How Did The US Become Such Staunch Israeli Ally ?

It would be misleading to think that the United States has always been supportive to Israel’s occupation and hegemony over Palestine. The truth is the U.S. support to the Jewish state had been very cautious until Israel’s victory in 1967. The U.S. involvement in the development of the Arab-Israeli conflict had been very careful in terms of the attitudes and practical steps taken in favor of any state involved in the conflict.

The United States had always had feelings of sympathy for the Jewish people who were decentralized and mistreated in Europe, and this is one of the reasons why the U.S. government saw the partition plan of 1947 an appropriate solution for the Jewish humanitarian problem. The other reason was that a large number of Jewish people used to live in the United States, and their votes were particularly important to President Truman ¹. This decision –encouraging the partition plan- worked apparently well for the U.S. government as it did not cause much Arab resentment toward Washington, thus allowing it to still be somehow neutral though committed to support Israel.

The U.S. cautiousness regarding the Arab Israeli conflict became less apparent after the British Mandate was practically removed from Palestine, followed by Ben-Gurion’s proclamation of the state of Israel. A few minutes after Ben-Gurion’s statement, President Truman made a formal statement recognizing the state of Israel as an independent and sovereign state. This, of course, caused the Arabs anger but at the same time worked well in terms of Truman’s domestic political interests ². The United States was well aware of the fact that it needed to still maintain its relations with the Arab states even though these relations were negatively impacted by the U.S. support for Israel. This is why the U.S. government took an unusual but tactic step against Israel; after the 1956 Suez crisis, Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula, but the United States, along with the United Nations and the Soviet Union, put pressure on Israel to give the occupied territory back to Egypt ³. The United States was not compelled to do such an act but it did it regardless, and this shows that the U.S. policy towards Israel was still vigilant prior to 1967.

Another example that shows the cautiousness of the United States towards Israel is its attitude towards the tensions that occurred prior the 1967 War. The first factor that is noteworthy is that the United States’ focus was mostly concentrated in Vietnam when the tensions were evolving between Israel and the Arab states, mainly Egypt and Syria. Israel had already been reassured by the former U.S. president, Kennedy, that the United States would be of support to Israel as much as possible, but now President Johnson seemed different in this regard. He sent a letter to the Israeli Prime Minister Eshkol asking him not to take military action because the United States would not support such a decision and therefore would not help militarily. In return, Eshkol responded by reminding Johnson of the U.S. commitment to Israel. President Johnson wrote back insisting that Washington was still committed but would not support a military action against the Arab states ⁴. This illustrates Johnson’s understanding that helping Israel against Egypt would negatively affect its relations with the whole Arab world, and this is something Johnson was not yet ready for. Israel, determined to take action, went into a fierce but well planned series of military attacks against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, and ended up defeating them.

After Israel’s victory in the Six-Days War in 1967 against the Arab States, the United States realized the importance of the victory in increasing the U.S. influence in the Middle East and tremendously increased its diplomatic, military, as well as economic support for Israel.

Diplomatic Support:

Israel proved its power and might when it managed to win a war against three states at once. The United States was sure enough that if it strengthened its relations with Israel and showed more commitment to its protection, Israel would become a strategic ally to the United States in the Middle East. As a result of its triumph, Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights and, more importantly, East Jerusalem, which it announced as the capital of the state of Israel ⁵. The international pressure on Israel to withdraw from the lands it occupied during the war was an option the Arab states were hoping for. However, Israel explicitly stated that it could negotiate the status of the Egyptian Sinai and the Syrian Golan Heights, but would never deal with the status of Jerusalem because it is now the capital of the Jewish state. The UN tried to resolve the crisis and passed Resolution 242 on November, 1967. The main tenets of the resolution were:

1.    Israel would withdraw from “occupied lands” during the June 1967 war.
2.    The state of belligerency between Israel and the Arab states should end.
3.    Respect and recognition of the independence and sovereignty of all states in the region.
4.    The establishment of “secure and recognized” boundaries.
5.    The preservation of freedom of navigation in international waters in the region.
6.    A “fair” settlement of the refugee issue.

The U.S. president at that time, President Johnson, agreed on the terms of the resolution but stated he would not push Israel to remove its forces from the lands it occupied during the war 6. Not only is this an implicit support for Israel not to adhere to the terms of Resolution 242, but also an indication that the United States has less interest in what the Arab states would feel about the U.S. attitude towards Israel and its new status in the Middle East.

Another event that happened and accentuated President Johnson’s overwhelming determination to support Israel no matter what happens is the Liberty Assault. On June 8, 1967, some Israeli forces attacked a U.S. intelligence ship. The ship was clearly defined to be American because of the American flag exposed on it. The CIA knew a day before that Israel’s goal was to completely destroy the ship; therefore the incident did not occur by mistake. 34 American soldiers were killed during the assault and 171 were wounded, and the ship was heavily devastated. However, President Johnson decided that the incident should not be heavily publicized, and statements were made to make Israel feel less guilty. The Israelis Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol, sent his formal apology to the United States, and claimed that the attacks occurred by mistake. President Johnson, in return, widely publicized the apology to make the nation more accepting to the fact that a mistake could happen and that Israel is admitting the responsibility for its mistake ⁷. All the diplomatic efforts that President Johnson made to cover Israel’s assault are indicative of his ambitions to maintain string bilateral relations between the United States and Israel.

Military Support:

Certainly one of the most instrumental effects of the Six-Days War on the international relations is that it proved to the United States that Israel might operate as a very influential and important strategic ally in the Middle East. This was not explicitly expressed by any American diplomat, but it was clearly seen through the large amount of all sorts of assistance the United States provided for Israel ⁸. One of the areas of the U.S. support for Israel is the military sector. The United States had already provided important amounts of military aid to Israel even before the 1967 war, but the aid was only in internationally abundant equipment. However, after the war, the United States had to show its commitment to Israel’s well-being. This is why the U.S. government decided to make one step forward in 1968 and sell one of its most advanced war planes, the F-4 Phantoms, to the Jewish state ⁹. President Johnson’s eagerness to show Israel his readiness to further support it was not the only reason why he agreed to sell the F-4s. The other reason is that, in order to secure the U.S-Israeli new alliance, the United States needed to become Israel’s main weapon supplier instead of France, which provided the Israel with weaponry before and during the Six-Days War ¹⁰.

Another example that illustrates the U.S. support for Israel after 1967 is its efforts to secure its nuclear program and make it invisible as much as possible. Even while the Americans and Israelis were negotiating the F-4 deal, there was a concern over Israel’s nuclear ambitions in the Middle East. Moreover, one of the questions posed at that time was whether or not signing the nonproliferation treaty (NPT) should be a factor determining the likelihood of the deal. However, the Israelis could convince the Americans that Israel will not be the first state to announce its nuclear capabilities. The United States, in return, agreed and expressed its understanding that Israel needed more security, and acquiring nuclear power might play a vital role in providing this security ^₁₁.

The U.S. attitude towards Israel was becoming obvious to the whole international community as more events were occurring on the international scene. In 1967, the total of military loans the United States offered Israel was $7 million, whereas in 1968 it became $25 million ¹². Another example is that when Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, which angered the U.S. because the weapons used in the invasion were supplied by the U.S. government. As a result, The United States stopped all its military support for Turkey until 1976. On the other hand, in 1982, when Israel attacked Lebanon, the U.S. reaction was totally different. The U.S. government decided not to pursue the same approach it had used against Turkey. But it promised Israel that it would export 75 of its most advanced F-16 planes to it ¹³.

It is very important to note that the U.S. support and aid to Israel is not solely for the sake of Israel’s well-being. The United States gained many benefits that it would not have been able to gain without assisting the Jewish state. One of the most important advantages the United States gained is the ability to test its weaponry through Israel. In addition to that, the United States could get intelligence services on the region from Israel. Moreover, Israel strengthened the U.S. presence in the Middle East and minimized the Soviets’ influence ¹⁴. At the military level, it is clear now that the United States has been of direct support for Israel, but it has also gained many advantages in return, which partially refutes the claims that the U.S. support for Israel is based on its sympathy for the Jews and its concern about their security in the Middle East.

Economic Support:

The United States has helped Israel at the economic level repeatedly before its victory in 1967, but this assistance took a more extensive dimension after the war. For example, the total of economic loans the U.S. government granted Israel in 1957 was $21.8 million. In 1961, it increased to $29.8 million. Yet, the loans decreased again in 1967 to $5.5 million only. This was mainly because of the U.S. attitude towards Israel’s decision to go to war with Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. However, the economic loans to Israel dramatically increased after Israel’s triumph to reach $51.3 million in 1968 ¹⁵. This proves that the United States entirely revised its policy regarding Israel and its potential in carrying out policies that the U.S. government saw appropriate to its interests in the Middle East after the 1967 war.

Over the period of 1946 to 1983, the United States has provided Israel with more than $27 billion in economic as well as military aid, most of wish occurred after the Six-Days War. Moreover, American economists estimate that the United States financially helped Israel during the period between 1981 and 1983 with an amount of money that reached $3.400 for each Israeli household ¹⁶. Between 1986 and 1988, the total of U.S. economic assistance to Israel reached $3 billion annually, which put the Jewish state on the top of U.S. aid beneficiaries ¹⁷. All these figures translate into one fact; the United States realized the importance of strengthening Israel as an ally and strategic asset in the Middle East.

The point is:

Needless to say that it is one of the highest priorities of the United States to support Israel and secure it by all possible means; the latest raids on Gaza have shown chronic apathy and inhumane collaboration between two states that claim being pioneers in the promotion and protection of human rights. The day-to-day reality of an oppressed people shows the invalidity of the preachers of democracy. In addition, the international community has made no effort to address the injustice and collective punishment Palestinians have been going through for the past several decades. Even worse, the Arab regimes have pushed themselves to the sides and watched, as the masses revolted and expressed anger, shame, and embarrassment. The U.S. support is there to stay regardless of who sits at the oval office. The political factions in Gaza and the West Bank are divided and disenfranchised, and the Palestinians are trapped in the middle with no one to listen or respond to the cries. This is not about humans; it is about political interest, power, and hegemony.

Sources:
1. Nadav Safran. The United States and Israel (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1963), 41.
2. Cheryl A. Rebenberg. Israel and the American National Interest (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 40.
3. Middle East, Ninth Edition (Washington D.C: Quarterly. Inc, 2000), 32.
4. William B. Quandt. Decade of Decisions (London, England: University of California Press, 1977), 39-41.
5. Middle East, Ninth Edition (Washington D.C: Quarterly. Inc, 2000), 37.
6. Middle East, Ninth Edition (Washington D.C: Quarterly. Inc, 2000), 89.
7. Paul Findley. They Dare to Speak. (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 1985, 1989), 165-166.
8. Cheryl A. Rebenberg. Israel and the American National Interest (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 126.
9. Stephen Green. Taking Sides: America’s secret relations with a militant Israel (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1984), 250.
10. William B. Quandt. Decade of Decisions (London, England: University of California Press, 1977), 66.
11. William B. Quandt. Decade of Decisions (London, England: University of California Press, 1977), 67.
12. Cheryl A. Rebenberg. Israel and the American National Interest (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 96.
13. Stephen Green. Taking Sides: America’s secret relations with a militant Israel (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1984), 254.
14. Wolf Blitzer. Between Washington and Jerusalem (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 76.
15. Cheryl A. Rebenberg. Israel and the American National Interest (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 96.
16. Stephen Green. Taking Sides: America’s secret relations with a militant Israel (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1984), 251.
17. Helen Chapin Metz. Israel: A Country Study. (Library of Congress Catalogue-in-Publications Data, 1990), 234.

Author: Youness Tihm was born in Rabat, Morocco. He holds a DEUG from University of Mohammed V, a BA in International Relations from Nazareth College of Rochester (NY), and a teaching certificate from Cambridge University (UK). Youness is now preparing a Master’s Degree in Sustainable International Development, with a focus on Human Rights and Governance. He serves as President of the Institute of Leadership and Human Development. He also co-founded and advises a chapter of the NGO People to People International in Morocco. Tihm interned at the Center for Interfaith Studies and Dialogue, Center for International Education, the Moroccan-American Commission for the Education and Cultural Exchange, and the Embassy of Morocco. Tihm was awarded two leadership awards by the Academy for International Education in 2006 and 2007, a “Professor of the Year Award” by the Institute for Language and Communication Studies in Morocco, and most recently a “Training Future Leaders Award” by USAID.

Bookmark

Email this

Comments (6) Add comments

Subscribe to this comment's feed

ATB

...

01/12/09

Title:

"It would be misleading to think that the United States has always been supportive to Israel’s occupation and hegemony over Palestine."
Great opener! Cite one instance in which the US has NOT been supportive of Israel's hegemony since 1947.
No need to research it; there isn't one.

Driss Driss

...

01/03/09

Title:

How Has The US Become Such Staunch Israeli Ally?

More appropriate than "How Did..." as the US is still an Israeli ally

Thank you, Youness!