Do We Care About Israel?

The Palestinian issue originally achieved strategic importance for the US primarily as a result of the Cold War and the US-Soviet competition for allies in the strategic Middle East. With the end of the cold war there has been a sometimes-serious debate about just how important the issue is to the United States. For the most part its importance has been assumed. Everybody knows it is important – but is it really important to us? 

If the record of US involvement in trying to resolve this problem over the past ten years is any indication, we don’t care, at least not very much.  Or at the most, we only care episodically. Once Bill Clinton failed to strike a deal in 2000, and blamed the Palestinians for the failure, the Palestinians resorted to violence in their second intifada. And perhaps that is one reason that we care – the fear that violence will escalate and embroil a region, which dominates the world’s lines of communication and its energy supply.  But past eruptions of violence in two intifadas hardly caused a ripple on the international stage. Oil continued to flow, US ships transited the Suez Canal, and we maintained solid relations with most of the Arab world.   

Another possible problem is that whenever Middle East peace talks led to an apparent dead end, either the Palestinians or the Israelis did something about it.  And we may not like what they do. Right now, the Palestinians are engaged in two initiatives – reconciliation talks between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza – And a Palestinian drive for UN membership - that will have an impact on the international community, on the region, on Israel, and on us.

The Israelis for their part, are threatening unilaterally to annex large portions of the West Bank for their existing settlements and to build many more if either of the Palestinian efforts is successful. If there is still any chance of a two state solution, and that is questionable, this would just about put paid to the possibility.  So perhaps the problem is back on the agenda and we can answer the question of why it is important to us.

One answer is that the Middle East is rapidly changing, and our policy must take these changes into account. There are three primary factors that are altering the landscape. 

First. A very large cohort of young, better-educated and better-connected Arabs is coming of age. What we are seeing in the Arab world is a population bomb. The Middle East North Africa youth population is among the largest in the world. And they communicate with one another and with the world. Governments can no longer isolate their people from the world.

Second. Entrenched leaders can no longer control the agenda. For almost 50 years, the United States has seen the Middle East as a collection of autocratic leaders, with the exception of Israel and possibly Lebanon. By contrast, every public opinion poll showed the Arab people consistently supporting the Palestinian cause, but the people had no voice. The last three months have turned that logic on its head. Leaders can no longer count on a passive, cowed constituency – the street will be heard. 

And third.  Demographics are working against Israel as a democratic Jewish state. In 2050, in the area of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza there will be 8.8 million Jews and 12.4 million Arabs according to UN statistics. Whatever your system of counting and given the passage of enough time, the result of an Arab majority between the Jordan river and the Med is inevitable.

AP Feb 2, 2010 quoted Ehud Barak, Israel's Minister of Defense: "The simple truth is, if there is one state" including Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, "it will have to be either binational or undemocratic. ... if this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."

So who is winning?

Given the continued growth of settlements and the difficulty of uprooting people once they are settled, the Palestinians are on the losing side. 

Given the demographics in the region - Israel is on the losing side. 

Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Ha'aretz in 2008, "if the day comes when the two-state solution collapses," Israel will face "a South-African style struggle for voting rights." Once that happened, he warned, "the state of Israel is finished." Under these circumstances Israelis will depend ever more on US support to sustain their state. And we will be increasingly isolated in the world. 

These are unpalatable choices that we may be called on to make. And we would be wise to think about them now so that we are prepared for the future. And for those who oppose the compromises necessary for at two state solution, let them put forward their ideas on how to avoid this population bomb as well as the spreading settler tide.  

Anyone who suggests that our vital interests are not engaged in the future of Palestine and of Israel will have to explain how we can sustain our position in the region if popular opinion, flush with Facebook success, forces governments to abandon us. And we will have to look in the mirror to decide if we have been the best friend that Israel could have had.  

 

 

Comments

[Laura Gault]

When President Truman discussed with his advisers the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, Secretary of State George Marshall vehemently opposed U.S. recognition of Israel. He argued both that it would appear as though Truman was fishing for Jewish votes and that it might threaten American access to Arab oil. Days later, Israel was officially established, and the United States officially recognized it within 11 minutes (http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1026/p1s1-uspo.html). Compare this with the decades during which Palestine has been fighting to gain any sort of international recognition. Over 60 years later, the United States has plenty of access to oil, yet oil security and winning over the Jewish lobby in elections continue to play a major role in our national interest regarding the Israel-Palestine peace process. In reality, Israel benefits greatly from its relationship with the United States; in fact it could not survive without this relationship with the U.S. The United States, on the other hand, gains relatively little from its relationship with Israel. Most of the gains the U.S. reaps are more than offset by the anti-American sentiment tied to anti-Israeli sentiment throughout the region.
Israel shows no signs of stopping settlements. Though many Israeli moderates oppose the expansion, Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews hold enough power and influence in the government to continue construction. This small population seems to control not only the government of Israel but also the U.S. Congress. Most American Jews want to see a two-state solution, not the continuation of settlements and retaliatory rockets. Yet the U.S. Congress seems unwilling to press the Israeli government to make any sort of compromise. American presidents promise to push the issue during their campaign speeches, and then it largely falls off the radar until there is another significant attack.
As the Arab Spring sweeps across the Middle East, the status quo of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may not last. Though some important dictators have fallen and others may fall, it is still unclear just how far the revolutions may go. Many other important dictatorships in the region, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, may stand for years to come. Nonetheless, Mubarak has fallen, and this is clearly a major blow for Israel. The United States needs to impose consequences if Israel continues to ignore the fact that the Middle East is changing, and that they must make sacrifices if they want a future as an independent Jewish state. The large population of educated Arab youth, the population growth, and the fall of dictators threatens the very existence of the state of Israel. At present, the situation does not benefit the United States, nor will it serve Israel’s interests in the long-run. If Israel continues to refuse to cooperate, the United States should seriously consider moving forward and recognizing a sovereign Palestinian state. In reality, this is highly unlikely, due to U.S. security ties and Israeli lobby pressures in Washington, DC.

[William Brodt]

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process has not appeared to be a priority for the United States for many years. To many Americans, the peace process does not represent one of our most important agendas, such as national security and the state of the economy. The problem is that this prolonged conflict is harmful to everyone involved, including us. Poor preparation indicates that our leaders have not taken the peace process as seriously as they say they do. For instance, President Clinton blamed the Palestinians when his own diplomatic process was heavily flawed. The American delegation did not have the proper experts on cultural issues, and US strategy wavered or was entirely unclear. Delegations can no longer afford to be ambiguous or appear to be a formality for domestic and international support. The United States must take the peace process seriously and strive to help Israel and Palestine reach an amicable, long-term solution.
It is in our interest to create long-lasting solutions for Israeli-Palestinian peace. The direct involvement of the United States in a peace solution can be an opportunity for us to apply a long-lasting resolution suitable for our desires. With growing instability in the region, we can no longer count on autocratic rulers to support Israel. The rise of a younger generation of Arabs is problematic for the United States. This demographic has already demonstrated its ability to create powerful change in the region. We cannot continue to rely on autocratic repression to quiet the opinions of the people; as a result, we may find that governments are less willing to work with us in the future precisely because we appear to favor Israel. For instance, the recent revolution in Egypt makes Egyptian-Israeli peace agreements seem uncertain because Mubarak is no longer able to enforce his decisions. Israeli-Palestinian peace can help give stability to a region that needs it and give legitimacy to Israel and the United States in the eyes of Arabs. Prolonging the process merely erodes our soft power and our capability of being an effective mediator in the future.
Delaying the peace process is bad for Israel, Palestine, and the United States. If Israel resembles an apartheid state in the future, it will become increasingly difficult for us to retain our friendly ties. Palestine wants to build a nation, Israel wants to retain its social demographics and identity, and the United States wants to curry favor in order to influence the region. We can listen to the Israelis and Palestinians for potential ideas on how to deal with issues such as settlements and demographics, but ultimately these problems have to be solved sooner rather than later. The United States must offer a concrete strategy and force the Israelis and Palestinians to reach a consensus. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process can help increase our popularity and influence in an important region of the world, and it is in our interest to help the process come to a speedy solution.

[Thomas Williamson]

The question that Ambassador walker fundamentally raises is an important one: is it in the United State’s best interest to keep supporting Israel in the same capacity that it has in the past? If its goal it is find a workable and lasting two state solution, as it has been for at least the last twenty years, then the US would be better suited to distance themselves slightly from Israel in order to have at least the appearance of objectivity when the next round of peace talks eventually occur. It is important, however, to take US interests in the region into account. The United States needs a strong ally in the region that can be relied on to support its efforts in the region. Additionally, it is in the United States’ strategic interests to maintain a relatively stable situation in Israel/the Palestinian territories in light of the current unrest in the rest of the Middle East and North Africa. Distancing itself from Israel would certainly also foster better public opinion for the United States within Middle Eastern countries that, as Ambassador Walker points out, largely support the Palestinian cause.

This is not to say that it would be advantageous for the United States to distance itself too much from Israel as it would not only threaten their loyalty to the United States, but also might potentially undermine Israel’s predisposition for American objectives in the region if it acts too rashly. Nevertheless, it would be to the US’s distinct advantage to remind Israel of the dependant nature of its role in the alliance between the two countries.

The United States must also take into consideration the repercussions of alienating Israel. Depending on the extent of how exposed they feel vis-à-vis the surrounding Arab nations, they might feel it necessary to go on the offensive in order to demonstrate their military superiority over them. However, without the unspoken threat of US military assistance, Arab nations might be more than willing to participate in a military engagement.

However, as Ambassador Walker pointed out, Arab populations are strongly in favor of the Palestinian cause and with the inability of their governments to keep them isolated, a distancing might force the Israelis to have to critically reexamine their positions in regards to the potential annexation of portions of the West Bank as is mentioned in the blog post. It could also serve to make them more amenable in regards to a two state solution, if they knew that the United States would no longer unconditionally support their strong seemingly unmovable positions, they might be willing to move those positions. Or at the very least make them more cautious about taking actions that would be detrimental to a two state solution. Ultimately, while it might not be in the United States’ best interests to completely alienate Israel since we do need an ally in the region, it would be in its best interests to reexamine its complete support Israel when it could serve America by not doing so.

[Fertaa Yieleh-Chireh]

I would like to start by commending Ambassador Walker for giving an in-depth analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and the possibilities that lie ahead for a viable and lasting peace process. I want to believe that the US is deeply committed to finding a lasting solution to the crisis. However, certain events make me doubt the fact that the US really cares about the crisis. In my candid opinion, I share Ambassador Walker’s sentiments that the US only cares “episodically” when the Palestinians resort to violence against the Israelis, because violence in that region may disrupt the oil flow. In saying this, I’ll further like to add that the US has been slightly, if not overly, biased against the Palestinians. I make this point due to certain events that have occurred.
First off, Hamas is technically the only democratic government in the Middle East; however, the US fails to recognize its legitimacy because Hamas does not recognize the right of Israel to exist. How does the US then justify its dealings with the current Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who comes from a political party (Likud) that fails to recognize the creation of a Palestinian state? Secondly, the US largely supports a two-state solution. Nevertheless, it is unwilling to support the Palestinians’ bid to become members of the United Nations (UN). Though I can understand that the current split between Hamas and Fatah undermines the Palestinians’ ability or eligibility to be recognized as a state, I believe that allowing them to be members of the UN could be a first step in achieving statehood. As Winston Churchill put it, “to jaw-jaw is better than to war-war.” Therefore, getting the Palestinians a ‘table’ at the UN provides them an opportunity to use peaceful deliberations and dialogue to sort out their problems with Israel, rather than the use of violence. Also, one cannot downplay the role of other states in the Israeli-Palestinian standoff, and in the stability of the Middle East in general. Why is Israel allowed to engage in nuclear proliferation (according to Jimmy Carter: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4004300.ece) while a lot of fear and panic is created by the US of the possibility of a nuclear Iran? These developments go a long way to undermine the peace process and the eventual peace and stability of the Middle East, which is a vital region for the US in terms of oil trade. Hence, even if the US is uninterested in the crisis, it should even if it is for the mere fact that an escalation of it has the potential of creating economic hardships to average Americans. I believe the US should push for a two-state solution and be impartial in the process even if it is seen as ‘hurting’ Israel.

I can certainly understand why this bias against Palestine would exist. First, because of the annihilation of the Jews by Hitler in the Second World War, there has been this post holocaust sympathy that has emerged, and the US believes it has a critical role to play in ensuring the safety and security of Israel, and for that matter, Jews as a whole. Additionally, the US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. As such, Israel, which is the state or the home of the Jews, is deeply revered by the US. Thirdly, there is a very large Jewish community in the US, and also is the fact that there are a lot of similarities in culture between Americans and Israelis.

Despite this, as stated earlier, the US must begin to actively push for a two-state solution. This is because, as Ambassador Walker has noted, demographics in the Israel-West Bank-Gaza area are changing, and in the near future there will be 8.8 million Israelis as compared to 12.5 million Arabs. Hence a two state solution, with Israel and Palestine as independent democratic states would reduce any threats of violence or annihilation of Israelis. This results in the fact that according to the democratic peace hypothesis, democracies (democratic states) hardly go to war with each other. Even former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert asserts that Israel would be “finished” should a two-state solution collapse.

Additionally, latest polls suggest that there are a lot of anti-US sentiments in the middle east and given the fact that most of the authoritarian regimes are falling (we can cite developments in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia) that have been allies of the US, it is important for the US to reconsider its foreign policy and use the appropriate leverage against Israel if need be to achieve a lasting solution to the crisis. This will in the long run guarantee US’ own strategic interests in the region.
In summation, I think whether or not the US cares about Israel is inconsequential, because even if it does not, and allows the two-state solution to fail, and given the widespread perception that the US is backing Israel, the US has the potential to suffer economically if the changes that are taking place in the middle east continue. So, the US should push for a two-state solution in a fair and unbiased manner.

[Chris Ravn]

While the U.S. would find much comfort in Israeli-Palestinian stability, I do not believe we have been exercising proper foreign policy in dealing with the situation. As Ambassador Walker correctly points out, recent uprisings throughout the Middle East demonstrate a new political paradigm. No longer can we ignore large populations of underprivileged and underrepresented Arabs in lending unconditional support to authoritative leaders and Israel. Israel may be winning in the current territorial push through its aggressive expansion of settlements but demographic trends will ultimately favor the Arabs. With bleak prospects of a “two-state solution” this trend will effectively create an apartheid state putting us in a critical predicament. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we need not face this future predicament.
In response to the title “Do we Care About Israel?” I think the answer is definitively yes and perhaps too much. Our diplomatic efforts in creating a dual state have not failed based solely on “Palestinian disobedience” as Clinton proclaimed after the failure of talks in 2000, but rather because the conflict involves two irreconcilable sides who have no intent of compromise. In response, we continue to exercise the same failed tools of diplomacy, providing arms and political support to Israel while appeasing the Arabs with foreign aid. But have these efforts really provided any help to the situation? As the article correctly points out, none of our direct foreign interests such as the flow of Oil, transport along the Suez Canal, or other Middle Eastern relationships have been threatened, however, unconditional support to Israel does threaten these interests every day. What will happen when the day comes where a majority of Arab youths say no-more to repression in Gaza, continued Israeli settlements, and the strain of poverty? Our unquestioned support of the Israeli state will undoubtedly be remembered and threats to our economic interests will then be real. It is out of our reach to confront the demographic time bomb that will cripple Israel. These domestic issues can only be addressed by the Israelis themselves. We can care about Israel while at the same time being forthright as to what is acceptable behavior. This does not include the free reign to build homes in disputed territory despite international disapproval. Violence needs to be condemned on both sides but when we get involved in this type of foreign conflict, sending strong messages such as official resolutions condemning Palestine; it ultimately undermines our security and expands the violence.

[Cobus van der Ven]

Not only is Israel in the vital interest of the U.S., it is in our vital to act decisively to create peace with unfaltering tenacity and without delay.

Since our primary national security and economic interests lie in the Middle East, it is an undisputed supposition that stability in the region should be a grave concern for the U.S. policy makers. However, in a rapidly changing world, no longer is political stability alone the primary issue. We must realize that our image among the people of Arab nations will play an increasingly large role in their foreign policy. Facebook, the youth movement, and the overthrow of autocratic governments have proven the profound and growing influence of popular voice in a region once dominated exclusively by dictatorial rule. No longer is it sufficient to have a good rapport with autocratic rulers. No longer can economic and political leverage be our primary tactics. We need the trust—and if not blessing, at least the moderate support of Arab popular perception.

It is in part because of this rapidly changing landscape that the Israel-Palestinian conflict must be solved. In the Arab world, many see Israel as suppressors of their Arab brethren, and our image as an unequivocal ally does not strengthen positive U.S. sentiment. Peace mitigates these negative perceptions, especially if the U.S. is seen as a peacemaker.

However, the window for a peaceful resolution to the conflict is closing fast. Reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah, or a Palestinian attempt for U.N. state recognition will result in Israel building more settlements and annexing more of the West Bank, significantly exacerbating the conflict. Therefore, if we can accept that a solution to the Israel Palestinian conflict is important, we have no choice but to ensure that an accord occurs with all possible swiftness.

Furthermore, both nations have admitted that peace without the U.S. is highly unlikely. Their divergent motives cannot be reconciled peacefully without outside intervention. It is time for the U.S. to take a strong stance, employ our diverse array of leverage from our mighty toolbox, and stick to our guns. It is far too easy to put off hard decisions in the short term—especially when they hurt politically, or affect our allies negatively. But waiting for a perfect situation, a perfect compromise, or a solution with no cost is far more detrimental.

[Adam Minchew]

Looking at the immense issue concerning Israel and Palestine, and the future of a two state solution, the United States needs to make a fundamental shift in its policy. It is undeniable, as Ambassador Walker notes, that the demographic challenges in the region will come to head in the near future, making the current tensions far more serious. But couldn’t this demographic shift lead to more understanding, or at least a situation in which the two parties can negotiate more effectively without the help of the United States? The young, better-educated Arab youth are communicating their ideas more effectively and have shown their ability to enact change within their respective governments. While these may be seen as reasons why the United States should speed up negotiations to try to achieve a two-state solution sooner, I believe the United States should begin to become less vocal and wean its influence in the region. The combination of demographic and economic realities has given the region the ability to control its own fate – no longer is it necessary for the United States to spend its economic, diplomatic, and political resources to solve a seemingly impossible problem between two parties who have been and continue to be unwilling to negotiate effectively.
]
With a well-connected youth and burgeoning population, the Israel-Palestinian problem can be solved by the people themselves who can fight for their own change, or use their connections to draw other allies into their fight. Both the Palestinian and Israeli economies have been growing rapidly in terms of GDP in recent years, and their younger, more energetic populations will only add to this growth. If a situation arises like Prime Minister Olmert alluded to where “Israel faces a South-African style struggle for voting rights,” then it will fall on the international community as a whole to solve this problem, not the United States alone. While it can be seen as antagonistic to wait until violence or persecution erupts to solve the problems in the region, this option is the most feasible for a United States which has an increasingly burdensome budget deficit, and two wars to fight simultaneously. The United States should seriously consider it’s economic and military ties to Israel, given the less than equitable relationship over the past decade, and move to lessen their influence in the region allowing for international organizations to help litigate the situation if the international community deems it necessary. The United states has been too generous and too patient with the Israelis for too long. Why not let the two parties work out a solution on their own, or fail to do so and let other concerned nations commit their resources to resolving the problem?

[Injunlyo]

Ambassador Walker’s essential arguments in “Do We Care About Israel?” (2011), in regards to the degree of the United States’ involvement in the Palestinian problem, relates to the Secretary of State Colin Powell’s perspectives in his speech on November 19, 2001. Powell argues that the United States cannot alone solve the conflict between Israel and Palestine because the difficult issues, such as Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, are complex and sophisticated. Powell claims, “[The United States] cannot hope to turn the current situation around by acting alone, nor should we want to. As in Madrid, so too does our current quest for a better future for Israelis and Palestinians depend on the support of our friends. We look forward to continuing to work closely with Egypt and Jordon, with the European Union, the United Nations Secretary General, with Russia and our many other partners in this effort.” Powell claims that these difficult issues cannot be solved through a bilateral approach but rather a multilateral approach because these issues are questions for Jews, Muslims, and other religious groups. I agree with Powell that the issues cannot be solved by the United States’ involvement alone. It needs the multilateral approach that Powell echoes. I also agree with Ambassador Walker’s argument that the Palestinian issue has not been important to the United States in the past.

I believe the reasons the United States does not care much about the Palestinian issue is because the past negotiations failed and President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush blamed Arafat, the President of the Palestinian National Authority. However, the current environment of the Arab countries’ uprisings in recent events will be necessary for restarting the negotiating process and dealing with the Palestinian issue. Ambassador Walker argues that the Arab countries’ uprisings allow “the [Palestinian] problem [to be] back on the agenda.” After the uprisings in the Middle Eastern countries, Israel’s relationship with Egypt and other Arab countries has become weakened. Most importantly, there are serious concerns about the stability and security in Israel and in the Middle Eastern regions.

Ambassador Walker believes that Arab young people are different from the previous generation because of the way they communicate and exchange information through innovative technology. Young people have cell phones, twitter, and facebook to communicate. Because of this, their government cannot continue to use censorship and force to “isolate” the people from the outside world.

Another reason the Middle Eastern countries are changing is that dictators cannot solely dominate and drive the agendas. Citizens have become more vocal and more important. They will not let dictators do what they want. More people want their voices to be heard. They will demonstrate and mobilize. Ambassador Walker points out, “Every public opinion poll showed the Arab people consistently supporting the Palestinian cause, but the people had no voice. The last three months have turned that logic on its head. Leaders can no longer count on a passive, cowed constituency—the street will be heard.” Now that these people have voices in the government and advocate the “Palestinian cause,” the United States should be concerned about the Palestinian issue.

Finally, the increase of the settlement population in the West Bank and Gaza make it difficult to solve. Based on the population growth, there are more Arabs than Jews. There is an Arab majority in Gaza and the West Bank. Ambassador Walker claims, “Demographics are working against Israel as a democratic Jewish state. In 2050, in the area of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza there will be 8.8 million Jews and 12.4 million Arabs according to UN statistics. Whatever your system of counting and given the passage of enough time, the result of an Arab majority between the Jordan river and the Med is inevitable.” Ambassador Walker argues that both Israel and Palestine are not winning all sides of the issues. Ambassador Walker claims, “Given the continued growth of settlements and the difficulty of uprooting people once they are settled, the Palestinians are on the losing side. Given the demographics in the region—Israel is on the losing side.”

Ambassador Walker raises an important question in his core argument. Ambassador Walker argues, “Anyone who suggests that our vital interests are not engaged in the future of Palestine and of Israel will have to explain how we can sustain our position in the region if popular opinion, flush with Facebook success, forces governments to abandon us. And we will have to look in the mirror to decide if we have been the best friend that Israel could have had.” I believe it is unlikely that the United States will abandon Israel. This action will not demonstrate impartiality in order to gain trust from Palestine and other Arab countries. The United States does a disservice to other Arab countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine when the United States shows favoritism to Israel because it does not demonstrate complete impartiality. The United States loses its credibility as a world leader.

I agree with Ambassador Walker that the United States needs to act on Palestinian issues. There should also be a contingency plan. The United States needs to think and plan ahead of these issues before they come up. I believe that the Obama administration needs to solve these issues before they become worse. President Obama’s bid for reelection in 2012 should not be a barrier to the peace process. It should also not become individually important rather than nationally important.

Most importantly, it is in the best interests of the United States for a two state solution to succeed. If a two-state solution fails, it will not only damage future negotiations with Israel and Palestine, but also Israelis may become more dependent on the United States to help them. There can be detrimental consequences to the United States ’ position and reputation not only in the Middle Eastern regions, but also other international countries if the Palestinian issue is not dealt with. Therefore, the United States should solve the Palestinian issue, and it should take precedence over the election cycle and domestic politics.

Reference:

Bush, George W. (2010). Decision Points. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.

Powell, Colin. (December 15, 2001). “The United States’ Position On Terrorists.” Volume 68. Issue 5, p. 130, 6p. Vital Speeches of the Day.

Walker, Edward. (April 20, 2011). “Do We Care About Israel?” Ambassador Blog

[Michelle Franco]

Despite our long relationship with Israel, United States ideals and what Israeli wants may not coincide. As stated by Ehud Barak, Israel's Minister of Defense "The simple truth is, if there is one state including Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, it will have to be either binational or undemocratic. ... if this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state." This would lead to Israel depending on the US for support in this system despite US advocacy for a two-state solution.

the age of Facebook and Twitter, spurring protests, mobilization and revolution around the world, if the United States wants to prove itself as a friend to Israel, they are going to have to appeal to the countries youth through such actions. Youth, using social media are talking to their peers elsewhere, they can see what’s going on in the world. Youth are less culturally inhibited than their parents and grandparent’s generation and open to change in the structure of their environment. Further, youth have the power to influence the opinions and actions of older generations. As seen in Egypt, the 2011 Revolution was started and sustained by the youth population and subsequently went viral, infecting the whole country.

While the Obama administration has been openly pushing for a two-state solution, a new book by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation interviewed 800 teens (aged 15 to 18), and 800 youths (21 to 24) addressing rule of law and governance in Israel, found that Jewish nationalism, not democracy is the most important objective for Israel’s youth. Further, attitudes of young Jewish-Israelis toward Arab-Israelis, found that almost half of Jewish youth were supportive of the notion of revoking the basic political rights of the country’s Arab population. For the US to support such initiatives would be detrimental for our image (http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=214885) . The United States must decide if it is actually in the best interests of the US to support youth ideals.

However, similarly to the Israeli youth, Palestinian youth have the power to mobilize, being more populous and educated than ever. Also in light of the political unrest in the region, this would likely lead to some protest of discontent which is also disadvantageous to regional security and against US objectives.

The dilemma remains, is it in the best interest of the US to remain on Israel’s side no matter what or should we branch out and begin to grow apart from Israel before any substantial decisions are made, putting the US in an awkward position between friendship and its own best interests. It may just be safest, given events in the Middle East, just to grow apart and offer assistance when only crucial to US interest.

[Caroline Maran]

In this blog post, Ambassador Walker questions whether or not the Palestinian issue is important to the United States; noting that, over the past decade, the country’s stance on the issue has been characterized by limited and “episodic” involvement. Despite previous handling of the problem, I strongly believe that the Palestinian issue is an important concern for the United States. As evidenced by a tumultuous history between the two nations, a peaceful, two-state solution is the only solution to the age-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, the United States, undoubtedly favors a solution to the Palestinian problem since Arab countries like Iran and Syria use the issue to bolster support for extremism amongst organizations such as Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Thus, a U.S. brokered solution to the Palestinian issue can play a role in mending US relations in the Middle East in the aftermath of two destructive wars.
I agree that the current situation on the ground being Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank and rapid Arab population growth are swiftly altering the climate for successful negotiations. I also concur that it is merely time before the Arab populations surpass the Jewish population within the nation of Israel. As the Ambassador indicates this will cause immense problems given that a Jewish minority will be expected to rule over an Arab majority, a situation similar to apartheid South Africa. Other current concerns stifling negotiations revolve around the Palestinians’ drive for Statehood and recognition through a bid for United Nations Membership. As this blog notes, in response Israeli’s are threatening to annex more territories in the West Bank for further settlement development. These recent developments are moving nations further away from a comprehensive two-state solution. I strongly believe that time is running out for a peaceful solution. All the reasons mentioned above (Arab population growth, settlement expansion, and use of the Palestinian issue to gain support for extremism) merit a change in the United State’s approach to dealing with the Israel regarding issues of Palestinian statehood. In order for the Palestinian problem to be solved, limits must be imposed upon the “special friendship” between the United States and Israel. I believe one necessary limit that needs to be imposed on Israel is US pressure to halt settlement expansion in the West Bank. The current administration needs to understand and act carefully since the unlawful occupation of Palestinian lands undermines overall peace efforts and erodes the democratic character of Israel the United States so adamantly supports.

A central concern that arises is what effect the recent revolutions sweeping the Arab world may have on future negotiations in general and for the United States relationship with Israel and its handling of the Palestinian issue in specific. The recent upheavals in the region pose security concerns to Israel and the survival of peace treaties with neighbors like Egypt. The recent revolutions also make it harder for the United States and Israel to continue to ignore the Palestinians request for statehood. Ultimately, this may be a good time to go back to the negotiating table and broker peace especially considering the fact that time is not on the side of our dear friend Israel.

[Ayush Soni]

The future and past of the Israeli-Palestinian problem will and has caused the United States much stress and contemplation on how to act in the region. In the past, the United States has almost always supported Israeli actions, whether it be annexing Jerusalem or building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Generally the only protest one will see out of the United States are stern words, but never any change of military support or trade. Fortunately for the United States’ cause, in the past, they have had allies in that also supported Israel, as there was little justification for a lot of Palestine’s demands. However, as the years have passed and the contrast of Israel and Palestinian fertility rate is starting to take effect, all the Palestinian demands, especially in the West Bank region, are becoming more legitimate and valid. In fact, a lot of countries that had previously supported Israel, like the United Kingdom or Canada, are now changing their tone to a more bilateral support and are expecting more sacrifice from Israel. As these changes continue and grow stronger, the United States is finding itself more isolated and in a quandary of how much and how long it can only show support for Israel.
What is unquestionable is that the U.S. must be involved in how the problem is resolved in the future, as Israel and the region mean too much to the United States for it to sit by idly. Led by President Obama, the United States is trying to regain the trust and alliance of many Middle Eastern countries that had lost faith in the years past. Unfortunately, these actions have placed the U.S. in an unenviable position of either offending our long time ally Israel or completely giving up on ever forming true friendships with other Middle Eastern countries. Much to Israel’s dislike, the U.S.’s best course of action should be to start showing some more support for Palestine in the near and long-term future. Siding with Israel through its United Nations condemnation and possible sanctions will not only harm the U.S.’s relations with other Middle Eastern countries, but with the rest of the world as well. If the United States is the only country to reject Palestine’s bid for membership to the United Nations, that will severely hurt the U.S.’s role in the world at an already delicate time. It is time to finally force a two-state solution in the area, preserving the future of Israel, Palestine, and the United States’ reputation. The U.S. needs to make it clear to Israel that their future is uncertain and that the U.S. cannot stand by them forever, especially when the Palestinian population starts overtaking the Israeli’s. Israel will have no choice but to dig in and begin listening to the possible two-state solutions plans or get ready to face a less than optimal future.
The United States cannot sit on the sideline in this conflict because there is too much at stake with the long-lasting relationship with Israel and with the need to better our relationship with other countries in the region. Unfortunately, accomplishing these goals hardly go hand-in-hand and actually require opposite actions. The only way to please both parties is to come to a two-state solution in the near future. If the window for this solution closes, the U.S. will face either abandoning Israel completely, which could end up in the end of the nation, or face alienating the Middle East, a move that may be irreconcilable. Obviously the United States does not want to have to make that choice and Israel does not want to risk the U.S. actually siding with the rest of the world, so both countries should come together and offer Palestine some of what it wants now, so that it will not get more in the future.

[Landry Frei]

As much as the United States likes to do its best to support its allies and foster peaceful relations abroad, we should never lose sight of the fact that the foreign service’s primary job is to ensure that the interests of the United States are properly looked after. At the end of the day, if the United States is not benefitting from the actions it is taking abroad, then in all likelihood, it should not be taking them. After all, one of a foreign embassy’s first duties is to protect and aid American citizens in that country; their duty is not to the foreign country or to the citizens of that country no matter how beloved they may be. It is in this context that the United States needs to reevaluate its relationship with Israel and most importantly, how that relationship affects our relationships with other countries in the Middle East. Beginning during the Cold War, our close relationship to Israel was viewed as vital to both securing certain interests in the Middle East and in countering Soviet communist expansion into the region. After the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s however, this could no longer be the case, which means that the United States clearly continued to support Israel for other reasons.
For the past twenty years, it has not at all been clear that America’s relationship with Israel is really in our the best interest. Despite being a reliable ally with whom we can partner with when engaging other nations in the region, the simple fact that we support Israel has also alienated and angered many Arab nations who strongly oppose Israel’s policies or its existence altogether. Israel has also proven to be a veritable money pit, consuming more American foreign aid in the last few decades than any other country, and some view our direct support of Israel as absolutely necessary for its continued survival, which puts us in the awkward position of defending Israel even when it is clearly in the wrong. Our lasting commitment to Israel has made the very idea of abandoning Israel to be swallowed up by the Arab nations an almost sinful thought. Even most of those people who don’t personally support Israel or its policies believe that we at least have a humanitarian duty to help ensure the safety of the Israeli people. One must also not forget the strong Jewish lobby within the United States, which has helped to solidify and strengthen American-Israeli relations. Despite this close relationship, however, Israel has often been the barrier to our attempts to resolve the Palestinian conflict and has simply disregarded our wishes and requests (such as their continuance of building settlements in the West Bank). So the question is: Why continue to support a nation that requires huge amounts of foreign aid, that often aggravates our relationships with other nations, and offers us considerably less influence in the region than they used to?
I would argue that our current relationship with Israel is in many ways detrimental to both the United States and to Israel. As long as Israel has the power of the United States behind it, it has little incentive to negotiate with its neighbors and work out long-term solutions to their major problems. We may actually do Israel, the rest of the Middle East, and ourselves a favor by loosening our relationship with Israeli and forcing them stand more firmly on their own two feet. If they were deprived of the immense American support they usually receive, they would be forced to better prioritize their interests and place peace with their neighbors at the top of the list (over things such as expanding into the West Bank). Although they will certainly not obtain everything they really want, they may come to a long-term solution that meets the needs of their neighbor countries as well. Such action would (in the long run) be beneficial to all parties because it would benefit the Israeli’s to obtain recognition and less dependence on the United States, it would benefit the Arabs who might be able to solve the Palestinian refugee crisis and end or lessen their hostilities with Israel, and it would benefit the United States because we would save billions in financial aid and we would no longer be seen as the parent nation of Israel which would help better our relationships with other Middle East nations. We would also no longer be automatically associated with any actions Israel takes in the future, which seems to be the case now to our detriment.

[Jed Davis]

If there is one thing I would have added to my briefing paper, I would have written about how necessary it is for President Obama, Secretaries Clinton and Gates, to remind Netanyahu and his cabinet about how the US has always had Israel’s best interests in mind. From its inception after World War II, the United States has always been there to help it with financial and military aid, and, to be blunt, Israel would not exist without American assistance. That’s not exactly what US leadership should tell their Israeli peers, but still, as discussed in the blog post, there are various factors working against Israel right now, one of which being changing demographics toward the Palestinians favor. Therefore, Obama needs to convince Netanyahu that the US has and will still have Israel’s best interests in mind, and that is why America will be very tough about facilitating direct negotiations for reaching a compromise on a two state solution. There is no time left. US negligence over Israeli recalcitrance is similar to the friend who doesn’t intervene to save his friend from a drinking problem, only to watch him be hospitalized or die from alcohol poisoning. The US neglecting its stewardship role over the peace talks is disgraceful, and a truly brave, smart president would recognize the imperative need to remind Israel with warnings, perhaps negative leverage, that it must stop building settlements and accede to negotiations. This is something where the President has tremendous leeway to frame the debate to the American public, and if he presents it as an issue where, as previously discussed, the US is being tough on Israel because it cares about Israel, then it will be effective. It is time for President Obama to do whatever it takes to get the Two-State Solution done.

[Maria Lozada]

I think the US must address the issue of Israel’s strategic importance. While there are certainly strong financial ties between the two countries as well as cooperation on the fight against terrorism does this really counterbalance all the real and potential problems that come with the alliance. The oil shocks of the 70s were largely a punishment from Arab oil states for the US’ support for Israel. Now that power in the Middle East is shifting to groups that support the Palestinians even more, the possibility of a backlash should the US continue to support Israel becomes even greater and might create serious opposition to the US and its interests in the region. New oil shocks would wreak havoc on the economy, which is still recovering from the recession. Furthermore, if Israel does go through with its plan for annexation the US could end up supporting an apartheid state. Now the US hasn’t always lived up to the rhetoric of spreading democracy but that does not mean it can blatantly support segregation and remain credible, particularly to the Arab audience it has tried so hard to win over (unsuccessfully).
I do not mean to suggest the US should abandon Israel, but a friend must sometimes be tough on those they care in order to really help. The American government needs to make it clear that it cannot support annexation because of the all its potential dangers, but their support will remain unwavering only if Israel truly commits itself to finding a two state solution. The government could offer to persuade the Palestinians to drop their attempt at entering the UN or prevent it using other measures (getting support from other countries to stop it passing the security council or even using the veto).
However, the reality of domestic politics means the government (read: Congress) is unlikely to pressure Israel to stick with the two state solution and instead promise unconditional support they will either have to break if/when the country’s oil interests are threatened or suffer for it. Unless, of course, Congress realize that developing efficient alternative energy will mean they can support Israel all they want without risking damaging the economy, but this is not an institution known for its forward thinking.

[Michael Bethoney]

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been important for U.S. foreign interests in the Middle East, at least rhetorically. As Ambassador Walker accurately commented on in his blog post, U.S. actions have indicated that the conflict is not truly that important to the U.S.; even in times when the conflict and consequent fighting has worsened, U.S. interests in the region, such as oil availability, Suez Canal transportation, and diplomatic relations have remained relatively unaffected. However, recent events, namely Palestinian efforts to reconcile Fatah and Hamas and a request for UN recognition of a Palestinian state, have forced the U.S. into a situation in which it must take a more definitive position on, and role in, the conflict.

In addition to publicly denouncing settlement building and stating opposition to UN acceptance of a Palestinian state, the U.S. must consider other ways to adapt its policies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A booming Arab youth population and changing political landscape in the Middle East must be accounted for in the formulation of U.S. policy. Additionally, as Ambassador Walker observed, changing demographics in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank must factor in to policy modifications, as the Arab population is inevitably going to outgrow the Jewish majority in Israel, dooming the peaceful and democratic Jewish state to a limited existence if a two-state solution is not reached. On the opposing side of the conflict, continued Israeli settlement-building poses serious difficulties to a two-state solution, as any viable agreement will need to include returning the majority of the West Bank to the Palestinians. However, these changing circumstances are not necessarily a bad thing, as they can be used as negotiating points by the U.S. to move Israel closer to a two-state solution.

Basically, serious adaptations to U.S. foreign policy are crucial and need to be made as soon as possible, as the Middle East is rapidly and drastically changing. No longer can the U.S. unquestionably support Israeli politics and actions against the Palestinians. The administration must publicly and definitively denounce any further West Bank settlements. However, this does not mean that the U.S. must support Palestinian statehood through UN declaration as the Palestinians are attempting. While simultaneously denouncing settlement building, the U.S. can also preemptively announce their pending veto of a Palestinian statehood proclamation by the UNSC. The U.S. administration must exert pressure behind the scenes on the Israelis to seriously consider a two-state solution; it would be terrible for Israeli relations in the Middle East should the Palestinians receive UN membership. It would immediately change the international perception of Israel’s settlement building and Gaza blockade to look like an apartheid state. Thus, even though the U.S. will most likely veto any recognition of Palestinian statehood in the UN, it truly is in Israel’s best interests to at least seem to be attempting to negotiate with the Palestinians for a solution to the conflict.

In order for U.S. pressure on Israel to be even remotely effective, the Administration needs the support of big-name Congressional members. It would have an enormous impact for someone like John Boehner to pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu to negotiate with the Palestinians. Although it is unlikely to occur, Boehner threatening to remove U.S. support for Israel would be more meaningful than if it came from the White House, as Israel expects Congress, more so than the executive branch, to be supportive of Israel. However, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry might be persuaded to take on this responsibility, which would have an equal impact on U.S.-Israeli relations as if it came from Boehner. As a result of our immense military, economic, and political support for Israel over the years, Israel truly depends on the U.S.’s support, and again, especially from Congress. Should the U.S. threaten to publicly withdraw its support of Israel, Netanyahu would be forced to evaluate how much political maneuverability is available to him and, consequently, second-guess his refusal to compromise with the Palestinians.

To convince Senator Kerry of the essentiality of his proposed role in the conflict, the administration should communicate to him the drastic consequences to U.S. foreign relations in the region should Israel not alter its settlement policies. The Palestinians are involved in several processes that can potentially cause huge problems for the Israelis. Should the conflict continue on the same path without either side changing their policies towards one another, the U.S. will be placed in a terrible diplomatic position. To be the sole permanent member of the UNSC to veto UN recognition of a Palestinian state would jeopardize U.S. relations in the Middle East, a terrible risk at any time, but especially in the midst of such current and widespread change and state collapse. U.S. national security and anti-terrorism efforts could be in serious jeopardy should the U.S. continue to support Israel’s non-cooperative and antagonistic settlement building. Therefore, it is in the best interests of his committee and his personal political interests as committee chairman, to take an active role in dissuading the Israelis from further settlement building. Additionally, despite Scott Brown’s election as a Republican candidate from Massachusetts, John Kerry is a safe bet for reelection to the Senate in his 2014 assumed reelection bid. Therefore, Kerry should not be too concerned with how his actions are viewed by his constituency, at least less so than most other Senators.

Every child has growing pains, and Israel is going through theirs now. It would be a disservice for its metaphorical big brother, the United States, to unquestionably support them even though they are misbehaving. It does not matter if the other child in the sandbox, which in the context of this metaphor the Palestinians, are also currently misbehaving, the U.S. must first address its own brother before dealing with anyone else. Tough love has always had its place, and the time is now for the U.S. to give Israel some long-overdue tough loving. Only by being pressured into making tough decisions now will Israel be able to survive over the long-term.

[Kelsey Lawler]

Also crucial to any US decision regarding the Middle East, and more specifically in Israel-Palestine, is the image of US involvement as seen by the rest of the world. We must consider the fact that many states, especially in the MENA region, and people around the world, wish the United States would stop intervening in conflicts unilaterally, imposing Western ideals of democracy or propping up certain leaders who will support us and vice versa. Many believe that the International Criminal Court or the United Nations should determine the outcome of a possible two-state solution rather than the politically interested United States (although I do not necessarily believe these international institutions are always apolitical in their decisions, many view them as less political than a strictly US-determine outcome). Strong US involvement could perpetuate negative feelings of neocolonialism throughout the region, ultimately damaging our image as well as encouraging anti-American sentiment in an unstable region where we are continually fighting the War on Terror. If terrorism remains a crucial concern of international affairs for the US, which it certainly should, then the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must remain relevant to US policy. However, attempting to control the situation on our own may prove much less effective at working toward a peaceful solution, and may also create a negative image of the US.
In an age of passionate UN liberalism (at least rhetorically around the world), the US should seek to use its Security Council powers for good, promoting both a positive, peaceful, democratic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a more pro-Arab (although not anti-Israeli) image of the United States. The US should indeed keep the conflict as a top priority for US security considering the threats of terrorism and general destabilization of the region, but should consider manipulating the solution so as to benefit its own image to the world (as pro-democracy/freedom/equality) and to genuinely assist a peaceful outcome in Israel.
Although US administrations have seemingly continually felt that a strong Israeli state is the best way to maintain peace in the region, it may no longer be working in our interest when one considers growing anti-American sentiment in spite of, or possibly because of, US anti-Palestinian policy. For all its pro-democracy and pro-UN rhetoric, the US has lacked follow through in policy toward the conflict. Although peace negotiations have been attempted, very few have focused on them in any serious manner. Supporting Palestinian membership into the UN while also working toward a two-state or democratic solution may be the most positive choice to benefit US image, US security, and Israelis and Palestinians in the conflict.

[Shantanu Tata]

The issue of “tough love” towards a nation we consider to be a close ally is extremely difficult. The situation in Israel is even more difficult considering the size and power of the Jewish lobby in the United States. Many sitting Presidents, Senators and Congressmen find it difficult to take a hard line stance with Israel, because they are concerned about getting on the bad side of the Jewish lobby. Many of these people in positions of power are concerned about the next cycle of elections and do not want to risk losing the support of the Jewish community. The problem with this approach to our foreign policy is that it is focused on short-term thinking. Instead of thinking ahead, about what would be best for the future of Israel, we are too concerned with what the pro-Israel lobby will say or do in the upcoming election cycle. In my leverage paper, I briefly discussed an incident where President Obama offered Israel a multi billion-dollar deal to extend a freeze on the settlement building ban. Several former diplomats called that a “bad idea” and said the United States should not be rewarding Israel for “bad behavior.” Looking forward, it is absolutely essential that we push the Israeli’s in order to work out a peace plan.

One of the most interesting/relevant points that Ambassador Walker makes is the issue of the population bomb in the Arab world. The simple truth is that the numbers do not lie. Eventually the Arab population will far surpass that of the Israelis. Combine this with the fact that the new generation of Arabs are becoming more connected/educated and aware of their rights as humans, and it is easy to see why Israel could have a huge problem on their hands. Several US governments have tried to broker peace, but as evidenced by the results, it is pretty apparent that nothing has really changed, and that the status quo has been maintained. If we continue to maintain the status quo, Israel will continue to build settlements, and the existing settlements will experience natural growth. As Ambassador Walker pointed out, it becomes increasingly difficult to move people who live in the settlements once they have been living there for a while because they develop ties to the place they live. This would create a lot of tension between Israel and the Arabs living there, because as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert pointed out Israel could face, "a South-African style struggle for voting rights." If this were to happen the United States would be in a terrible position because it wouldn’t want to abandon Israel, but it couldn’t be seen supporting the government either. As a result, the time for action is now. We have to convince Israel to stop settlement building by any means necessary. Once this is accomplished it will be easier to gain credibility with the Arab world and bring them back to the table. The issue of Jerusalem is complicated, but this can be resolved once other pressing issues have been addressed.