BICOM

Key Points

•  The recent disagreement between Israel and the US on East Jerusalem, and comments by General Petraeus on the links between the Arab-Israeli conflict and other challenges facing the US in the region, have caused some to question the US-Israel strategic relationship.
• Whilst the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict resonates in the region, the link between the Israeli-Palestinian issue and other problems in the Middle East is frequently exaggerated.
• Israel provides a unique alliance to Western interests in the region, which cannot be replaced by other alliances.
• Whilst there are disagreements over how to advance the peace process, peace is a shared strategic interest of Israel and the US. Past experience has shown that peace cannot be achieved simply by pressuring Israel to make concessions. Arab states and the Palestinians need to be equally ready to shoulder the burden.

Introduction

In an effort to contain the diplomatic tension that has arisen owing to an Israeli plan to construct 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, US President Barack Obama said last Wednesday that there is no crisis between the US and Israel. Nonetheless, Israel’s strategic importance to the US has been questioned in some recent headlines. This has intensified following a statement given by US General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command (CENTCOM), on 16 March to the Senate Armed Services Committee. He stated that perceived US “favouritism” for Israel fuels anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, has undermined US relations with Arab states and peoples, and is exploited by militant Islamist groups. He further asserted that a credible US effort on the Arab-Israeli peace process, “would undercut Iran’s policy of militant ‘resistance’, which the Iranian regime and insurgent groups have been free to exploit”.

This analysis looks at the broader context of the debate about the regional dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the enduring strategic importance of Israel for US and Western interests.

Context and historical background

US-Israeli ties have developed into a unique, complex and deeply rooted relationship over recent decades. At the same time, there have also been long-standing differences over certain policy issues, including the issue of settlements. 

The Arab world has always accused the US of “favouritism” for Israel, even when Washington overwhelmingly saw Israel as a strategic hindrance throughout the early Cold War years. Ever since Israel’s establishment in 1948, there have been voices within the US administration, as in Britain, warning that support for Israel undermines more important relations that the US has with the oil-rich Arab world.

Currently there is an added sensitivity in Washington to the question of US support for Israel. The Obama administration is determined to change America’s image in the Islamic world as part of its strategy to counter the spread of radical Islamist anti-Western sentiment. This is a high priority in light of the presence of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The ongoing controversy over ‘linkage’

The Obama administration entered office with bold ambitions in the Middle East. There was a determination to pursue peace both for its own sake and as part of a deep desire to renew relations with the Islamic world. The current administration has been more willing than the Bush administration to link the issues of the Arab-Israeli peace process, and countering anti-Western radicalism in the region.

Whilst the Israeli-Palestinian conflict undoubtedly resonates in the region, the link between the conflict and other problems in the region has frequently been exaggerated.

In their 2009 book, Myths, Illusions and Peace, Dennis Ross and David Makovsky describe the belief that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict is a prerequisite to addressing the problems of the region as the ‘myth of linkage’. They argue that this is view typically promoted by Arab leaders to avoid taking responsibility for their own failures in bringing about political and economic development.

There are many conflicts, rivalries and issues creating instability in the region which are not connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and domination over its gulf Arab neighbours, internal division in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories, and the struggle between secular nationalists and Islamists, all hamper development in the region. Past UN Human Development Reports have stressed that lack of freedom, education and female participation in political and economic life are deep lying causes of social and political malaise which have nothing to do with Israel.

Jihadist groups such as Al-Qaeda may exploit the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to rally Muslims to their radical anti-Western cause. But the anti-Western sentiment of Al Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups in the region is rooted in their rejection of Western values and ideals, rather than any specific grievances against Western policies. Israeli leaders and others have long argued that Israel is hated by radical Islamists precisely because it represents the Western values of freedom and democracy that they despise.

Many Western leaders see promoting the peace process as in Western interests to undermine the efforts of radicals and win support for their anti-Western agenda. This does not create an inherent conflict of interest between Israel and the US. Most Israelis recognise peace between Israel, the Palestinians and the wider Arab world to be in Israel’s own clear national interest.

But as Ross and Makovsky argue, it does not follow that peace can be achieved just by pressuring Israel. Both sides have to make difficult compromises to achieve peace. The last year has shown how the international approach needs to be balanced in order to make progress. The heavy demands made by the US on Israel encouraged the Palestinians and Arab states to adopt an uncompromising stance. Following Obama’s visit to Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh and his diplomatic outreach to Morocco and elsewhere, the administration has been disappointed not to have witnessed any sign from within the Arab world of willingness to normalise relations with Israel.

Israel’s value as an ally

The US-Israeli relationship continues to be beneficial for both countries, as well as for the West in general and for many of its Arab allies, as a strategic counterweight to radicalism. Of America’s three key strategic allies in the region, Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Israel is the most reliable partner in containing Iranian backed anti-Western forces including Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. These radical forces present a direct threat not only to US regional interests and Israel but also to pro-Western Arab players.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf states all fear Iran – as well as local and global Islamist movements with popular support. Israel is an asset not only to the West, but for these other pro-Western states in the region. There is currently an unparalleled confluence of interests between Israel and Western-orientated Arab states. When Israel confronted Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006, pro-Western Arab states were privately supportive of Israel’s efforts to blunt the threat posed by a dangerous pro-Iranian militia. Egypt has been explicit in the past year about the direct threat both Hamas and Hezbollah pose to its own security. This also explains why there was no united Arab front criticising Israel during Operation Cast Lead.

Strategic cooperation between Israel and the US, especially in terms of intelligence exchanges, has taken on a new meaning in the face of unprecedented counterterrorist and counter-proliferation challenges. Israel has also proved to be an asset through its reported military actions, such as the bombing in September 2007 of a Syrian plutonium reactor near the town of al-Kibar, attributed to Israeli forces. Had this nuclear plant, developed clandestinely with North Korea, been completed, it would have presented a severe security crisis for Israel, the Arab world, Europe and the US.

But the strategic dimension does not fully account for the nature of the US-Israeli relationship. There is also an affinity of values, beyond “national interests”, underpinning the relationship. Even as the administration is frustrated at the Israeli government, Obama has spoken of the “special bond” between the two peoples. Israel stands out in the region as a pluralist, Western-oriented democracy with an open and hugely innovative economy, which is very appealing to the values of freedom and liberty to which America is committed. Americans also feel a connection to the notion of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, especially after the horrors of the Holocaust. Whilst the importance of other regional allies of the US is undisputed, America still relates to Israel in a unique way.

Conclusion

The reason that the US has invested for so long in its strategic relationship with Israel is because this benefits the United States and the West. Like all healthy relationships there can be strong disagreements at times, but that does not undermine a relationship based on convergent strategic interests and shared values. It is right for all states to constantly re-evaluate strategic relationships, but it remains clear, despite ongoing disagreements, that Israel provides a unique prop for US and Western interests in the region that cannot be replaced by its other strategic allies. The threat of radical Islamism is faced by the West, Israel, and Western-orientated Arab states together. Al Qaeda and their supporters are ideologically opposed to Western values, and oppose Israel’s existence because it represents those values. Such groups will continue to promote hatred of Israel and the West regardless of what happens in the peace process.