HPRgument Blog — March 14, 2010 12:46 pm

The Great Paradox: Questioning American Support for Israel

By

Vice-President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Israel to jump-start peace talks seemed like good news, until he was met with an announcement from Israel’s Interior Ministry that it had authorized the construction of another 1,600 homes in occupied East Jerusalem. In my opinion, this highlights an incredible paradox of American foreign policy: how America’s unquestioning support for the state of Israel only threatens American global credibility and security.

America’s current relationship with Israel threatens America abroad and domestically. First, a critical element of American soft power is an appeal to basic norms of justice. But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a conflict between equal powers; U.S. backing of Israeli hegemony weakens American influence. When America supports a state that violates international law, as seen in the construction of the Israeli separation barrier and settlements in the West Bank, the world shakes its head in despair. “The world” is an appropriate term here, as America stands alone in the extent of its assistance to Israel. Historically, it has been the lone supporter of Israel, apart for a few Pacific island nations, in General Assembly votes (two of the many examples can be found here and here). In short, American credibility is crippled.

Second, millions of Muslims around the world perceive the U.S. as leading a war on Islam because of its aid to Israel, a view which prompted President Obama to declare that “the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.” This view of the U.S. strengthens the ranks of terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda,  Al-Shabaab, and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Of course terrorists do not hear of U.S. support for Israel and immediately strap on explosives. But American-Israeli relations do provide extremists with easy evidence for their radical doctrines. Engaging with individuals who believe you are out to exterminate their religion is not a constructive road to peace.

Third, it is a waste of money. America provides Israel with roughly $3 billion each year, about one-fifth of the American foreign aid budget. The vast majority of this ends up as Israeli military expenditures, including on the separation wall built in the West Bank. I cannot help but think what $3 billion would do for rebuilding Haiti or creating disease-prevention programs in Central Africa, or reviving the Palestinian economy and infrastructure. (Just for comparison’s sake, U.S. aid to the Palestinians since 2004 has averaged $400 million a year.)

But most importantly, U.S. aid to Israel is an obstacle to an Israeli-Palestinian peace. With American backing, Israel has no incentive to negotiate with Palestinian authorities, and the announcement, during Biden’s visit, of 1600 new homes in East Jerusalem simply demonstrates how careless Israel has become with U.S. backing. The West Bank is being progressively disabled through the gradual land consfiscations, and Gaza is completely incapacitated in its current position. Israel could not maintain the status quo without American assistance.

The great American paradox is that its support for Israel is contradictory to American interests. But there is a second paradox in American-Israeli relations: the majority of American Jews are liberal Democrats who support a two-state solution and feel frustration with the conduct of the Israeli government. This poll shows that 70% of American Jews believe Israel should support the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

Unfortunately, the majority is no match for the loud and powerful. An alliance of Jewish neoconservatives, officially represented in AIPAC and supported by influential academics such as Alan Dershowitz from Harvard University, have managed to take over the discussion. There is a tremendous gap between the average American Jew and his or her lobbyist on Capitol Hill.

American support for Israel has created two paradoxes. Its foreign policy does not serve its national interests, but only threatens American security, as well as peace in the Middle East. This is partly due to the fact that the American Jewish lobby has a perverted sense of its own interests in Israel.

What should be done? Ideally, American military assistance to Israel should end. Israel needs to take responsibility for its actions, instead of having financial assistance to do whatever it pleases. Realistically, this means American aid to Israel must become more nuanced. But more importantly, politicians and lobbyists need to understand that their decisions are hindering any possibility of an Israeli-Palestinian peace. Unquestioning support is damaging precisely because it is unquestioning. Israel should remain an ally, but for an end to the conflict, we also need Palestinians as friends.

Related posts:

Ambassador Tim Roemer
An Open Letter to President Faust
"Privilism": When Privilege Becomes an Insult
Straw Man Arguments Detract from Meaningful Tyga Debate
Tags:
Felix de Rosen is a Staff Writer for Harvard Political Review. He has written on various subjects, invcluding Middle Eastern politics, economic development, and political theory. He is primarily interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but am open to many subjects. Felix currently lives in Paris, France but lived in the United States most of his life. He despises the political process, but loves criticizing it. Felix is also a practicing nudist.
  • Jeffrey Kalmus

    Felix, I can only partially agree with one of your points here. America’s unlimited support of Israel can decrease its soft power because of some of Israel’s decisions regarding settlements, etc.

    But the fact that America stands alone in its support of Israel is no reason for America to stop or reduce its support. Israel needed to be created 60 years ago because, 70 years ago (and 60 years ago), no country would accept Jewish immigrants from Europe, instead allowing most to die and the rest to become refugees. Was that right because no other country supported the Jewish people either?

    Your next point says that extremists believe that the U.S. is at war with Islam because the U.S. supports Israel, so the U.S. should withdraw its support of Israel in order to convince these extremists that the U.S. is not at war with Islam. I think that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan do a lot more damage on this front than do American-Israeli relations. Also, incorrect beliefs (e.g. that Israel, and therefore America, seek the destruction of Islam) should not guide drastic changes in our foreign policy but rather better communication.

    The money issue is a red herring. No senator would say “We’d love to give $3 billion more to Haiti, but we’ve already given it to Israel.” That’s about .08% of our federal budget, and to make this type of argument, you can’t just give alternative places where the money can go but also alternative sources–i.e. the 1200 other places where $3B goes. I will, however, agree with your call for more U.S. money for reviving the Palestinian economy and infrastructure.

    Your second paradox is no paradox at all because you conflate Judaism and Zionism. AIPAC is not America’s Jewish lobby: the title of its website is “AIPAC – America’s Pro-Israel Lobby.” It is America’s Zionist lobby and has no pretensions of being America’s Jewish lobby. In fact, I would argue that there is no such thing as “America’s Jewish Lobby” — while there are many Jewish lobbyists and lobbying organizations, the group is way too splintered to be considered one lobby.

  • Harvard Student

    Good post, Felix. I wish you had dealt more with what Israel does with the American money, and why that should be a cause of concern to every American tax-payer. There is indeed an economic benefit to ending America’s support for Israel’s racist practices, but this economic argument is only effective because there is a moral imperative behind it.

  • drclasfellow

    The United States gives massive military aid to a state that is unwavering in its use of arms and warfare against a largely defenseless population, a state that violates the human rights of Palestinians on a daily basis and has increasingly turned Palestinian citizens of Israel into third class citizens. It needs to unplug its immoral involvement immediately because it is unethical, not just because it is not in U.S. interest.

  • GiacB

    The “war against Islam” is also being fought in “peaceful” Arab countries, where monarchic or oligarchic regimes persist only because they have US backing (i.e. US, Egypt). So not only are the US creating a divide between themselves and their allies and the Muslim world, but also a divide within the Muslim world (masses vs. rulers) itself. The more the US supports Egypt or Saudi Arabia, the more their citizens view the situation as a submissive relationship to a foreign power they already don’t like too much, and the more they want to get rid of the regimes governing them (the Saudi monarchy, Mubarak, etc.). And, because the most uniting and simplest ideology to do this is Islamism (at times at radical levels) they choose that path, just as a branch of the Iranian revolutionaries did in 1979 to legitimize their overthrowing of the Shah and their establishment of an Islamic Republic.

    To stop this degeneration the US should not only stop military support to Israel, as Felix proposes, but also to other regimes, encouraging their progression to more democratic systems. If the foremost affront to Muslims and Arabs – the continuing violence Israel perpetrates against Palestinians – is solved (or comes close to being so), a whole kind of fuel to radical fire will be removed, and this might allow the Middle East to progress maybe not in Westernization but at least in human rights, popular representation, and in decreased hostilities in the region.

    The Great Paradox is the US aiding regimes which have nothing to do with democracy or human rights while calling for the same two things in other settings (China, Myanmar, Iran, the list goes on…). The US has to realize that it is fomenting a vicious circle which might reach a point at which it will explode, and if they want to prevent a dangerous escalation of the “Clash of Civilizations” they have to both cure the US attack on Islam (Afghanistan and Iraq), those of their allies (Israel vs. Palestine), and the indirect challenges to Arab self determination US-funded regimes pose to the Middle East.

    It is no easy problem, but as Felix states, money has to do a lot with it, as does reputation. But the true objectives of this all involve human rights and freedom for oppressed people, people who have been ignored for far too long.

    Reps to the author!

  • Elie

    Interessant et tres eloquent, comme article. Je suis d’accord avec toi que l’aide Americaine doit etre nuance. Par contre, je ne suis pas vraiment sur que la politique Americaine de soutenir Israel represente un danger pour la paix du Moyen-Orient. Sauf pour l’Iran, (probleme inevitable) l’instabilite dans la region est lie a plusieurs autre causes. Une ature question,que veux tu dire en suggerant que le lobbie Americain-Juif lobby a un sens pervertie de ses propres interets en Israel?

  • Anna G.

    ^ While devoid of such eloquence as demonstrated above, all I have to say is support of Israel is pretty bipartisan. I’m a moderate conservative, registered Republican, but I support a two state solution. I’m also a an American Jew who supports Israel. Supporting Israel and supporting a two state solution are not mutually exclusive!

  • Larry

    First of all, to characterize Israeli settlements and its security fence as violations of international law is an egregious error. The most common international law article cited when it comes to the settlements being illegal is UN Resolution 242, which states that Israel should exchange terrotories captured during its 1967 defensive victory for peace with the Arab states it was fighting at that time. Once Jordan relinquished its claim to the West Bank in 1988, the West Bank became a disputed territory, and thus, hypothetically speaking, could be legally annexed by the State of Israel. However, due to the Israeli government (and people’s) superior moral code, Israel has continously tried to right the wrongs inflicted by the Arab states’ war of aggression on the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza by allowing for the possibility of self-rule for Arabs living there. Despite continuous attempts at peace ageements by Israel(including Camp David and the Geneva Conventions), they have been met with Palestinian violence. Also, it should be clearly noted that settlements are not the problem at hand, since the dismantlement of Gaza’s Jewish settlers in 2006 simply led to more violence and rockets from Gaza Palestinians. Thus, classifying the settlements as contrary to international law requires a bit more nuance than deRosen gives it.

    Next, I need to reverberate some of the other comments that critique Mr deRosen’s argument that America should cut ties with Israel just because of some of the misperceptions being circulated in the Muslim world. How about trying to educate the misinformed and let them know that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a territorial conflict and not a religious conflict. Palestinians are some of the most secular Muslims in the world…If the world was better educated about some of these facts, then maybe a higher level of discourse could take place over the conflict. But for America to break off ties with Israel due to the “Muslim World’s” misconceptions is quite scary (what’s next, cutting off ties with Israel because most of the world is anti-semitic? Yes, I suppose it might be good politics, but its a frightening proposition that political expediency outweighs any moral backbone). Should America discard freedom of religion and impose Shari’a if a majority of the worlds Muslims want that (which I don’t think they do, but its just a hypothetical)?

    Third, it is debatable whether American aid to Israel is excessive. However, it should also be noted that aid to Egypt, Jordan, and other countries in the middle east is excessive, and that Israel is an ally of the US. What does the US get from having Israel as an ally? A variety of technological advances, a counterweight to Iran, and other unfriendly powers in the Gulf and North Africa. It should be noted that the vitriol of Hamas and Hizbullah is directed at America as well as Israel (and something tells me that even if America broke off ties with Israel, their hatred of America would not simply vanish). This is due to the fact that the ideology of these organizations: Hamas, Hizbullah, and the country of Iran, are largely based on radical messianic Shiite ideology that truly believes in a Shari’a state. Look it up…while Hassan Nasrallah admits he can’t currently implement Shari’a in Lebanon, that’s his ultimate aim. Drinking has been outlawed in the Gaza Strip. These are rogue, anti-western ideologies. Should the US want to get in bed with them rather than Israel? By cutting off ties with Israel, will these rogue regimes’ appetites not simply be whet?

    Lastly, I’m frightened by deRosen’s conspiratorial claim that “An alliance of Jewish neoconservatives, officially represented in AIPAC and supported by influential academics such as Alan Dershowitz from Harvard University, have managed to take over the discussion.” What does this even mean??? This sounds as bad as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If there really are such a group of influential neoconservatives, can you please name them Mr. deRosen? Also, Mr. Dershowitz is a civil libertarian, and spent years working alongside the ACLU; would you call him a conservative in any respect?? This BORDERLINE ANTI-SEMTIC DIATRIBE by Mr. deRosen was the final straw in prompting me to write this comment. While he tries to cover himself by claiming that most Jews want a two-state solution, the insinuation that a group of Jews is plotting and using their heaps of money to sway the debate sounds fairly anti-semitic to me- especially when he has no proof or support to back himelf up with!

  • Felix de Rosen

    First of all, I want to thank everyone for commenting. As a new blogger, it really means a lot when I get this kind of feedback.

    Jeffrey. 1) About the war on Islam: my claim was that this was a factor among many leading to America’s bad reputation in the Middle East. I absolutely agree that Iraq and Afghanistan play a more important role in this respect, but you cannot deny that US-Israel have a part to play. No, I do not think the US should do terrorists’ bidding. But I do think that one of the many reasons why terrorists exists lies in their anger at how the US supports Israel (there are many other reasons of course: e.g. the US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq). The US should not stop supporting Israel because terrorists want it to do so. The US should review its support of Israel because American security is being threatened. Even Petraeus believes this: http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story
    2) Concerning money as waste, my point was simply that there are better places to place our money than in a developed country like Israel, especially when it ends up in military supplies.
    3) Concerning Jewish lobbying, I completely agree with you, but my point is that the average American Jew has a weak voice compared to AIPAC in American politics. Thank you for your comments. =)

    Zach. 1) see #1 above.
    2) The history of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is one in which BOTH sides have been unreasonable to some extent, both in their demands and offers. This is seen in the debate that surrounds what happened at Camp David. What Israel saw as a generous offer was seen by Palestinians as far from generous. Negotiations involve two perspectives Zach, not one. See here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380
    3) True, Netanyahu’s “economic peace” has helped economy of the West Bank. But this means little when the territory is cut into pieces by walls, settlements, and checkpoints.
    4) I agree that being pro-Israel does not mean being anti-Palestine. But, as I explained above, I do think there is a gap between the average American Jew and AIPAC. Clearly, AIPAC is NOT meant to represent the average American Jew; it represents Israeli interests. In that sense, there is a gap. As I explained in #2 above, “the stubbornness of the Palestinian leadership” is too easy an explanation for the failure of negotiations.
    5) No two states have ever had identical interests. See the comment right above yours.
    6) The reputation of the Harvard Political Review is based on diversity of expression. This blog was edited by the Editor-in-Chief of HPR and the online editor. If you have any qualms, I invite you to join HPR and see for yourself that ideas other than yours do in fact exist. But genuinely thank you for your comments. They are very helpful to me.

    Larry. 1) Your claim that Israel’s superior moral code prevented it from annexing the West Bank is unconvincing. Don’t forget that UN resolution 242 specifically emphasizes the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. And for specificity’s sake, Jordan ceded its claims to the PLO. The West Bank has never been disputed territory except in the mind of the Israeli government. The concept of land for peace emerged because the UN did not approve of the legitimacy of Israel’s land acquisitions after the 1967 war. Settlements and the separation barrier have both been declared illegal by the ICJ (here is the ICJ opinion on the wall: http://www.un.int/palestine/docs/writtenstatementenglish.pdf)
    2) See #1 under Jeffrey.
    3) These rogue regimes feed off and profit from the conflict. They would most likely collapse with a two-state settlement. I think it is naive to believe Hamas and Hizbollah are solely based on messianism. They are, more importantly, opportunistic movements (why do you think they were both founded in the 80s?).
    4) Unfortunately, the draft for the article I submitted had “Zionist Jews and neoconservatives”. This was changed to “Jewish neoconservatives”. I apologize for this mixup. You don’t have to call it an alliance, but you cannot deny that neoconservatives and Zionist Jews have one major element in common: supporting Israel. No, I would never call Dershowitz a conservative, but I would call him a Zionist Jew.

    I am sorry if what I say came off as anti-semitic. But I think you are confusing criticism of American and Israeli policies with criticism of Judaism. There is a difference, and never once would I ever think of criticizing any religion. Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated =).

  • ’11

    your article reminds me of what i just read on glenn greenwald’s site:

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/15/israel/index.html

    and larry, when you start of making such a ludicrous statement like calling Israeli settlements is an “egregious error” you lose complete credibility in the face of:

    “International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention [1], every major organ of the United Nations [2], and the European Union have declared that the settlements are a violation of international law. ”

    [1] ^ Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention: Declaration, GENEVA, 5 DECEMBER 2001 [1]
    [2] ^ See UN General Assembly resolution 39/146, 14 December 1984; UN Security Council Resolution 446, 22 March 1979; and International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, para 120

    nice job larry, stick to cable comedy

  • Larry

    Mr. deRosen,

    I appreciate your response to my comment, but I find your arguments unpersuasive.

    In regards to Jordan ceding the West Bank to the PLO: seeing as the PLO is not a recognized state, international law could not recognize such a transfer of authority, as international law strictly relates to state actors. As Israel was the de facto occupying power at the time of the cession, it had the legal authority to maintain ownership over the land. There are numerous instances in international law when state sovereignty over a certain plot of land is sufficient to establish a stake on it if no other state has proper title to the land. As this appears to be the case in Israel’s situation (as no STATE ACTOR) could claim responsibility for the land, the Jordanian relinquishment of land appears sufficient to establish Israeli control post ’88. I will not argue that Israel may have had some ulterior motives in attempting to give back some of the land in the form of a two-state solution. On oft-cited reason, is the fact that Israel wants to maintain a Jewish majority. After having seen what the Jewish people went through during the Holocaust (in addition to the Spanish Expulsion and other traumatic events), it is fairly reasonable to see why the Jews don’t want to be a minority in a state potentially exposed to the whim of the minority. This is one of the fears that many have with the proposition of a bi-national state, and probably, an additional reason as to why Israel bypassed annexation of the West Bank. However, if it were to do so today, an argument could be made for its legality.

    Second, I don’t think you sufficiently answer the question of why America should have to bow to misperceptions in the Muslim world. The article you sent me talked about perceived American weakness after being unable to stop Israel. There are two ways to react to this sort of analysis: you either blame Israel for not having stopped building or you blame the Obama administration for having the gaul to ask an ally to stop building nuresery schools and residences for its growing population. I obviously adopt the later approach, I’m assuming you take the former. But the reason why the former reaction is wrong, is because it implies that the building of settlements in some way justifies Palestinian violence against Jews. This has been reverberated time and time again with the Obama administration’s insistence that Israel stop building, due to the “fragile situation”. What’s fragile about the situation? Is that a threat? If Jews want to live in a certain area, they can be targeted? I wonder how you would respond to the following article, Mr. deRosen http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156775.html
    I see it as Hamas violence, you probably see it as Hamas resistance. This is what scares me, when people try equate violence with resistance. Israel is simply building homes and and the Obama administration is haranguing the Jewish state, yet Iran continues to build a NUCLEAR WEAPON and Obama offers them carrots. This is absurd, as is your notion that America needs to respond to the wants of a misinformed majority.

    Third, it is patently false to claim that the instability of the secular regimes in the Arab world has anything to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The election of Hamas, and the anger that many Arabs have toward secularist regimes is their perceived corruption and lack of democracy. This can be seen in the fact that the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1928, before the state of Israel even existed. So, frankly, you’re dead wrong once again in thinking Islamism’s rise is due to Israel.

    Lastly, you can try to backtrack and parse your words as much as you’d like, but the your larger message is clear. You think that there is an orchestrated group of Jews and neoconservatives out somewhere plotting on Israel’s behest. I hate to break it to you, but while there may a large number of pro-Israel advocated out there (Jewish and non-Jewish alike), there is no smoke-filled room with the elders of Zion plotting against America. I’m sorry if this news comes a bit harshly to you, as I’ve seen by your history of your blogs that you have a fondness for going after the Jewish people and the state of Israel. I would advise you as follows: instead of condemning a state and a people that strongly believe in democracy, justice, and the rule of law, make it your passion to pursue the most vile violators of human rights. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China and others. In no way am I trying to deflent dissent in regards to Israel’s policies. But come on. You and I both know that women are being trafficked, young children are being forced into labor, and dissent is being stiffled in many countries. Why are you going after a country that simply wants to HOUSE ITS YOUNG, OLD, and SICK. You can’t blame me for reasoning that it has to do with your clear antipathy toward the Jewish people and state.

  • Pingback: Here Are 41 Joe Biden Expressions You Must Know | Being 1732

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1361962696 Aundria Cooper Premo

    There is no Palestine, therefore; there are no Palestinians. How hard is that to understand? Palestine is not a state, not a country, not a race, not a nationality, not a religion…it simply does not exist. “Palestine” is nothing more than the chosen title of a terrorist organization whose only goal is to steal Israel. Period.

custom writing