What's the rationale for the Israel-US relationship?

Great Debates
1

I don’t necessarily want a “Great Debate” but I really don’t have the understanding or knowledge of the history and/or politics involved between these two countries.

The Islamic world seems to hate Israel, but is it just because of religion or are there other factors? Do they hate the US because of our alliance with Israel more than they hate us for being “Western”? While were at it, what’s the deal with Palestine?

History classes during my education generally covered things up until WWII, and I honestly haven’t paid that much attention to Middle East events in the last 10-15 years, with the exception of the Gulf War.

2

This is a very difficult one to keep out of Great Debate territory. Almost nothing I can think of to say is uncontroversial.

The three reasons I can think of for the USA’s support for Israel are:

  1. Strategically, it is very useful for the USA to have a friend in the Middle East region, particularly a mature and stable democracy.
  2. Politically, consideration of Jewish voters in the USA tends to encourage policy-makers to support Israel.
  3. From an altruistic point of view, the defeat and destruction of the state of Israel would be a humanitarian disaster.

You are right that many Muslims consider Israel to be an enemy. This is probably because of the circumstances of the Jewish settlement of Palestine and the foundation of the State of Israel in 1947.

After World War I, Palestine was administered by Britain. Britain’s policy since the Balfour Declaration was to set up a Jewish state in Palestine.

After WWII the case for a secure Jewish homeland was compelling and many Jewish settlers were already in Palestine. Unfortunately the reality was that some 5 million Arabs already living there had to be moved out to make room. Many of these live as permanent refugees in very squalid conditions in South Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. The dispossession of this population and the poverty of their lives bred terrorist organisations that sought to destroy the State of Israel and drive the Jews into the sea.

The name “Palestine” is now often used to refer to the areas occupied by Israel since the 1967 war, namely the West Bank (formerly part of Jordan) and the Gaza strip (formerly part of Egypt), which will eventually form the territory of a new Palestinian state.

The plight of the Palestinians is certainly an important factor in the hatred of certain Muslim factions and countries for the USA.

3

Well, if this thread doesn’t belong in GD territory yet, then this will probably push it over the edge - but you gotta do what you gotta do…

A few comments:

  1. I don’t know where the “5 million Arabs” figure comes from, but it is highly inflated. The 1945 British Mandatory census found 756,000 permanent Arab residents of Palestine, and the 1949 Israeli census counted 160,000 Arabs living in the country after the war. (Recall, too, that as the West Bank and Gaza did not become part of Israel after that war, any Arabs living there could, by definition, not have been refugees “moved out to make room” for Jews.) To be exact, the UN Mediator on Palestine put the number of Arab refugees at 472,000.

  2. At the time, the proto- (and later, actual) government of Israel openly and repeatedly appealed to the Arabs to remain rather than flee, and promised them protection as equal citizens. For the most part, the Arab exodus was provoked by calls from Arab leaders (in part based on the expectation that it would be a quick and short war that would dispossess the Jews once and for all from the country).

  3. At least that number of Jews were dispossessed from various Muslim countries between 1947-52. The great majority were resettled in Israel, at government expense, and indeed some of them have gone on to be quite successful; for example, the current president of Israel, Moshe Katsav, is the son of refugees from Iran. Certainly, few or none of them live as “permanent refugees.”

Which means that the fact that the Palestinian Arabs live “as permanent refugees in very squalid conditions,” regrettable as it is, says more about the policies of the surrounding Arab governments than it does about Israeli policy.

Actually, those areas were indeed supposed to become an independent Palestinian state in 1948. The countries that you name, instead of doing so, illegally annexed those territories (and left the refugees in their camps).

For a lot more detail, and sources for much of the above, see http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/refugees.html.
RedNaxela

4

RedNaxela’s summary is very good.

Another thing to note is that Palestinians are generally treated as second-class in the Arab world. Jordan is the only country that granted Palestinian refugees citizenship after 1967 (Lebanon and Egypt both kept them in refugee camps). Other countries, such as Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. that profess such concern for the Palestinians will not integrate them into their societies, and recently (ie, the last year) have made a big deal about providing financial support - but to those families whose members have been suicide bombers, stone throwers, etc. Some Arab regimes finance terrorist organisations that operate within Israel and Palestinian areas, which only serves increases the loss of life for very little gain.

If we link the original question to September 11- Osama bin Laden’s original gripe with the US was the presence of US troops (and women) in Saudi Arabia, home to Islam’s two holiest sites - Mecca and Medina. Bin Laden opposes the Saudi regime because it is unbelievably corrupt, and because it partners with the US. Bin Laden has recently begun to use the Palestinian issue and al-Aksa intifada to rally other Arab populations behind him. I doubt he gives a damn about what really goes on in the Palestinian-Authority ruled areas (which, incidentally, include most of Gaza and large portions of the West Bank).

Whew, time to stop.

5

If they were forced out of other areas of Palestine, and fled to the Gaza Strip, I’d call them refugees.

6

but after World War II, the European powers simply decided to create a new country in the Middle East? In creating Isreal, who ceded the land and why? How did Isreal go from being an interloper in the area to invading parts of Egypt and Jordan? Is Isreal being agressive in these actions? Did the leaders in 1947 see this Palestinian Muslim population as being a problem for all eternity? How did they expect the Jews of Isreal to get along with the Palestinians?

I also don’t understand why the Arabs had to leave? Why couldn’t they stay and live alongside the new Jewish residents? In my own community, we have people of various faiths and cultures all living together. We don’t all like what the others do, but we manage to live together in a civil society. Why don’t others manage this same feat?

Lots of questions, but it just doesn’t make sense…

7

IANAH… but I will take a laymans WAG at this. Lots of Jews were living in the area that is now Israel, along side of people now called Palestinians. A coalition of governments in power following WWII decided to recognize that this area would now be a country with an independent government primarily by and for people of jewish desent, both local and refugies from Europe. Land in this area was then owned and occupied by both jews and non-jews, and some of each gave up estates to move to their respective newly designated area. Lots of local countries mentioned above object, and attack Israel, which defends itself AND captures strategic locations nearby. These strategic locations included most of the areas designated to be the new country for the non-jews.

Israel was not the aggressor, but the wars ended with them in posession of more land than they started with, which they then settled. Much of their military hardware was provided by the U.S., as well as financial support. Terrorism is ever-present, and Israel basically says it will give some of the captured territories back when it feels it will be safe to do so, which won’t happen until the terrorism stops. Palestinians are definitely victims, but not specifically victims of Israel and the U.S.

This is a very basic outsider’s overview. There are many more factors that play into this, and emotions run high. If you really want to know about it then get a variety of texts and maps of the area with the boundaries drawn at different times and try to sort it out. Talk to people and get a mix of perspectives. If you find a fair and equitable solution that leaves all parties whole be sure to tell someone - you will have been the first!

8

An excellent question, for which we will probably never get a straight answer.

You might want to start with this timeline.

More than any other place in the world, geography plays a key role in this part of the Middle East. Part of the intractability of the problem revolves around who controls the natural geographic borders of the area surrounding Israel and for what purpose they have been used in the past.

Israel can accurately claim that within twenty-four hours of its declaration as a state on May 14, 1948, it was invaded by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, with help from Iraq. Fifteen months of more-or-less conventional warfare ensued, and Israel came out on top. This successful defense of its territory–by the narrowest of margins–served to legitimize the state in the eyes of many nations.

Every inch of Israeli turf was bordered by enemy territory. Those borders were regularly crossed by raiding parties. In 1956, when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, Israel took the opportunity to grab Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula.

Negotiations ensued. Israelis feared that Egypt was primarily interested in the return of the Sinai for its use as a platform to launch another invasion of Israel. As history shows, those fears were justified. In 1967, Israel caught wind of a three-way invasion plan on the part of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, and preemptively struck. The West Bank was occupied primarily to prevent Jordan from using it again as an invasion platform into Jerusalem. Similarly, the Golan Heights were invested from the Syrians.

No credible historian denies the veracity of Israel’s intelligence before the Six Day War. An invasion really was in the works in 1967, and Israel spiked it.

After Palestinian refugees attempted to overthrow King Hussein of Jordan during the Black September of 1970, Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank, leaving the status of that area somewhat uncertain.

At any rate, the intentions behind the actions of the neighboring Arab nations in 1967 are somewhat mooted by their later actions in 1973, when Egypt and Syria attacked again, this time without much warning from Israeli intelligence. The Yom Kippur War is sometimes characterized as an attempt on the part of Egypt and Syria to regain lost terrirory, but their forces showed no intention of stopping at the 1948 borders. Rather, they showed every intention of attempting to do exactly what they and the Palestinians had stated countless times: complete the destruction of the state of Israel.

Again, they were egregiously defeated and lost further territory to the counterattacking Israelis.

Thus, the question of “invader” or “projected defense” depends entirely upon whether or not you accept the formation of the state of Israel as a legitimate action. If one does not accept the legitimacy of their presence, the history of Israel is one of continued expansion. If one does accept the existence of Israel, their occupation of surrounding territories appears to be a rational response to two invasions and an attempted third.

The above may sound opinionated, but I have been pretty careful to stick to the facts. I will gladly accept any corrections.

9

(I see on preview that Engineer Don and Sofa King have covered some of the same ground below, but some of these facts bear repeating…)

From 1917 to 1948, the area was ruled by Great Britain (from 1922 onwards, under a mandate from the League of Nations, precursor to the United Nations). Formerly, it had been part of the Ottoman Empire.

So in a sense, the creation of the state of Israel is not much different than the creation of lots of other states, big and little, out of former colonial territories.

In this particular case, the initial British conquest of Palestine, in 1917, was accompanied by a declaration of the Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, to the effect that the government “view[s] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

Partition plans for Palestine were floated as far back as 1937. In November 1947 the matter was put to a UN vote, and passed by a margin of 33 to 13.

(Aside from all this, Jews had been purchasing land in then-Palestine since 1880, often at exorbitant prices.)

“Interloper” is a rather loaded word, Drum, and I will take the liberty of asking you to leave it out of such a discussion.

Bear in mind that the neighboring countries themselves had achieved independence from British or French colonial domination only a few years earlier (e.g., Jordan - originally Transjordan - in 1946). (I won’t even get into the long history of Israel as a Jewish state, pre-70 CE, which predates Islam itself by several centuries. Furthermore, it is a fact that a great number of Palestinian Arabs themselves had come to the country only in the last century or so, attracted by Jewish redevelopment and the consequent economic potential.)

If you’ll look at my previous post, I noted that the territories under discussion (the West Bank and Gaza) were illegally annexed by Jordan and Egypt, so the question of Israel “invading parts of those countries” is (or should be) moot.

As for the “aggressiveness” part, you might keep in mind that the 1967 war, in which Israel won these territories, was triggered by Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian saber-rattling, in the form of massing of troops and military equipment on the borders. You can be sure that this was not just for a military review parade, and so Israel did the only sensible thing (especially for a country without strategic depth, which Israel was, pre-1967) and struck preemptively.

Well, here’s a couple of quotes in this connection:

“We will do everything in our power to maintain peace, and establish a cooperation gainful to both [Jews and Arabs]. It is now, here and now, from Jerusalem itself, that a call must go out to the Arab nations to join forces with Jewry and the destined Jewish State and work shoulder to shoulder for our common good, for the peace and progress of sovereign equals” (Assembly of Palestine Jewry, Oct. 2, 1947).

“The main theme behind the spontaneous celebrations we are witnessing today is our community’s desire to seek peace and its determination to achieve fruitful cooperation with the Arabs…” (Jewish Agency, Nov. 30, 1947)

“In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions…We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all” (Israeli Declaration of Independence, May 14, 1948).

Back in 1919, when the terms of the British mandate over Palestine and Syria were first being worked out, prominent Arab leaders expressed similar sentiments. For example, this, from Emir Faisal, later the first king of Iraq:

“The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement … We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home … We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is nationalist and not imperialist. Our movement is nationalist and not imperialist. And there is room in Syria for us both. [Under Turkish rule, Syria included part of Palestine.] Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other” (letter to Felix Frankfurter, Mar. 3, 1919. (Source: www.bridgesforpeace.com/publications/teaching/Article-11.html.)

Some Arabs indeed have done so, which is how some 160,000 Arabs came to still be living in the country at the time of the 1949 census, as I mentioned in my previous post.

See the site I linked to before, at http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/refugees.html, for a summary of the Arab propaganda blitz that convinced most of the Arabs of Palestine to go into exile.
RedNaxela

10

Point well taken. What I had been trying to say was that if they lived in the WB/GS both pre- and post-1948, then they were obviously not forced out by Israeli occupation - but then that’s clearly a tautology, and anyway is equally true of those Arabs who did remain in Israeli territory.

So scratch that sentence, and thanks for the clarification.
RedNaxela

11

My use of “interloper” was not intended to be offensive. I intended for it to mean that many of the Jews in the area seemed to be new. In fact, the territory they held seemed new.

This discussion has been quite informative. Thanks.

I realize that for many people, this discussion jumps into areas of racism. I guess it’s really the hatred that so many in the area seem to have that I don’t understand. Maybe the more basic questions are ‘Why does it matter?’ and ‘Why can’t we all just get along?’ I don’t mean to trivialize real issues people have, but why should it matter that Jews live in the neighborhood? People of a different ethnic background than mine live in my town, state, and country, and I’m not upset about it. Without being trivial, but what is the big deal?

What is the real rift between Muslims and Jews?

12

I think Great Debates is a better place for this thread, so I’ll move it.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

13

Some historian dubbed the 20th century “The American Century”, but it probably should have been called, “The century of nationalism”, and it’s nationalism that spurs this conflict, not religion. The Palestinian Arabs want an independent, Arab state, preferably in all the land that is now Israel.

Culture also plays a role. The founders of Israel were mainly European, and Israel has, in many ways, a European culture. It’s seen by a lot of Palestinians, and by a lot of its neighbors as the last European colonial bastion in the Middle East.

14

Drum, looks like today is my day for apologies. I should have just said that it was a poor choice of words, without implying that you meant to be offensive with it. I’m sorry for making it sound that way.
RedNaxela

15

I’ll just add a few comments in here.

The US-Israel relationship has been a mutually beneficial relationship, this current ugliness aside. The US has had a large part in creating a progressive, democratic, free state in the Middle East. The US in turn has got lots of muscle in the region, a safe harbor, an open market for its goods, intelligence sharing, privy arrangements with high tech and aerospace firms in Israel, and a constant partner in any international ventures in which the US enters. The US has only had to sacrifice foreign aid (which is a tiny fraction of the government’s expenditures). The US/Israel relationship has not even severely hampered negotiations with Arab countries, as seen in the Gulf War and in the US relationship with OPEC.

16

Said Captain Amazing:

I get the strong impression that the other Islamic and Arab nations want exactly that, too. In the wake of the great “refugee swap” of 1948, some 500,000 Jewish people living in the North African and Peninsular states migrated to Israel, but the Palestinians do not appear to have been welcomed by the states neighboring Israel. If this source is to be believed (it is fairly partisan), the Palestinian refugees appear to have been kept in refugee status intentionally.

Is it still safe to say that the prevailing opinion amongst the Arab (and perhaps all Islamic) nations is that peace in the Middle East still hinges upon the destruction of the state of Israel? The PLO Charter still states that (Article 15), but Egypt and Jordan appear to have relaxed somewhat.