But What About the Palestinians?

A Special Relationship: Israel and United States,

But what about the Palestinians?

By Felicia Whatley

The U.S. is not an honest broker in the Israeli/ Palestinian situation.  But there are limitations to the U.S. special relationship with Israel.

“Harry Truman gave Israel America’s blessing by recognizing the new nation…after its birth on 15 May 1948,” (Little, Douglas; American Orientalism; 77).

Though oil in the Middle East is an important incentive for America to get involved in the Middle Eastern countries, the U.S. has strategic and moral ties to Israel. Many American Christians or Jewish Zionists were angry over the U.S. isolationist behavior regarding the Holocaust.

It was thought to be insensitive to not support a Jewish state in Palestine. It would have been a political nightmare if the U.S. government did not support Israel’s right to exist and the right to defend themselves.

“During the following half-century Israel and the United States became ever more deeply involved in a complicated ‘special relationship’” (Little; 78).

There was a desire for both countries to oppose and work to contain radical Arab nationalism. This contributed to a bias towards the Jewish state of Israel verses the concept of a Palestinian state in Palestine. The special relationship between the U.S. and Israel shaped U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. American Jewish voters made an impression at the polls contributing to how U.S. aided Israel economically and militarily.

It is clear the U.S. was not an honest broker for the Israel and Palestinian situation in Israel. It would be over twenty years before the U.S. government acknowledged the Palestinians’ right for self determination and sovereignty.

The U.S. has always been sympathetic to the Israeli Jewish plight from the very beginning. Having such a strong ally in the Middle East benefited the U.S. strategically. The U.S. supported the Israeli people diplomatically and militarily by giving them billions of dollars in aid each year. They also assisted by supplying Israelis with U.S. military technology and hardware. Presidents like Harry Truman and FDR to maintain the special relationship with their Middle Eastern Ally.

           

Most American Jews supported a partition publicly, but were really against a binational government for Palestine. Some felt it would give terrorists too much power. And what they wanted was for the Arabs to leave Israel, so the nation would be safer. Many supported Israel expansion into the Golan Heights and West Bank. The Israelis did not want to give this land back to the Arabs. Israelis considered it to be Occupied Territory that they intended to continue to settle on.

            U.S. President Truman made the comment in 1946, “I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism.” He said to a state department critic, “I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs in my constituents.”

Perhaps not, but American presidents could not ignore the U.S.’s dependency on oil. This coupled with their opposition to communism led the U.S. in the Cold War to provide military aid to the Iranians and Afghan ‘freedom fighters’.

Americans also supported Saudi Arabia fiscally and militarily because the U.S. depended on them for oil. But there were no greater ally than Israel. Some think it is out of guilt for all the Jews that were turned away from their borders during WWII. Israel is thought to be a holy land for Israeli refugees. Any one who spoke against the support of Israel was considered anti-Semitic.

John Mearsheimer and Stephan Walt make the argument that U.S.’s Middle Eastern policy revolves around Israel in the “Israel Lobby”. “The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion, and jeopardized not only U.S. security, but much of the rest of the world.”

Mearsheimer and Walt confer the relationship is based on strategic interests or moral imperatives. But this can not explain the vast amount of aid Israel gets from America. So instead, they decide it is domestic politics driven by activists from the Israeli Lobby. By 2004, Israel had received $140 billion since WWII.

When the U.S. supports Israel the U.S. is scrutinized by the Arab states in the region, causing anti-American sentiments and oil trade embargos that directly affect the U.S. economy. Being an ally with Israel has contributed to anti-American terrorism, because the enemies of Israel are the enemies of the United States. Mearsheimer and Walt argue that the U.S. has a terrorism problem because they are so closely connected and supportive of Israel. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and attract new recruits, said Mearsheimer and Walt.

The limitations on the U.S./Israeli relations is that many Israeli officials ignore U.S. intentions and digress on promises made, such as the request that Israel stop expanding settlements on Arab land and stop targeting Palestinian leaders. The Jews have no moral right to criminally target the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have the right to fight back and demand equal rights. Americans draw the line when it comes to expelling the Arab refugees from the West Bank and Golan Heights. The Israelis do have the right to exist, but not at the cost of killing innocent Palestinian Arab citizens—especially children. Doing such harm would make the Israelis the terrorists.

Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar made the argument that U.S. warring in the Middle East had little to do with oil reliance, because the U.S. does not use much oil from the Middle, in comparison to countries in South America. Instead, the oil consumption is lower in the Middle East and the focus of conflicts is over power and domination. Policy makers long recognized that this kind of arrangement would give the United States veto power over what others in the region might do.  If the U.S. controlled Iraq, they would have leverage over other industrial nations by controlling the oil other countries would need. It is about geopolitical control, which why the U.S. pushed Britain out of the Middle East.

According to Chomsky and Achcar, the U.S. relations in the Middle East were based on the alliances between Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel in 1967. Later an invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces added to the alliances’ agenda. It also would contribute to the U.S.’s global economy and protection for their pursuit of oil.

Chomsky replied to the “What role does the pro-Israel lobby play in U.S. policy in the Middle East?” by saying U.S. senators endorse AIPAC initiatives because it is lucrative and wins them votes.

 The real power, he said, lies with American liberals. Many Zionists from the U.S. are left wing liberals, who are not necessarily Jewish. Any criticism of Israel met much opposition. AIPAC was a significant player, but the intellectuals of the liberal left out voiced them. There are many pro-Israel voting groups; some that are anti-Semitic, but still voted in support of Israeli Jews for a geopolitical planning goal.

Often Israel would make alliances that clashed with American ideals. U.S. president Bill Clinton put pressure on Israel to force them to cancel an arms sale in 2000 to China—a Phalcon airborne early warning system Israelis intended to sell to China. The technology of this military piece of equipment was likely the U.S.’s technology to begin with.

A similar situation occurred in 2005 when Israel attempted to sell anti-aircraft missiles to China. There are limits to U.S.’s generosity with Israel. America imposed sanctions on Israel and demanded an apology. Israel complied, but not without scarring their special relationship with the U.S.

Israel is considered “a strategic asset to the United States. Achcar stated, “Israeli progressives used to refer to Israel as an aircraft carrier of the United States.” And though the two countries’ interests were not always aligned, there was a special relationship between the two nations.

The Oslo Peace Process came to light in 1991, offering solace to the Palestinians wanting a separate Palestinian state. The hope for Palestinian sovereignty would be the only way to establish peace against Israel. Palestinians dreamed of setting up their own government, a capital, mosques, churches, cemeteries, town halls, memorials, and an airstrip.

The idea of a Palestinian mini-state would include parts of the old Palestine and would give them self-determination and identity.  There were displaced Arab refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and other parts of the world. “The ultimate objection of its struggle is the restoration of an independent and democratic Palestinian state, in which all citizens of whatever religion will enjoy equal rights,” (Gresh, Alain. “The PLO and Naska—The Struggle for a Palestinian State” p.82).

The idea for a democratic state for the Palestinians was not conceptualized until 1969 by the PLO. It was debated whether they wanted an independent state or a unified Arab state. Its roots lie in wanting liberation from Israel. The need for a free Palestinian state was not recognized until many years later. The American sentiment was with the Israelis. The rise of Arab nationalism in the 1950s was the unheard voice for decades to come. The Palestinians continued to war with Israel.

American support was with Israeli’s rights to sovereignty, but he U.S. did not celebrate Israel’s settlement and expansion into the West Bank, Golan Heights, or Gaza. Americans were not supportive of Israel’s invasion into Lebanon either. Israeli’s right to exist did not equate to invasion of surrounding Arab nations. But because of the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the Americans interfered little, yet still demanded Israel withdraw from Lebanon and stop extending their borders.

           

The U.N. Resolution 242 condemned Israel from warring for the conquest for land. The resolution did not however mention the Palestinian rights to self-determination in those areas. Israel’s war committee had no intention of giving back the conquered land to the Arabs. The Palestinians struggle for independence and sovereignty continues. Is it really so difficult to have a bi-national state?