Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
America and Israel: Sentiment and Strategy
I was recently at a dinner party in mixed company. The political views of my fellow diners ranged across the spectrum from archconservative to radically liberal. I prefer the sort of arrangement. I’m a bit of a contrarian and I find nothing more tedious than agreement. This is particularly so when, as in this case, everyone at the table is intelligent and articulate.
Because we were a politically minded group, the topics focused mostly on current events, including Ukraine, the Obamacare rollout, and the latest Supreme Court decision on affirmative action. Eventually conversation turned toward the recently failed peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and, inevitably, to a discussion of settlements and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute generally.
Opinion at the table was fairly evenly divided, with conservatives taking a staunchly pro-Israeli stance and the liberals (with the exception of one of my friends who is Jewish) taking a more sympathetic view of the Palestinian position. I tend to side with Israel because I admire its liberal democratic values and military prowess, and I consider the Palestinian leadership to be at best corrupt and disingenuous and at worst genocidal terrorists. On settlements I’m fairly agnostic, as I have not taken the time to delve into the intricacies of the subject. To the extent that I care about the specific issue of settlements or even the larger Israeli-Palestinian dispute, it is through the lens of how it affects America and its interests.
In the course of arguing that Israel was justified in breaking off negotiation with the Palestinian Authority, my friend said that America needs to support Israel, not merely because it is the morally just thing to do, but because Israel is America’s closest and most valuable ally in the Middle East. This is a commonly held opinion, particularly on the Right, and usually goes without question.
As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an issue that I do not feel strongly about, I had been largely a passive observer of the conversation, a position to which I am unaccustomed. Feeling the urge to participate, as well as desiring to divert a conversation which showed signs of degenerating into charges of apartheid and anti-Semitism, I asked my friend what made Israel a particularly valuable ally to America. Specifically, I asked him to explain why, setting aside the moral case for doing so, it was in America’s strategic interest to be closely allied with the State of Israel.
This was not meant to be a gotcha question and I had every expectation that my friend would provide a convincing answer since up to this point he had demonstrated a knowledge of subjects relating to Israel which was masterful, bordering on encyclopedic. However, to my considerable surprise and mild disappointment, the question seemed to stump my friend. Aside from saying that Israel shares intelligence with United States regarding Islamic terrorists and Arab states, and that we conduct some joint military technology research, he didn’t have much of a response. Even these reasons were presented in the most general terms, contrasting sharply with the level of detail and specificity with which he had made his previous points.
I was actually a bit shaken by his lack of a robust answer. So, I submit it to you Ricochet members, what does America gain strategically from its close alliance with Israel and why, from the perspective of someone who is solely concerned with American interests, is America’s close alliance with Israel a net-benefit?
Dean Rusk, former Secretary of State, stated in the 1960s that America’s alliance with Israel was based more on sentiment then on strategy. Was he wrong? If so, why?
Published in General
“they stink if they’re obsessed…?” This does somewhat support my assertion that sentiment is an overriding factor in US-Israeli relations. Saudi Arabia does indeed stink, for a variety of reasons not limited to its views on Israel, but it is nonetheless a very important country strategically for the United States and we do have more difficult relations with it (and with the Gulf States) as a result of our close ties to Israel. Now that doesn’t necessarily mean that we shouldn’t have the relationship we do with Israel, but to say the cost to our relations with our allies in the Arab and Muslim world “doesn’t bother you in the least” is a rejection of interest in favor of sentiment.
Danny- I do apologize for being flippant, but it seems as though you are arguing that Judaism is primarily responsible for just about every good part of Western Civilization.
It’s a rejection of bullies and pigs. I’m sentimental about the truth.
Fair enough. That’s understandable, but it’s pretty much proving my point.
#55 Zafar and #56 Salvatore
There’s no colonization of any Arab country going on.
The British Mandate, held in trust for the developing Jewish National Home, established from the time of the San Remo treaty onward that the territory encompassing that National Home would actually extend considerably beyond the *East* Bank of the Jordan (to say nothing of the West Bank areas known as Judea and Samaria).
The British violated the terms of that trust when they lopped off the chunk of that territory that they proceeded to award to the Hashemite dynasty as partial consolation for the triumph of the House of Saud.
After that, the Brits proceeded with further loppings-off, making official the ongoing diminution of Jewish National Home territory and its illegal (under Mandate terms) gifting to Arab populations that had (again illegally) flooded into those areas in response (ironically) to Jewish-driven economic growth.
The status of all that territory, per the San Remo provisions, has not changed one iota over the decades — notwithstanding illegal Jordanian occupation of Judea/Samaria throughout the 1948-67 period and irrespective of Palestinian Arab assertions about patrimony etc.
See here:
http://carolineglick.com/
And here:
http://jcpa.org/
Were you responding to this statement Zafar made, “Links the US to the colonisation and occupation of an Arab nation in the perception of the Middle East and much of the Third World/Muslim World?”
If so, the point was not that Israel is in fact colonizing Arab lands, but that it is widely perceived to be doing so throughout the Middle East and much of the rest of the world. The cost to the United States is a consequence of that perception, inaccurate though it may be, and is something those who are concerned about America’s strategic interests need to consider when evaluating the pros and cons of our relationship with Israel. It may not be fair, but life isn’t.
#62 Salvatore
The morally upright parts, yes.
Consider that Jews and the output of Judaism have never been responsible for a genocide.
Then consider Western Civilization, circa 1933-1945.
Plus this political/philosophical/theological antecedent to that 1933-45 period:
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Inquisition-Fifteenth-Century-Spain/dp/0679410651/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400733082&sr=1-1&keywords=netanyahu+spanish+inquisition
Well Turkey is not a sentimental ally because there is no particular sentimentality on our end at least with respect to Turkey. Geographically Turkey is far more important to us because it controls the exit from the Black Sea, from which the whole Russian warm water Navy operates. Our relationship with Turkey is certainly more rocky but strategically I think it is more important as it impacts our ability to counter Russian aggression against our European Allies.
That’s good to know. I don’t want to get into the weeds of this. I fear our respective understandings of history are irreconcilable.
I think sentimentality plays a big role in our alliance with Australia, Canada, and England. I am not sure what strategic value Australia gives us in the Pacific considering how far removed it is away from possible conflict zones. We have bases in Japan and South Korea as well as our mid-pacific Islands like Guam, Midway, and Hawaii. That being said our cultural similarities give us great reasons for friendship, which I also think is true of Israel. Cultural affinity isn’t a small thing and I think often trumps strategic considerations. I don’t think this is wrong.
If “that’s understandable” then you must have changed your point. But, something this muddled is bound to have these little confusions.
Here’s the question about all this that might make things clearer: do you think, like all the leftists of the world do, that America has done more harm than good in the last 70 years or so? If you are just a garden variety leftist then I think things are much clearer about why you don’t like the great friendship we have with Israel and the implicit alliance we have with Saudi Arabia. I mean you don’t seem to like any of our middle east friends — at least as measured before Obama. How about Egypt? It must bother you about India cozying up to us, too. This is the common (but seldom admitted) thread that joins all these disparate views about the world — to always see America as the problem.
I think it’s accurate to say sentimentality plays a role in our relationship with Australia and I think cultural affinity is important, but the strategic value of having a substantial deployment of Marines in Darwin is actually quite large. They are practically on the doorstep of Indonesia and have access to both the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. This should not be discounted, nor should the value of the Australian Defense Force as a complement to our expeditionary endeavors.
Why on earth do you think that I view “America as the problem?” What have I said which makes you think that I am a “leftist?” I like our alliance with Israel. I just recognize that the reason I like it is that I like Israel. I don’t try to justify it by unconvincing claims of strategic necessity.
It’s understandable that you feel that way. That doesn’t mean that your right. It means I understand why you feel the way you do.
I’m a great admirer of Lord Palmerston who famously said, “Nations do not have permanent friends or allies, they have only permanent interests.” I don’t have to like someone to recognize their value to us.
In real terms and especially pound for pound, Israel is the greater strategic partner. They are situated in a part of the world (oil, don’t forget) where they can really help us — and they are tied to us because it helps their situation, too. I mean Australia’s invaluable and heroic help in WWII was a not to be repeated again scenario. Their part of the world is relatively safe. But, after the Japanese went that far south it does make them pay attention to the world’s bullies and pigs. As a result of that history, we will remain close and sentimental friends with them for some time — Inshallah.
What do you think they can help us do? I’m not forgetting oil. I just don’t see how our oil supplies are any safer thanks to Israel. Could you explain?
I think we’ve done a little better than that. Again, Israel is a respectably-sized trading partner, an important collaborator on military technology and intelligence, is located near one of the epicenters of world tension, and has powerful and active conventional military, as well as nuclear weapons. That’s an impressive roster of reasons for very close relations, and I’d say it balances out the financial and diplomatic costs.
Safe? China is becoming increasingly aggressive all across its maritime frontiers. There is a serious Islamic insurgency in the southern Philippines and Eastern Malaysia. Indonesia is directly to its north and has its own problems with Islamic militancy. Australia’s part of the world is going to be one of the key strategic areas of the next century, particularly since we are developing our own energy resources and will be dramatically less dependent upon the Middle East.
What indeed? You have just been spouting leftist debating points for this whole post and you have to ask. But, maybe you don’t realize how influenced you are by leftist propaganda. That trope about the rest of the world (#66) being something we have to worry about. That’s rich. The people you are talking about in the “rest of the world” are only the leftists. The left hates America and we should definitely not take cues from them. As soon as we give up on Israel in order to curry favor with that “rest of the world” the left will just come up with something else that we are doing that just must stop. And you will side against us there, too.
My advice: learn about the people in this country who won the cold war (conservatives and Republicans) and stop listening to NPR. Praise America for standing up to the bullies and pigs of the Soviet Union. We will do it again to the Islamists even through another Cold War. Don’t worry — we’ll put a boot up their ass.
What about that would change if our relationship with Israel was more like our relationship with Colombia than it was like our relationship with Britain?
Do you think we should not be concerned about the rest of the world?
You already said you don’t buy those reasons. What can I explain to you? It’s not explanations you want, is it?
Humor me. Explain why our oil supply is safer because of Israel than it otherwise would be.
Why do you have trouble with simple sentences? The rest of the world is your term — I am not concerned with leftists who pretend to speak for the world. Drop the NPR and MSM sources for your news.
We have already been humoring you. You should spend some effort reading the answers.
This is a very fair point and — despite my preceding comment — I think it’s important to acknowledge that Israel is only a regional power. An important, powerful, and good regional power, but regional nonetheless.
Sal is absolutely right that — as things currently stand and for many reasons beyond its control — Israel is not in a position to fight along side us outside of its immediate neighborhood in the way that Britain, Canada, and (especially) Australia have consistently done for the last century.
Israel’s certainly isn’t a military vassal of ours, but it’s not a fully-capable ally, either. I hope they’re in a position to become one someday.
Aside from recognizing that the rest of the world does, in fact, matter, what “leftist debating points” have I been spouting? I’m genuinely at a loss, particularly since my views on supporting Israel are probably not dramatically different from yours in practice. I just arrive at them based on different grounds. Could you explain to me what I’ve said that is indicative of my leftiness?
I am sort of a sentimentalist about these things. Frankly I think having strong alliances based on sentiments is ultimately better. We can always horse trade with people to get what we want, but such relationships are always highly contingent on circumstances. Sentimental relationships though require far more pressure to break and lead to far greater levels of commitment and support when it is actually needed. Also they are far more important in democratic systems where general public perception can drive policy.
I don’t know this but I am willing to bet that if you have American’s make a list of the countries that our our closest and most important allies you will find that it is always filled with nations that have large and well established immigrant populations in the US and other former English colonies. We like these countries because we see ourselves in these countries. Italy, Ireland, Poland, England don’t seem like distant lands to us, even though they are. Israel is much the same. Now for the average voter the tangible benefits of our alliances I think pale in comparisons to the cultural solidarity they feel with these nations.