Dear Jo-Ann Mort,
In relations between countries, it is said, there are no friends, only interests. This principle applies, no doubt, to America as well. Still, an additional element defines Americas relations with other countries. Even taking into account all its varied interests, the foreign policy of the United States as opposed say, to that of countries like France is based on a formidable idealistic foundation. Even when America commits acts which are improper and which only America, as the worlds sole superpower, can allow itself to do, it often does so with the conviction that it is serving higher interests. Like other nations, America is cynical, only less so.
That same principle applies to Americas relationship with Israel over the last three decades. Yet at critical moments in Israels history, the situation was very different. Few today recall, for example, that as US secretary of state George Marshall (of Marshall Plan fame) opposed the creation of a Jewish state; and when it arose despite his opposition, he pressured President Harry Truman to withhold recognition (in fact, the Soviet Union was the first country to recognise Israel.)
Moreover, when this newborn state fought for its life against five Arab armies that invaded deep into its territory on the day it declared its independence, one of the two nations that immediately imposed an arms embargo on exporting weapons to Israel was yes, America (the second, not surprisingly, was Britain). With the exception of defensive anti-aircraft systems delivered to Israel in the early 1960s, the American embargo remained in effect until after the 1967 six-day war. And no Israeli prime minister, including the legendary founder of the state, David Ben-Gurion, was ever received at the White House until the post-1967 era (when he met President Eisenhower, it was at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York).
Today, conventional wisdom insists that President Bushs relations with Israel are unequivocally pro-Israel. There may have been a substantial shift in American attitudes toward Israel since the days of Marshall and Eisenhower, but I nevertheless question that assessment. At least part of the Bush administration, and certainly the state department, is prepared to gamble with Israels future - if not quite sacrifice it - to appease Arab public opinion. Americas war against global terror makes that attitude especially strange.
I know the case Im making contradicts prevailing opinion within the international media, which assumes unqualified American backing of Israel. But I ask that you suspend preconceived notions and consider for a moment how America relates in diametrically opposite ways to terrorism waged against its own citizens as opposed to terrorism waged against Israeli citizens.
As is well known, America doesnt recognise the 1967 occupation, even though Israel didnt conquer foreign territory but returned to its historic heartland, and most of all to its historical capital. Nor did Israels liberation of those lands compromise any nations sovereignty, because no sovereignty was ever established there after the Jews were exiled 2,000 years ago. Yet now the United States, through the roadmap and other pressures, is attempting to undo the territorial rights of the Jews in their own land. And those pressures are particularly damaging when they are applied at the height of and in response to the war of the suicide-bombers against Israel.
Almost every day, the United States president or his secretaries of defense or state repeat the self-evident truths that terror must be denied any victory, that there can be no negotiations with those who commit terror, that terror must be dealt a mortal blow. Yet that American doctrine is fundamentally undermined by Americas intention to force a plan on Israel before it manages to defeat the murderous terror wave aimed against it.
America must realise that pressure on Israel has negative implications globally, including on America itself, because Islamist terror knows no boundaries. Israeli concessions to terror as a result of American pressure will be interpreted as weakness not only of Israel but of America too, and will feed the self-confidence and appetite of al-Qaida.
As a matter of principle, there can be no difference between Americas attitude toward terrorism directed against its own citizens and terrorism targeted against Israeli citizens. America cannot insist that anti-American terrorism must be decisively defeated, while at the same time insisting that Israel must negotiate with terrorists, offer concessions to terrorism and refrain from aspiring to decisively defeat it.
An influential school of thought in the state department, the media and the American academy insists that America favours Israel and therefore harms its global interests. No doubt Arabs and Muslims around the world agree, as does a majority of European public opinion. That conventional wisdom wont disappear even if the United States continues to pressure Israel and weaken it in order to prove otherwise.
Fanatical Islam in Saudi Arabia wont change its ways even if the United States were to force Israel back to the 1967 borders. Al-Qaida wont suspend its plans to attack the enlightened world, especially the United States, just because Israel is weakened. The suicide bombers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad certainly wont stop their terror assaults, unless Israel defeats them.
In each case, the opposite is true: the terrorists will reassure themselves that not only have they defeated Israel, through its territorial concessions, but also America. Otherwise, why would America, Israels friend, force it to withdraw without first achieving a situation that would ensure that buses wont explode in Israels cities, that people in cafes and restaurants and discothèques wont be torn to pieces by suicide-bombers?
Yours,
Dear Yisrael Harel,
While the entire world awaits the decision by American voters this November, there is no doubt that Israelis await it with exceptional anticipation. When I was in Israel this past summer, everyone asked me about the United States elections, understanding the centrality of America to the Israeli fate.
Actually, I met you years ago in Jerusalem when you - a leader of the Gush Emunim settlement movement - agreed to speak to a group from Americans for Peace Now, of which I was one. Ofra, the West Bank settlement where you live, is the first settlement I ever visited; this was in the 1980s, and just days after several residents were convicted of terror crimes against Palestinians. To your credit, you have spoken out against such heinous acts. Today, the settlers again feel under siege and there are fears of a new wave of Jewish underground activity.
Indeed, the settlement project is unpopular among Israelis - even through the violence of the intifada, well over half of them consistently favour evacuating the settlements not only in Gaza (as Ariel Sharon is proposing) but in most of the West Bank. Even Sharon, patron of the settlement movement, uses the word occupation.
Thus, for you to argue that Israel since 1967 has returned to its historic heartland seems rather pointless to me, as does your argument that Israel is being forced by the US state department to gamble with (its) future; under President Bush, the state department has less influence on US foreign policy than anytime in recent memory.
By historic you mean biblical; I respect your religious attachment, but I dont think its relevant to today. The choice before Israel today is whether it wants to be a modern, democratic nation-state with a Palestinian state as its neighbour or a country ruled by a messianic minority that forces it to harm its rightful place among the nations.
I believe that the prescription you offer - waiting for an end to all terror before there can be political progress - will only bring more death to the region, and that Israels choice must be for peace negotiations led by a strong American hand. You argue that it would show weakness for Israel to negotiate while the violence continues, but I believe that Israel is strong enough to fight against violence while it simultaneously enters negotiations. I simply dont believe that the fanatics on either side should be allowed to set the ground rules for everyone - no matter under whose flag they live.
The United States has a clear interest in a stable middle east, an outcome that would benefit Israel and other countries in the region also. Whether the Arab world will still dislike America if there is a just resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is anyones guess; but I tend to think that putting out that fire can only aid the US in its laudable goal of promoting broader democracy in the region, and thus help Israel achieve security.
You are right to evoke the American democratic ideal as a reason for Americas attachment to Israel. But under the Bush administration there is an extra, and dangerous, source of affection for Israel - from Christian fundamentalists in the United States who have attached themselves to the settler movement in Israel, precisely because they, too, see modern life through a messianic lens. Real affection between Israelis and Americans, however, can only be built on mutual adherence to democratic values. For its part, Israel can only adhere to those values by ending the Palestinian occupation.
Whether David Ben-Gurion ever got to the White House or not is unimportant in todays context; but since you mention him, let me remind you that Ben Gurions genius was in understanding that broad global recognition of Israel, followed by support for the fledgling state, would strengthen the country. I recently visited the Tel Aviv museum that was once his home, and found a quote of his framed on the living-room wall: The state of Israel will not be tried by its riches, army, or techniques, but by its moral image and human values.
Today, the United States stands practically alone as Israels staunch ally. There are important distinctions of detail to be made between the records of Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and (potentially) John Kerry, but overall US support for Israel is unwavering. American support for Israel must indeed be steadfast, but American support alone is not sufficient to keep Israel secure. American support for Israel must be married to American values and goals. A friend is only a friend if he or she can tell you what you dont want to hear, as well as what you like to hear.
Sincerely,
The Letters to Americans project will run until the US presidential elections on 2 November 2004. Projects like this are challenging to organise and expensive to deliver, but we think it is worth it to bring America into dialogue with the world. If you agree, please support us.
Copyright and Contact All Letters to Americans exchanges are copyright of openDemocracy. For syndication, republishing and other enquiries please e-mail Julian Kramer@opendemocracy.net
