Redstate

By smagar Posted in Archived — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Michael Oren uses the occasion of Israel's 60th birthday to point out that America hasn't always been the most trustworthy of allies for Israel.

May I retort? And, raise a few gripes of my own? Specifically, that some in the Israeli and American Jewish communities don't fully recognize the burdens that America shoulders, as a result of its alliance with Israel?

Read on

Arguably, there is no alliance in the world today more durable and multifaceted than that between the United States and Israel.

Yet the bonds between the two countries were not always so strong. For much of Israel's history, America was a distant and not always friendly power.

Oren's article relates the hesitancy of Cold War US administrations to unconditionally take Israel's side in crises. Oren characterizes this lack-of-full-throated support as "indifference to Zionism."

I agree that strong elements in American high society and government were ambivalent---and sometimes downright hostile to---the cause of the Jewish people. But, Oren's charge of "indifference" is, IMO, a bit too convenient on his part. As we go through some of the examples Oren gives as evidence of why he deems America to be a hesitant and not-always-reliable ally of the modern Jewish state, I'd like to comment on factors that Oren fails to address.

Consider the period before Israel's founding in 1948, during the British Mandate over Palestine. Though many Americans, Christians as well as Jews, were committed to building the Jewish national home, their government's policy was strictly hands-off. Palestine, in Washington's view, was exclusively Britain's concern, and the Arab-Jewish conflict was a British headache.

Accordingly, the Roosevelt administration raised no objection to Britain's 1939 decision to end Jewish immigration into Palestine, sealing off European Jewry's last escape route from Nazism.

I agree with Oren, in that this was a shameful thing for the Roosevelt administration to do. But, in fairness, we should remember that the United States was pretty much isolationist on EVERYTHING in 1939. It's not as if FDR was presiding over a US government in 1939 that was as engaged and influential worldwide as the US is today. FDR had yet to convince his country to support Britain in its upcoming fight against Hitler.

IMO, Oren leaves the implication here that the US had lots of leverage with Britain in 1939, and simply chose not to use it, presumably because of its "indifference to Zionism." I question whether such an implication is accurate or fair.

The U.S. indifference to Zionism deepened during World War II, when America feared alienating its British allies and angering the Arabs, whose oil had become vital to the war effort.

Well, we were at war...FDR did have a lot of other things going on at this time...and we did need oil.

My point is: while I readily admit there was indeed some level of "indifference to Zionism" behind the US's limited level of support to Jewish interests, it's only fair to point out that the US was engaged in trying to win a world war at the time.

It is possible that honorable and decent men in the US government chose not to emphasize Jewish interests during WWII because they felt there were other, more pressing needs at the time. Needs such as not alienating our most important ally in that war, and maintaining access to the oil supplies fueling that war.

America's ambivalence toward Zionism persisted after the war, as the battle against Nazism gave way to the anticommunist struggle. While a sizeable majority of Americans welcomed Israel's creation in May 1948, policy makers in Washington feared that such support would trigger an Arab oil boycott of the West and the Soviet take-over of Europe.

an Arab oil boycott of the West and the Soviet take-over of Europe

Mr. Oren, with respect, those were real concerns. In the late forties and fifties, the West needed oil. To run the industries we were trying to rebuild in devastated Western Europe and fuel the free world's response to the emerging communist threat.

Let me be clear: I believe with all my heart that Truman was heroic and right in bucking State Department pressure and recognizing Israel. But, let's be fair and recognize that the emergence of a Jewish state in the midst of the Middle East was bound to exacerbate regional and international tensions. As the leader of the free world, America would--at the very least---have to deal with those tensions. More to the point, it would find itself compelled to try and defuse them.

Was the US government supposed to ignore that?

The Six-Day War nevertheless inaugurated a dramatic change in America's attitude toward Israel. Israel's astonishing victory in that conflict instantly transformed the "millstone" into an American asset, a hardy fellow democracy and Cold War ally. Nixon regarded Israel as "the best Soviet stopper in the Mideast," and furnished the weaponry Israel needed to prevail in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Maybe it's me, but that paragraph has a tint of ingratitude in it. Oren makes it sound as if American warmed to Israel because it decided it could use Israel for its own purposes. Maybe I'm too naive, but I don't think it's too much to ask that American leaders get credit for supporting Israel because it was the right thing to do, as well as the most useful thing to do.

While the US government warmed to Israel after the '73 war, Oren points out that the relationship was not "friction-free." Well...

Israel's reluctance to forfeit territories captured in 1967, and its efforts to settle them, became a perennial source of tension. Presidents Ford and Carter threatened to withhold assistance from Israel unless it made territorial concessions.

Well, sir, we WERE trying to broker a lasting peace agreement in the Middle East at the time. A peace that, if successful, would have benefited Israel. I HEREBY STIPULATE that such hopes of the Ford and Carter administration may have been misguided. But, I don't see this as another example of American official indifference to Zionism.

Ronald Reagan condemned Israel's bombardment of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 as well as its siege of Beirut the following year.

I'm with you on the Iraqi nuclear reactor bombing. (Although, IIRC, the US didn't punish Israel for the Osirak bombing; it simply condemned it. If that's indeed what did happen---I'm not sure IIRC---can't we write that off as America saying what had to be said in order to keep the polite company of world opinion?)

But, as for the siege of Beirut, IIRC that included the Sabra and Shatilla camp massacres. Was the US supposed to ignore that?

Americans, in turn, irritated the Israelis with their transfer of sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia and their opposition to Israeli arms sales to China.

Saudi Arabia was--and is--a close military ally, with whom we have shared defense interests, and over whom we have significant military and political influence. (I.e., we need them and they need us).

And, as for Israel weapons sales to China: can you guarantee us that Israel's advanced weapons technology won't be reverse-engineered by the Chinese and turned into weapons that US Pacific Command will have to confront down the road? Or that China will then resell to American foes worldwide? Might you grant us a little irritation, over having to confront those possibilities as the result of Israel's arms sale, Mr. Oren?

America has never recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital – imagine if Israel refused to recognize Washington.

Yes, I'm sure that America's recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital wouldn't complicate diplomatic efforts and raise regional and international tensions one whit.

Here's Oren's conclusion:

How does the alliance surmount these challenges?

One reason, certainly, is values – the respect for civic rights and the rule of law that is shared by the world's most powerful republic and the Middle East's only stable democracy. There is also Israel's determination to fight terror, and its willingness to share its antiterror expertise. Most fundamentally, though, is the amity between the two countries' peoples. The admiration which the U.S. inspires among Israelis is overwhelmingly reciprocated by Americans, more than 70% of whom, according to recent polls, favor robust ties with the Jewish state.

No doubt further upheavals await the alliance in the future – as Iran approaches nuclear capability, for example. Israel may act more muscularly than some American leaders might warrant. The impending change of U.S. administration will also have an effect. But such vicissitudes are unlikely to cause a major schism in what has proven to be one of history's most resilient, ardent and atypical partnerships.

I was looking for Oren to tell us what America should do, in order to be a better ally to Israel. He didn't. He seems to be saying that, while we'll continue to disagree and irritate each other from time to time, the strength of the ties between the American and Israeli people will ensure that US-Israeli alliance endures.

I.e., I don't see where Oren concluded his argument. IMO he just dropped it. He reminded all of us that America hasn't been as steadfast an ally of Israel as many of us may think---and then he walked away. Perhaps it was the word limit the WSJ imposed on him....or perhaps he just wanted to air his thoughts and watch us deal with them.

OK, Michael Oren---here's how I deal with them.

John Foster Dulles described Israel as "the millstone around our necks." It is. I'm OK with that---but it is.

Israel's existence complicates US foreign policy---especially our ability to exist in today's world without irritating those around us. America angers many because it supports Israel. When Islamofascists criticize Israel, they often lump the US in at the same time. Muslim anger directed at Israel is often directed at the US as well. Being Israel's ally puts a target on our back.

I submit that, one of the reasons the US has felt compelled to keep the peace in the Middle East, and especially to put troops on the ground for more than ten years, is the desire to lessen the threat to Israel.

I think American diplomats would have had a freer hand to find a solution short of war to Saddam Hussein's rule, if Israel had not existed. Hussein could have been coerced into leaving Saudi Arabia and Kuwait alone. But I doubt that that nutcase (and his two nutcase sons) would have ever left Israel in peace. They would have threatened it forever.

Even an America truly indifferent to Zionism could not have ignored that. War between Israel and Iraq would have set the Middle East on fire, and threatened the globe's diplomatic and economic healt. The US could never have ignored that.

Yes, Israel is indeed a millstone around America's neck.

But it's not a burden. It's a valued ally and asset.

Millstones are heavy, but they are invaluable. They enable you to grind grain into flower, from which you can bake bread---the staple of life.

Israel has enabled the Jewish people to survive as a people. It has given them a home, and served as a source of strength to Jews and free people worldwide.

America is better off for Israel's existence. It is worth fighting for. Millions of us on the conservative side believe that. And, we speak up and act often in defense of Israel.

(Yet, I can't help but notice that the majority of America's Jewish community hold Republicans at arms' length. They seem to tolerate Republicans as allies, and instead crave the approval of a US Democratic Party which is much more intent on currying favor with Israel-hating multinational organizations like the UN. Has anyone else noticed that? Anyhoo...)

However, it's the US that has to try and solve whatever problems it can on behalf of the free world. Being the world's only superpower (or, the free world's only superpower) means that you have to try your hardest to do what you can to keep the peace. Often you fail, but you do have to try. There's no one else out there who can do it.

I'm sorry we've let you down so many times, Michael Oren. I'm sorry we haven't lived up to your expectations for us as your ally. But we have tried hard, very hard for Israel. We have put ourselves at risk, and shed blood because we are your ally. And we'll continue to do so. Gladly. Not only because it's good for us, but also because you are good people, and it's the right thing to do.

Is it too much to ask for a simple "Thank You," without all the qualifications and caveats?