Does the U.S.-Israel Alliance Have a Future? By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, November 14, 2013.
Israel Has No Alternative to U.S. Alliance. By Jonathan S. Tobin. NJBR, November 12, 2013.
Tobin:
Perhaps
a week when the U.S. secretary of state told a Senate committee to “stop
listening to the Israelis” and to ignore their concerns about the existential
threat from the Iranian nuclear program wasn’t the best timing to write about
the importance and the permanence of the U.S.-Israel alliance. But bad timing
or not, my post about the rumblings from some in Israel about an alternative to
their ties to the only true superpower in the world has provoked some
interesting comments and led me to think a bit more about the topic as well. In
fact, weeks such as the one we’re currently experiencing may be the best time
for those who care about the relationship to explore how to shore it up and the
stakes involved for both countries. Even as Kerry seems to be doing everything
to downgrade the relationship, it’s important to point out that not only is
there no rational alternative to it from Israel’s point of view but that it is
of vital importance to the United States as well.
First,
let me address the question of whether it is wise to inextricably link Israel’s
wellbeing to America’s standing in the world. Martin Kramer wrote here that he
agreed with me that it is dangerous for anyone in Israel to even consider
trying to play China or Russia off the United States in a vain attempt to
outmaneuver Washington when it comes to questions like the nuclear peril from
Iran. But he disagreed with this passage from my post:
Israel’s
long-term safety must be seen as linked to the ability of the United States to
maintain its status as the leader of the free world. Even at times of great
tension with Washington, Israelis must never forget that it is not just that
they have no viable alternatives to the U.S. but that American power remains the
best hope of freedom for all nations.
Kramer
believes that American power, like all power, “waxes and wanes.” He goes on to
write the following:
More
than six years ago, before Obama even declared his candidacy, I told the
Conference of Presidents that “America’s era in the Middle East will end one
day,” and that “it is possible that in twenty years’ time, America will be less
interested and engaged in the Middle East. What is our Plan B then?” Obama
accelerated that timetable, but the long-term trend has been clear for years.
And one doesn’t have to be a “declinist” to realize that the United States can
lead the free world and still write off the Middle East, which isn’t part of
it. That’s precisely the mood in America today.
That’s
a sobering thought and the possibility can’t be entirely discounted, especially
with figures such as Senator Rand Paul rising to prominence in a Republican
Party that has become a bulwark of the alliance in the last generation.
Moreover, he’s right when he says that the history of Zionism teaches us that
in order to survive, the movement has had to be flexible in its alliances with
world powers. A century ago, many Zionists were looking to tie their future to
that of the Ottoman Empire. A few years later, after the sick man of Europe
collapsed, they cast their lot with a British Empire. But after a few short
years when London seemed ready to make good on the promise made in the Balfour
Declaration, they were abandoned. Gradually America became the focus of Zionist
diplomacy, but until that alliance became a reality after the Six-Day War,
Israel relied on a brief yet crucial period of Soviet friendship during the War
of Independence and after that a fruitful friendship with France that lasted
until 1967.
Israel’s
leaders must, as Kramer says, be prepared for all eventualities and they should
not, as I wrote, be blamed for seeking to foster ties with other countries. But
the problem with planning for a theoretical period of American withdrawal from
the world is that the answer to his question about a “Plan B” is that there
isn’t one.
Though
he is right to assert that the point of Zionism is, to the greatest extent
possible, to make sure that Israel can defend itself, no “agility” or ability
to “read the changing map of the world” can substitute for an alliance with
America. Without a strong United States that is engaged in the world, Israel
will not disappear. But it will be weaker and far more vulnerable. For Israel
there is not and never will be—at least in the foreseeable future—a viable
alternative to the alliance with the United States.
But the
key question here is not so much whether Israel appreciates how important the
U.S. is to its future—and there’s every indication that Israel’s leaders
understand that—but whether Americans understand how important the Jewish state
is to it.
The
flip side to this discussion is that for all the talk from anti-Zionist
conspiracy theorists like those who promote the Walt-Mearsheimer “Israel Lobby”
in which the Jewish state is supposed to be the tail that wags the American
dog, we don’t talk enough about how Israel is a valued ally of the United
States.
After
the end of the Cold War, the value of having what many consider to be a
regional superpower allied with the United States has been largely ignored. But
the notion that the U.S. doesn’t need strong allies in an era in which it is
challenged by Islamist terrorism as well as rogue states like Iran is farcical.
Moreover, the traditional meme of critics of the alliance—that Arab states are
hostile to the United States because of its friendship with Israel—has been
exploded both by the Arab Spring and the regional concerns about Iran that have
made it clear that they fear Tehran more than they do the Jewish state.
Israel’s
intelligence capabilities have long been a boon to the U.S. But its
technological resources—both in terms of military and commercial
applications—are now just as if not more important. Israel, the “start-up
nation,” is a vital partner for the U.S. economy.
But
even if we ignore the utilitarian aspects of this friendship, it should be
remembered that the core of American foreign policy has, contrary to the
slanders of the left, always primarily been moral rather than a nation bent on
conquest or empire. As such it needs nations that share its democratic values.
That means Israel remains part of the select few countries that will always be
natural allies. It is true that Israel cannot always count on the U.S. to do
the right thing at the right time. Nor can the U.S. assume that Israel will
disregard its interests in order to serve American convenience. But the
relationship is both mutual and rooted in something stronger than Lord
Palmerston’s famous dictum about permanent interests. Support for Israel is
part of the political DNA of American culture. The same is true of Israel’s
affinity with its fellow democracy.
