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
I think we’ve reached an impasse.
I’ve read the answers and I don’t see this issue addressed. Could you at least direct me to the comment which explains how Israel secures middle eastern oil?
Sal has written nothing to suggest what you’re accusing him of and your ad-hominen statements are unbecoming of you; you owe him an apology.
Do you consider General James Mattis a leftist? He has publically acknowledged the fact that our alliance with Israel makes things much more difficult with Arab and Muslim states. I don’t listen to NPR, but I do listen to a former CENTCOM commander who happens to be one of the best Marines of a generation.
See my comment at #88. I think the proper relationship would be between these two.
Well we can all hope. As things stand now though we specifically never ask Israel to aid us in our Middle East wars because their joining of our coalition would probably drive away our far more strategically important if militarily less capable Arab allies.
[Redacted for CoC]
I absolutely agree. I was rather vague about it, but that’s one of the things I had in mind when I said their circumstance isn’t of their own choosing.
I’m on board with that.
If multiple people are having difficulty reading your simple sentences, have you considered that your sentences may be the problem?
[Redacted for CoC]
[Quotation redacted for CoC]
Good night, Larry.
[Redacted for CoC]
[Redacted for CoC]
[Quote redacted for CoC]
As always, I’ve enjoyed our dialogue. I’m sorry that it has been frustrating for you. I’d still appreciate specific examples of the “specious stuff” I’ve been spewing which outs me as a leftist, but if you’re unwilling to explain it to me I’m not going to force you.
[Redacted for CoC]
Sal, thanks for clarifying. Your focus on cost-benefit was not obvious to me (and I imagine others as well). Looking back, your responses make more sense to me now.
To answer the cost side requires a look at what closer relationships with Israel’s enemies would do for the US. I think it’s very little. It also presumes that the US-Israel relationship is an actual hindrance, as opposed to a pretext. Recent reports of Israel-Saudi cooperation suggest that in many cases it is the latter. And it requires a look at how our support Israel signals support for smaller democratic regimes generally, which can discourage aggression by (less stable) autocracies.
(cont.)
(cont. from #106)
Also, I think the aid component of the relationship has been exaggerated. Numerous Israeli government and defense officials have come out essentially on Rand Paul’s side, saying that the defense aid can be more of a hindrance than a help (it ties Israel’s hands on its technology roadmap). The aid was a particular outgrowth of the Camp David accords, a reassurance that Israel could trade land for peace because the US would help it maintain a qualitative military edge. If the aid disappeared tomorrow, the relationship would survive. On the other hand, if the US continues to chip away at what used to be perceived as shared interests — in particular, combating Islamic terror and preventing a nuclear Iran — the alliance will fray.
The “rest of the world” criticism was a favorite of anti-war Democrats (or in retrospect, anti-Bush partisans) — in particular Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry — in 2004 and 2006. Remember John Kerry’s “global test”?
It was wrong for three reasons, which apply now too. First is the matter of diversity. We have different opinions here on (relatively homogenous) Ricochet. It’s impossible that the rest of the world’s billions of people take one side of any issue.
Second is the related matter of selectivity. John Kerry, leftist SCOTUS justices, news reporters, and others who invoke “global” norms are really just selecting people who agree with them.
And third is the matter of relevance. It was in our interest to enforce UN Security Council resolutions against Saddam, regardless of what some Ghanian, Belgian, or Korean diplomat might say. Of course, a calculation of our interests with regard to Israel must consider whether offending certain other allies’ opinions would do more harm than good. But that’s a calculation, not a blanket deference to “global” opinion.
SoS- By taking into account the rest of the world I do not mean that world opinion should be dispositive or that the opinion of a Belgian diplomat should get in the way us of pursuing our national interests. I was making the point that, though we are the global superpower, we do have to operate in a world full of countries which can either help or hinder us. Taking into account how our actions will effect the cooperativeness of other nations, particularly when they are our allies, seems to me to be a essential part of strategic calculation. As I said, the opinion of other countries should not dictate our policy, but it should not be dismissed as irrelevant either.
I don’t think that our relationship with much of the Arab and Muslim world would be all sunshine and light in the absence of our relationship with Israel, but it does make things more difficult when dealing with our Arab and Muslim allies. As I referenced above, former CENTCOM commander James Mattis discussed the difficulties the close US-Israeli ties cause us in our dealings with other friendly countries in the region. Ricochet’s own BrentB67 has told of similar experiences he had when deployed to the Gulf. I’ll reiterate that I don’t think it’s Israel’s fault, the Arabs are being unreasonably truculent, but it is a fact that our military has to deal with.
I’m not quite sure about this. It sounds good in theory and if you’re only looking at our support for Israel it seems to make sense (particularly earlier in Israel’s history, before it became the clearly dominant regional military power), but I don’t think this has much of an effect in practice. Fairly or not (I think unfairly), in most of the world Israel is not really perceived to be a threatened nation the way it was a few decades ago.
Beyond that, anyone looking at American foreign policy on a more global basis will conclude that our support for Israel has not established a precedent of supporting small democracies against aggressive neighboring autocracies (look at Georgia and Ukraine) when those small democracies actually need our help to defeat the aggression.
Agreed.
Chomsky:
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
Here is a simple answer:
Iran may soon have a nuclear weapon to deliver.
Thus far, Israel has intercepted Iranian arms shipments by ocean. The US has failed to do so. The single easiest delivery message of a nuke which is still a new design (not miniaturized for missile head) is via shipborne container. So Israel stands, right now, the single best way to avoid a US city being nuked by Iran.
How is that for a strategic interest?
Wouldn’t it be in Israel’s interest to prevent Iran’s nuclear ambitions from reaching fruition regardless of its relationship with the United States?
It’s in just about everyone’s interest that nuclear weapons not be used, even against countries we aren’t fond of. For example, we’re not very chummy with Russia at the moment, but if we had the ability to stop Chechen terrorists from setting off a nuclear bomb in St. Petersburg I’ve no doubt we would.
Sal – Mutual interest is certainly a reason for alliance.
But Turkey might very well NOT do anything if it knew a container with nuke was headed to NYC. Israel would. More importantly: Israel has the knowledge and resources in this area that the US has NOT demonstrated that it has.
Israel has consistently intercepted Iranian arms. That requires Humint on the ground in Iran. That, by itself, would make alliance with Israel more important than with anyone else.
But isn’t that the foundation of a strategic alliance? When another country’s interests are largely overlapping with our own, we should want to offer support so that country succeeds — and not throw up roadblocks or otherwise undermine its ability to pursue those interests.
Very deep stuff — good ol’ Chomsky. Gosh, do you think he’s talking about America?
Good point about common interests being the basis of a strategic alliance. but I do see the fundamental distinction between an alliance and merely complementary interests as being that the parties will assist each other in way which are not strictly related to the shared interests. So while I’ve no desire to throw up roadblocks or undermine Israel’s ability to pursue our shared interests, I don’t see Israel doing something which is clearly in its interests as a matter of our alliance, even if it also benefits us.
I do apologize for constantly using Australia as an example of the difference between a strategic alliance and merely overlapping interests, but its participation in various American wars, particularly the Korean and Iraq Wars was not based on Australia’s narrow interest, but on the larger value of maintaining it’s strategic alliance with us. I’m not saying there aren’t any, but I’m having a hard time coming up with an example of Israel assisting us when it didn’t also serve Israel’s immediate purpose.
So now you introduce altruism as a new requirement? What other country is required to do this?