Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In order to maintain a balanced and effective foreign policy in the Middle East today, Americans need to more objectively assess and approach each of the various nations in the region as well as how they interact with one another. The arguments for and against various courses of action with Islamic nations are pretty well established and our approach as well as our attitudes are usually quite open and blunt. In the case of Israel however, we share a special relationship that has caused a loss of objectivity in both how the US relates with Israel but also how Israel relates with neighboring states and the region in general. The reason for our special relationship with Israel is something of contention and is often interjected upon from various views of religion, politics, race, ethnicity, and economics that arrive from positions of legitimate policy criticism and from extremist views alike.
First I would like to open with a passage from George Washington’s farewell address, which I feel aptly applies to Israel or any nation and how this basic and fundamental concept has been all but abandoned in contemporary times.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
So we arrive here today in a position that is exactly what George Washington warned us about. We have what is often referred to as a, “special relationship” with the nation of Israel that is completely unlike any other relationship the United States has with any other nation. This relationship that is born out of America’s shared religious sentiments as well as sympathies for historical atrocities, makes this association all the more precarious, and I will venture to say detrimental to both short and long term interests of the United States and Israel alike.
Even how we as a country define or frame the parameters of our criticism towards our relationship with Israel or their policies, has become increasingly narrowed in definition. Our relationship with this nation has been moving towards a point where today our own State Department considers “strong objections to US-Israeli policy” to be Anti-Semitic. We in the United States can openly and publicly hold harsh criticisms such as calling our President an incompetent fool or the Vice President a treasonous war profiteer or openly blame homosexuals and feminism for being the cause of September 11th terrorist attacks without fear of reprisal; however you can’t strongly object to US-Israeli policy or associate Israel’s treatment of the people in the Gaza to any prior act without being labeled an Anti-Semite and potentially become subject to current hate speech laws.
How did this rationalization take place? In part it is from the efforts of people like Zuckerman and Dershowitz, who have long asserted that any criticism of Israel or Zionism is actually a criticism of Jewish peoples. Since after all, Israel by its own charter is to be a, Jewish only state and by ipso facto to be critical of Israel is to be critical of Jewish people and hence, Anti-Semitic. Even to be Jewish and to be critical of Israel, Zionism or its policies is to risk being labeled hostile or worse, a self-hating Jew as people like Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak* and Norman Finklestein have long understood.
In an excellent piece from The Nation magazine titled, The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism, this assertion is well discussed and documented.
To oppose the existence of the Jewish state at this point means nothing less than wanting to deprive these Jews of their homeland and perhaps their very lives. It also means depriving millions of other Jews, Jews around the world, of their protector and their safeguard. For who will come to the defense of Jews, and who will offer persecuted Jews a place of refuge, if not Israel, the Jewish state? Only an antiSemite would want to destroy this state."
So why do American’s accept this rather illogical assertion that criticism of Israel or Zionism is the same as hate or ill will towards the Jewish peoples? One only has to look around at contemporary views of many American’s post September 11th and most notably, that of Christian evangelicals, have towards both the Jewish people and that of the Islamic world to see where this originates. Being that Christianity is rooted in Judaism and the belief that Jew’s are God’s chosen and favored people, this deep felt sentiment immediately precludes nearly any chance of our objectivity in weighing the actions or policies of Israel or the relations we may share. Combined with open hostility towards the Muslim world (and in many cases, rightly so) the scales begin tilted in favor of a predetermined point of view.
Outside of sentimental, religious, and ethno-cultural reasons for our favored views and policies towards Israel, one should also ask, what are the practical and pragmatic reasons that such a relationship should exist in its current form? Is it truly beneficial to the United States and our interests in the region? While many have argued that this relationship is strategic in nature and necessary to our objectives, this view is highly disputed and greatly discussed by many in the academic and military communities as well as within Israel itself. Yet in the general national dialog and in our media, this discussion almost never takes place. It should be noted that those who have dared to be critical of our relationship or the policies of Israel have done so at great risk to their individual careers and personal credibility, two of which I will mention.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, grants to Israel have cost US taxpayers over $1.2 trillion since 1975. That sum includes, as it should, the cost of servicing the annual outlays as new debt. All grants given to Israel are done so in the form of loans which are later converted to grants, giving Israel the ability to note that it has never failed to pay a loan back, since it has never been required to. This rather large sum of money is granted to Israel, the 16th most wealthy nation on earth, the only nuclear power in the region which has refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty.
During the current US conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Desert Storm, the US has not been able to use Israel as a staging point out of fear of inflaming the entire Arab world, yet we fail to recognize that our extreme favored treatment of Israel also happens to be one of the largest causes of anti-Americanism in the region. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel and the Palestinians can hardly managed to police their own people, let alone be a serious threat to Israel. Russia has since abandoned its support for Syria, and even Saudi Arabia has signed peace agreements with Israel. This leaves one to wonder why the US continues to subsidize such vast sums of money, technology, and political support to the nation of Israel out of practical realities that no longer exist.
In a recent book titled the “The Israel Lobby” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, which has been the cause of a great deal of controversy, yet remains as one of the most comprehensive and researched works on the subject to date. In their book, which was preceded by an equally controversial paper, they touched upon many instances and points of contention about our relationship with Israel and the influence various pro-Israeli lobbies have in shaping our views towards this relationship. While subjected to enormous amounts of criticism from a variety of pro-Israeli interest, both here and abroad, it has also been seen as having opened up many avenues of legitimate discussion and has even found praise by those in academic circles, the international community and in Israel where many see the current US-Israeli relationship as more of a hindrance to Israeli policies and objectives. Yet within the United States, these men have been accused as grossly biased and of Anti-Semitism even though large segments of the work are based upon information derived from our own government’s policies and statements. In the following excerpt from their paper we see a critical view of Israeli democracy, which also happens to relate to the next person of mention.
Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a ‘neglectful and discriminatory’ manner towards them. Its democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own or full political rights.
We have also seen attempts at denouncing of former President Jimmy Carter in recent years. In his book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, published in November 2006, Carter states, "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land." Despite Carter’s deep Christian and humanitarian beliefs as well as his long history of negotiating peace in the region, he too has been accused of Anti-Semitism, misrepresentation, and gross inaccuracies.
From shared religious foundations to a gravitation towards laws in which make criticism of Israel or her policies hate speech, to the general attitudes towards the Islamic world in the aftermath of September 11th, it should bring one to pause and consider if a balanced and reasoned US foreign policy in the region is even possible. So then, how do people expect a balanced and sound foreign policy to emerge when the discussion on this issue begins from a predetermined perspective, regardless of the facts of a given situation? Why does the United States even wish to attempt to present our Middle East foreign policy as balanced when it clearly is not and can be repeatedly shown as such?
While I welcome a continued relations and a friendship with Israel, I wish for one that is on par with the type of relationships we maintain with all other nations and allies, and one devoid of religious connotations. Since it is a nearly impossible that any two nations will have the exact same goals, interests, and objectives, attempts to portray the situation in such a context is disingenuous and grossly misguided. Currently our relationship is one that makes our other interest in the region far more difficult to achieve, places us as greater risk through increased regional hostilities and views, and quite frankly costs us a lot of unnecessary monies that we simply don’t have to spend. In addition, this favored status is more likely to lead to actual Anti-Semitism and hostile views towards Israel from both those in United States and abroad.
Since this is the condensed forum version befitting of such readership, I then ask, what interest of the United States have benefited from our current relationship with Israel as it stands today? What are some of the justifications of monetary costs, intelligence sharing, technology sharing, and national credibility? In what ways has Israel proven itself a reliable and viable ally in the region or in global affairs?
Last edited by TnHilltopper; 04-21-2008 at 10:20 PM..
Reason: paragraph formatting
I'll be honest, I only read a little bit of all that.
However, I think isreal would do a better job defending itself if we didn't keep meddling with them and with the middle east in general.
A fellow writer I met through a policy group who often writes for various papers in Israel and happens to be a staunch Zionist has engaged me in many discussions about that very point. He believes that our current relationship is a hindrance to Israel's ability to assert herself in the region. By various constraints and restrictions that are imposed in the acceptance of US foreign aid, Israel often finds herself limited in her ability to act according to her own wishes.
In addition, a reliance upon US foreign aid monies and political support, Israel has created a cause for concern that if anything were to happen to US-Israeli relations, that Israel would be alone in the world without allies. While unlikely at the moment, the current economic crisis in the US has raised these concerns to the public dialog.
Sadly, with the level of discussion we have in the United States on this topic, I see little that will change this relationship in the near future.
The accusations of anti-Semitism don't come from criticizing Israel's action, but for considering Israel's anti-Semitic enemies with genocidal ambitions as morally superior.
I think it's much more simple. Pick a side and stand with them. We've done that, and I think we should continue. I know if I have to choose, I'll support Israel.
I think it's much more simple. Pick a side and stand with them. We've done that, and I think we should continue. I know if I have to choose, I'll support Israel.
I have found most sensible sentiments can be briefly summarized, and I agree fully with this position.
For about two generations America has been conditioned to believe that agreeing with everything that Israel decides and does is America's moral obligation, regardless of consequences for Israel's neighbors, the world, or America itself. Disagreeing with Israel is considered as anti-semitic.
I think it's much more simple. Pick a side and stand with them. We've done that, and I think we should continue. I know if I have to choose, I'll support Israel.
I suppose US could just use one giant bumpersticker that says, "I support Israel, God said it, I believe it, and that settles it". Which is essentially the level nuance to our overall foreign policy in the region.
It is no wonder I have so little hope for the region and our presence there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
