq War, neoconservatives succeeded in marketing the notion that the United States and Israel were now being brought together in a strategic alliance against "Islamo-fascism" and a global intifada. This alliance would operate in the form of an American sheriff and its Israeli deputy--American hegemony in the region with certain military tasks subcontracted to Israel. Israeli-Arab peacemaking was placed on the policy backburner. The neoconservative message has been that the United States needs to adopt more of the Israeli-tough methods in dealing with Middle Eastern terrorists and Bad Guys (since Arabs only understand force, etc.), which the Americans have been trying to do in Iraq with very little success. In the process, the Bush Administration has strengthened Iran--which, of course, runs contrary to both American and Israeli interests.posted by russilwvong at 2:04 PM on June 6, 2008 [7 favorites]
along with all else that's been said, it's very handy, when you're a major power contesting influence with another, both heavily armed, to have a friend who has kciked the asses of your enemies client state, thereby gaining you access to their recent military technology to evaluate, as well as the ability to test out yours by proxy. That's certainly part of it.
Then there's the guilt thing over societal indifference to the plight of Jews pre-WWII & the horror of the holocost when it became general knowledge.
There is certainly an active Jewish lobby (my bro refers to them as La Kosher Nostra) in the US, which doesn't hurt either. The strategic importance of the relationship was certainly strong enough to overcome the Liberty incident
posted by Pressed Rat at 2:11 PM on June 6, 2008
Then there's the guilt thing over societal indifference to the plight of Jews pre-WWII & the horror of the holocost when it became general knowledge.
There is certainly an active Jewish lobby (my bro refers to them as La Kosher Nostra) in the US, which doesn't hurt either. The strategic importance of the relationship was certainly strong enough to overcome the Liberty incident
posted by Pressed Rat at 2:11 PM on June 6, 2008
"it's very handy...to have a friend who has [kicked] the asses of your [enemy's] client state[s], thereby gaining you access to their recent military technology to evaluate..."
Yup, the United States got its first-ever look at a Soviet MiG-21 thanks to Israel, who managed to acquire one in 1966. It's a very cool story involving an Iraqi Maronite Christian (whose family had adopted an Iraqi Jewish boy who had not fled the country when his co-religionists had) who was serving in the Iraqi air force and who was upset that he was being forced to bomb Iraqi Kurds. He had an affair with a American woman working for the Mossad in Baghdad, and after sneaking his family taken out of the country for safety, he defected to Israel in the MiG.
posted by Asparagirl at 3:41 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
Yup, the United States got its first-ever look at a Soviet MiG-21 thanks to Israel, who managed to acquire one in 1966. It's a very cool story involving an Iraqi Maronite Christian (whose family had adopted an Iraqi Jewish boy who had not fled the country when his co-religionists had) who was serving in the Iraqi air force and who was upset that he was being forced to bomb Iraqi Kurds. He had an affair with a American woman working for the Mossad in Baghdad, and after sneaking his family taken out of the country for safety, he defected to Israel in the MiG.
posted by Asparagirl at 3:41 PM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]
You might be interested in Michael Oren's Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present. I haven't read it myself, but the reviews are good.
According to American media you'd think that those mean Iranians attacked the US embassy in 1979 for no reason, leaving out the part where the US overthrew their democratically-elected government in 1953.
When I was researching my post I was surprised to find that Iran hadn't participated in any of the wars against Israel (unless I missed something). I know Iran's backed Hezbollah and Hamas.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:08 PM on June 6, 2008
Iran and Saudi Arabia were described as the 'twin pillars' of US foreign policy in the Middle East.
According to American media you'd think that those mean Iranians attacked the US embassy in 1979 for no reason, leaving out the part where the US overthrew their democratically-elected government in 1953.
When I was researching my post I was surprised to find that Iran hadn't participated in any of the wars against Israel (unless I missed something). I know Iran's backed Hezbollah and Hamas.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:08 PM on June 6, 2008
When I was researching my post I was surprised to find that Iran hadn't participated in any of the wars against Israel (unless I missed something).
Nope. Not only did they not participate, they were natural allies (Iran was worried about the threat to them from the Sunni-Arab nations). They were trading partners and cooperated militarily. (wiki article) It is reported that they are still trading oil.
There are some people predicting that as a result of this history and the ongoing tension with the Sunni/Arab nations that the peoples of Iran and Israel have more in common with each other than their neighbors and will one day soon be allies again.
posted by Martin E. at 8:10 PM on June 6, 2008
Nope. Not only did they not participate, they were natural allies (Iran was worried about the threat to them from the Sunni-Arab nations). They were trading partners and cooperated militarily. (wiki article) It is reported that they are still trading oil.
There are some people predicting that as a result of this history and the ongoing tension with the Sunni/Arab nations that the peoples of Iran and Israel have more in common with each other than their neighbors and will one day soon be allies again.
posted by Martin E. at 8:10 PM on June 6, 2008
It's a non-muslim democratic foothold in a vast sea of muslim theocracies.
Well now there are lots of Muslim theocracies in the Middle East but at the time Israel was founded the governments were much more secular, usually Saddam-Hussein-type dictatorships, and weren't totally shabby democracy-wise. There were actually large enough, legit and existing Communist parties in some places that the Soviet Union didn't have to set them up.
It was mostly American foreign policy and the foreign policy of other Western powers, things like the overthrow of the democratically-elected Mossadegh government in Iran that kirkaracha mentioned, which has pushed everything into the hands of the theocrats. Heh heh, talk about blowback.
The U.S. fairly frequently acts as the enemy of democracy outside its own borders. We've had no more interest, during the last century, in democracies controlling the Middle East than we've had in democracies controlling South America and Central America.
I just read this very encouraging article[free registration required, try bugmenot], "Oasis Economies" in Strategy+Business magazine (Booz Allen Hamilton's journalistic outlet) that claims that in the interest of reducing economic dependence on petroleum-based income, the governments of many Middle Eastern and North African countries are actively trying to develop a broader base of domestic industries. This in most cases involves trying to develop a more robust middle class. And since a strong middle class usually promotes free and democratic thought and activity, let's all raise our steins to the Middle East pushing us around with broad-spectrum global industrial competition soon, rather than just pushing us around with crude oil prices ;^)
posted by XMLicious at 10:05 PM on June 8, 2008
Well now there are lots of Muslim theocracies in the Middle East but at the time Israel was founded the governments were much more secular, usually Saddam-Hussein-type dictatorships, and weren't totally shabby democracy-wise. There were actually large enough, legit and existing Communist parties in some places that the Soviet Union didn't have to set them up.
It was mostly American foreign policy and the foreign policy of other Western powers, things like the overthrow of the democratically-elected Mossadegh government in Iran that kirkaracha mentioned, which has pushed everything into the hands of the theocrats. Heh heh, talk about blowback.
The U.S. fairly frequently acts as the enemy of democracy outside its own borders. We've had no more interest, during the last century, in democracies controlling the Middle East than we've had in democracies controlling South America and Central America.
I just read this very encouraging article[free registration required, try bugmenot], "Oasis Economies" in Strategy+Business magazine (Booz Allen Hamilton's journalistic outlet) that claims that in the interest of reducing economic dependence on petroleum-based income, the governments of many Middle Eastern and North African countries are actively trying to develop a broader base of domestic industries. This in most cases involves trying to develop a more robust middle class. And since a strong middle class usually promotes free and democratic thought and activity, let's all raise our steins to the Middle East pushing us around with broad-spectrum global industrial competition soon, rather than just pushing us around with crude oil prices ;^)
posted by XMLicious at 10:05 PM on June 8, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by randomstriker at 10:04 AM on June 6, 2008