Is Israel Really America's Ally?

[Purveyor]

Many of Michael Oren's observations are grounded in reality, and many of the facts he deploys are incontrovertibly true ("The Ultimate Ally," May/June 2011). But Israel is in a more precarious position in the United States than Oren suggests. I am reasonably sure Oren, as ambassador to the United States, understands this; I am equally sure that his prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, doesn't.

Netanyahu, to some degree, and to a greater degree his right-wing coalition (including his foreign minister, a man so disreputable he cannot be displayed to the American public) do not seem to understand that Israel, despite its popularity in the United States, is the junior, dependent partner in this relationship. Yes, Israel is in some ways a strategic ally of the United States, and yes, its scientists create all sorts of products valued in America; but it is impossible to argue that America needs Israel more than Israel needs America. So when a U.S. president who is obviously pro-Israel (no U.S. president has worked more assiduously to maintain Israel's "qualitative military edge" than has Barack Obama) believes it important to make progress on the creation of a Palestinian state, it is best for Israel to take him seriously. This the Netanyahu government has not yet done.

Israel may one day soon find itself with fewer friends in America -- in particular on the coasts and among elites -- than it previously had. The Arab revolts have inspired many Americans who will soon look at the West Bank and see unfree Arabs. Then they will look at who is suppressing these Arabs and see Israel; and then they will become confused by this, because they have heard many times that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

Israel is popular in the United States in part because Americans believe, to borrow the most famous cliché in Middle East policymaking, that the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But more and more Americans believe that it is Israel that is missing opportunities to reach a compromise with the Palestinians. If, over time, Israel becomes unrecognizable to Americans, it will lose. Israeli leaders believe it would be impossible for Israel to lose the affection of America. They are wrong.

MORE...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/20/is_israel_really_americas_ally

[Kolesar]

1. Error: You can't recommend threads from this forum

eom

[oberliner]

2. This letter was written by Jeffrey Goldberg not Stephen M. Walt

And there is no "more" as you have posted the letter in its entirety.

[aranthus]

3. The Walt letter follows Goldberg's on the linked page.

It's the usual Walt trash.

[Purveyor]

4. I corrected the 'By Walt' in the header of the OP however as already stated, there is MORE... eom

[oberliner]

5. There isn't "more" of that letter - there is a different, second letter

There are two different letters to the editor.

You posted the complete Goldberg one.

[Purveyor]

6. I posted an 'titled page' that contained both the Goldberg and Walt letters. One link, 2 letters.

[holdencaufield]

7. The Larger Question is -- is the US Really Israel's Ally?

The US will continue just fine without Israeli Aid and military support. In a more perfect world where those who seek to destroy Israel are also receiving massive aid, Israel wouldn't even need the US. Israel survived just fine for nearly two decades without ANY governmental support to Israel. Allies who aren't dependent on each other for survival must be allied for ideological purposes and because they have commonality of purpose. Where those commonalities disagree, allies will "agree to disagree".

This is just such a case. It is not in Israel's interest to accede to Palestinians demands for '67 borders, right of return, or the surrender of Jerusalem. It is in Israel's interest to negotiate a settlement with Palestinian defensible borders with a neighbour-state who renounces armed conflict.

What the US' interest in this -- beyond increasing President Obama's re-election chances -- are unclear to me. If the US is acting solely out of a desire to prevent casualties in the Middle East then perhaps Syria should be a higher priority than Israel.

So while, as conscientious ally, the US is free to suggest to Israel a course of action; Israel is, as a equal ally of the US, free to say, "No thanks" to that suggestion.

[donobry]

8. Allies?

"the US is free to suggest to Israel a course of action; Israel is, as a equal ally of the US, free to say, "No thanks" to that suggestion."

That sounds about right... Israel saying no, and I expect America, yet again will take it. And, I expect, Israel will continue to violate international law by building on occupied land, and nothing will be done about it. Allies perhaps isn't the right word in this context!

[Shaktimaan]

9. well of course not.

Nations CAN of course, if they want to. Nations even HAVE in the past. George H W Bush did just that. Successfully too. But for most it's just not worth the effort. I mean, let's face it, it isn't like the Palestinians are any great allies of America. Why should we go nuts trying to defend them NOW, after how they have responded to us in the past? We do quite a bit for them and get very little in return.

And, I expect, Israel will continue to violate international law by building on occupied land, and nothing will be done about it.

Ah, yes well, one of the reasons for that is because the legality of settlement building is *really* debatable. Yeah, I know... no one likes it. Many settlers are horrid and violent and contribute hugely to the problem on the ground. That said, most of the discussions or legal cases thrown around here seem to have key flaws in their seeming quite rigged from the get go.

Bear in mind I'm not talking about ALL settlements. Those wildcat things that are purposefully build on Palestinian owned land are clearly illegal and should be shut down, every day if need be. Either way it doesn't really matter. Once you disregard the roads and army bases and stuff the occupied land for settlements in the WB is really tiny. If the situation were reversed I'd say "fuck it, let em have it if it means I can have a job and a halfway decent shack to spread out in."

My understanding is that as long as the settlement is built on unclaimed or government owned land then it's perfectly legal for them to build there. (barring permits, etc.) But if any of the settlement drifts into privately owned Palestinian land then it's a bust. Illegal. (Not that the IDF'll come rocketing in to tear it down or anything), just pointing out that a distinction DOES exist.

ALL of the land is disputed anyway. It's not like anyone decided to award the entire WB to the Palestinians sometime last week. I realize the Palestinians look at those settlements and see them as stealing 4% or 5% of the entire WB from them but the thing to understand is that none of that land legally belongs to the Palestinian state at all. They didn't own it before, they haven't owned it since, they don't own it now. Now you can argue that they DESERVE IT, and probably make a very convincing case. They DO deserve it, you'll get no argument from me.

But owning something and deserving it are two very distinct concepts that have entirely different legal implications, as I'm sure you're aware. They get lots of sympathy for their position, which helps their grassroots, worldwide and legal-based actions. But it doesn't mean that all of their statements are plainly true. It's a political issue and people tend to look at it through exclusively political lenses.

Myself, I have yet to hear a convincing argument for the illegality of settlement.

[donobry]

10. +

I cannot help but agree with you, a very balanced response, thank you!