Filed under: Al-Wahsh: The monster of commentary | Tags: the Special Relationship
My last post on this issue proved somewhat controversial, unsubstantiated for some and downright ludicrous for others. The topic is difficult due to the fact that it is an emotive issue and many approach the subject with strong pre-conceived notions about the appropriateness of the U.S.-Israeli relationship and Israel’s overall contribution to U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East. Here, I argue that Israel’s strategic importance to the U.S. and the majority of Arab states lies in the fact that Israel acts as a regional support for the Arab state order, something the U.S. and regional allies have a vested interest in ensuring. Should Arab states begin to unravel, the consequences for Arab governments would be their removal and U.S. interests in the region may be damaged beyond repair.
While proving resilient, Arab states face continuing challenges to state cohesion due to many factors—the Arab state system was created out of territories ruled by various Muslim empires for about 1300 years. The borders that were imposed according to colonial interests and the states formed as a result were in many ways anathema to the pre-existing regional order. Furthermore, strong sub-state and supra-state identities have proven durable and act as obstacles to state solidarity. Until 1967, Arab nationalism served as a supra-state identity that was harnessed by Arab leaders to threaten the sovereignty of individual Arab states. More recently, political Islam has emerged as a supra-state ideology presenting challenges to Arab regimes and the boundaries of their states. Moreover, sub-state identities and loyalties to them are now being evinced in Iraq in the wake of the U.S. invasion threatening fragmentation and restructuring of the Arab order. After almost a century of existence, the challenges to the Arab state emanating from the aforementioned factors have not been completely resolved.
So how does Israel help maintain the current Arab order? An historical example that comes to mind would be Israel’s safeguarding of Jordan against a Syrian invasion in 1970-71 when King Hussein was struggling to expel the PLO from Jordan. Had Israel not threatened an attack on Syria, the Syrians may have felt unhindered to move into Jordan. In the name of the Palestinian struggle, Syria also sought the removal of the pro-Western Hashemite monarchy in order to establish their hegemony in what was viewed as a natural sphere of Syrian influence. In this case Israel was the only regional deterrent capable of staving off Syrian intervention. Israel’s unique strategic position in this case was realized by Nixon and Kissinger and raised Israeli strategic prestige for many in Washington.
More recently, Israel and the anti-Shi’i and anti-Iranian Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf have common ground in the struggle to stem the rising tide of regional challengers: Iran and its proxies in the region seeking to destabilize and possibly overturn the regional order. Israel’s war in Lebanon in 2006 serves as a prime example. The status quo Arab states tacitly condoned Israel’s attempt to destroy Hezbollah and were perhaps frustrated that they didn’t do a better job. Why? Israel’s war against Hezbollah was virtually a war against Iran and its influence in Arab Lebanon. While the Arabs protested the excessive tactics used by the Israelis, Nasrallah was blamed for inciting the conflict and bringing war to Lebanon. Most urgently, Hezbollah threatens to ensconce Lebanon, a founding member of the Arab League, in the Iranian orbit. Such a prospect is unacceptable to the status quo Arabs and potentially devastating for regional order. Hence, Israel, the U.S. and the status quo Arabs all have a vested interest in buttressing the pro-Western coalition in Lebanon.
Israel is also trying to contain Hamas, an actor whose aspirations far exceed those of the Palestinian national struggle, by supporting Fatah and applying harsh measures against Gaza in an attempt to discredit Hamas (one can certainly contest the effectiveness of this strategy). While Fatah still holds sway in the West Bank, the strength of their military forces is semi-ambiguous. What, for example, would happen to Fatah if Israel evacuated completely from the West Bank? Would they fall to Hamas as quickly as they did in Gaza? The presence of the IDF in the West Bank makes a Hamas takeover there more difficult as Israel and the PA continue to work towards an agreement. The U.S. has a strong stake in playing a role in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli crisis and one could surmise that a Hamas takeover of the Palestinian national project in all of the Palestinian territories would mean a degeneration of the conflict back into a zero-sum game.
In sum, Israel is a strategic ally for the U.S. and status quo Arab states in that it seeks to maintain the legitimacy of the current Arab order in the face of regional forces seeking to destabilize it, albeit for its own selfish reasons of being. In a time when the fate of Arab Iraq is indiscernible and Iranian influence in the region is at a level like no time in centuries, Arab states looking to maintain their rule, and the Arab order in place since the early 1920s, are not looking to Israel as their greatest threat. On an emotional and ideological level, Arab states and their populations are hostile to the existence of Israel and always will be. Hence, U.S. favoritism towards Israel damages America’s reputation in the Arab world but this doesn’t necessarily translate into irreparably harming America’s strategic interests. If anything, all the governments of the region are firmly embedded in the U.S. orbit with the exception of Syria and Iran and their sub-state clients. Radical forces that have arisen in the Arab world to oppose U.S. interests cannot simply be blamed on American support of Israel, though it is certainly a factor. Keep in mind that among Bin Laden’s many grievances foremost among them was the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, troops that were deployed there at the request of the Saudi ruling family to correct the disruption in the Arab state order brought about by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. In terms of obstacles facing U.S.-Arab relations, the close U.S.-Israeli relationship is but one of many.
5 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
[...] tagged israelOwn a WordPress blog? Make monetization easier with the WP Affiliate Pro plugin. The US-Israeli Relationship: Is it Strategic? Part… saved by 1 others ipod90876 bookmarked on 06/09/08 | [...]
Pingback by Pages tagged "israel" June 9, 2008 @ 7:05 pmI’m sold. I was always pretty sure that the relationship wasn’t because Americans were such irrevocable Judeophiles. But on a serious note I very much agree and I appreciate you putting this notion forth so succinctly. I have always believed that Israel served the strategic purposes of these very same status quo states you speak of from the beginning and was a convenient scapegoat raised in their midst.
Comment by Dany June 9, 2008 @ 8:07 pmA well articulated argument, but I’m not sure I buy it. I find it hard to believe that American elected representatives who consistently and unquestioningly support Israel would ever touch on the arguments made above.
Certainly, Israel “moderates” the situation in the region to a degree. They don’t do this as a result of American interests or our behest. To assume their interests and actions always align with our is naive.
I’m not entirely convinced the benefits of such a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship outweighs the cost of such a relationship. My reasons are as follows:
1. Loosening ties might not prevent extremist attacks against the U.S., but it might increase our street credit with Arab powers. It might also help influence fence-sitting potential extremsits to not take up the gun against America.
2. The Arabs hold the oil. Israel does not. We all know how expensive gas is. Oil interests are a legitimate realist concern. I can’t see how Israel advances this interest. Historically, the opposite is true, as evidenced by the Oil Embargo.
3. It costs American taxpayers billions of dollars. Money better spent on any number of other domestic and/or foreign concerns.
4. It might be far fetched to claim that Israel gives the U.S. false intelligence to advance its agenda, however, I wouldn’t put it past them. Certainly, their supposedly flawless intelligence didn’t present the truth regarding Iraqi WMD. Not having access to classified intel passed along from Israel means I might not be qualified to judge, however, I am skeptical of this supposed contribution.
5. Isael continues to aggressively engage in acts of espionage against the U.S. To use a cliche, this is “biting the hand that feeds you.” For such a strong ally, this is at the least disrespectful and at worse traitorous.
6. It costs the United States credibility. Not just with Muslim states, but also with Europe. Certainly, they have a strong anti-Israeli bias, but when the U.S. claims to support Israel because it is a democracy yet commits actions blatantly antithetical to such, it makes us looks like clowns.
I’m not sure the cost of all these “cons” is worth the “pro” of nominal Israeli moderation of the Arab state order, espcially when we can’t dictate what its impact on said order will be. It will take more than this argument to convince me of the necessity of such a strong U.S.-Israeli alliance.
Comment by The Schott-Gun June 10, 2008 @ 3:17 amSchott-Gun,
I appreciate your comments, let me respond to a few things in brief. Never did I suggest Israel’s interests always coincide with U.S. interests. Of course Israel supports the regional state order “for its own selfish reasons of being,” as I wrote above, and not in the service of U.S. interests alone, though in opposing groups like Hezbollah and Hamas U.S. and Israeli interests certainly coincide, no?
1. I think the U.S. should play a more balanced role in the Palestinian-Israeli crisis certainly that could go a long way in improving the image of the U.S. on the Arab street. But as for increasing our street cred in the Arab world among extremists it would do little. Most extremists cite our support for corrupt and decadent Arab regimes as the main reason for their struggle against the U.S: think the doctrine of the “far-enemy” and the “near enemy.”
2. The Arabs hold the oil. True, but I would venture to guess that the current WORLD energy crisis does not revolve around the fact that the U.S. strongly supports Israel. Certainly there are many more factors at play here.
3. Amen. I agree.
4. Not sure about the intelligence world, you know better than me, but you should know then that the U.S. received a lot of false intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq. The Germans gave the U.S. Curveball and I don’t think the Israelis made the U.S. buy the bullshit from Iraqi exiles like Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress.
6. Right on, I hate that sound bite as well. Israeli ‘democracy’ is problematic in many ways (perhaps the topic of a future post) as are paradoxical U.S. statements on policy in general, especially in the ME.
Comment by tau2006 June 10, 2008 @ 9:56 amLet me just add that I encourage dialogue on this issue due to the fact that it is somewhat of a political taboo in the United States to even bring it up.
Comment by tau2006 June 10, 2008 @ 11:19 am