Conditional support will deter reckless policies (2-2)
The special relationship between America and Israel is outdated and it is time to end it
Delusions of the existence of the alleged temple threaten to transform the conflict from political to religious.
archival
Supporting Israel is an unspoken condition for holding senior positions in the US government.
archival
Political leaders in Israel initially opposed the invasion of Iraq.
archival
The repeated incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque by settlers lead to a tense atmosphere.
archival
picture
The recent events in Gaza shed light on the US-Israeli relations in an unprecedented way, as the US administration began to complain about the behavior of its Israeli ally in the occupied territories, amid an unprecedented campaign of internal pressures, especially from within the Democratic Party, as demands for the US President are increasing. , Joe Biden, the need for Israel to be held accountable for its actions, and to be subject to international human rights laws.
The US administration finds itself in embarrassment and inability to continuously defend Israel's actions, particularly what is happening in East Jerusalem, including incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque and pressures to deport the residents of Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, which is strongly opposed by the international community.
Through this lengthy investigation, we will try to shed light on the changes that occurred in the relationship of the two allies, and the possibilities of its continuation with the same force in the future, and explore whether Israel is still important in the American strategy for the Middle East, or this importance is taking place in the Middle East. Retreat day after day, which calls for a review of the relationship, until it turns into a normal relationship between two friendly countries.
At first, some Israeli leaders opposed the idea of invading Iraq in 2003, and wanted the administration of George W. Bush to focus on Iran instead, but once Bush decided that the removal of then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would be the first step in a broader program of "regional transformation." Senior Israeli officials, including Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and the late Israeli President, Shimon Peres, stepped in and helped promote the war to the American people.
Barak and Peres wrote arguments or appeared in the American media to garner support for the war, and Netanyahu went to Congress to pass a similar message to lawmakers. The American-Israeli public (AIPAC), and other organizations in the Israel lobby, also threw their weight behind the supporters of the war, and the special relationship did not cause the outbreak of the war, but the close relations between the two countries helped pave the way.
The special relationship, and the familiar mantra that the United States' commitment to Israel is "unwavering," has also made the idea of being pro-Israel an essential test of service in the U.S. government, while at the same time preventing a number of capable Americans from contributing their talents and dedication to public life, and being staunchly supportive of Israel. It is not an obstacle to assuming a high position in government, it is an advantage, but even moderate criticism means immediate trouble to anyone who dares to do so.
This unhealthy situation prevents Democratic and Republican administrations from seeking out the best talent, further misinforms American public discourse, and ambitious politicians quickly learn not to say what they really think about issues related to Israel, and instead repeat the familiar even when they contradict the truth.
And when a conflict like the recent violence erupts in Gaza, public officials and media spokespeople try not to say anything that might get them or their superiors into trouble. The danger is not that they fall into a lie, but the real danger that they might inadvertently tell the truth. How does one have a discussion? Honest about the repeated failures of US policy in the Middle East, when the professional consequences of challenging the traditional view are bleak?
barrier of ignorance
Certainly cracks in the private relationship are starting to show, and it's easier to talk about this subject than it used to be (assuming you're not hoping for a job in the State or Defense Departments), and brave people like Peter Beinart and Nathan Theral have helped Break through the long-standing barrier of ignorance.
Some supporters of Israel have shifted their positions, and last week, the New York Times published an article detailing the realities of the conflict in an almost unprecedented way, and the old cliched images, about the "two-state solution" and "Israel's right to defend itself", are losing their potency. And even some senators and representatives have softened their support for Israel, finally, at least rhetorically, but the main question is whether and when this change in rhetoric will lead to a real change in US policy.
A call to end the special relationship does not mean a call for boycott, divestment, imposition of sanctions, or an end to all American support, but rather a call for the United States to have a normal relationship with Israel similar to Washington's relations with most other countries, and with a normal relationship that will support America is Israel when it does things that are consistent with American interests and values, and distances itself when Israel acts otherwise. The United States will not protect Israel from condemnation in the Security Council, except when Israel clearly deserves this protection, and American officials will not refrain from direct and explicit criticism of the Israeli apartheid regime American politicians, analysts, and decision-makers will be free to criticize or praise Israel's actions, as they routinely do with other countries, without fear of losing their jobs or falling victim to politically motivated vilification.
Continuing interests
The normal relationship is not a divorce, the United States will continue to trade with Israel, American companies will continue to cooperate with their Israeli counterparts in various fields, Americans will continue to visit the Holy Land, students and academics from both countries will continue to study and work in each other’s universities, and the two governments can continue to exchange intelligence information On some issues, and consulting frequently on a range of foreign policy topics, Washington could still stand ready to help Israel if its survival was at stake, as is the case with other countries, and America would also remain staunchly opposed to genuine anti-Semitism in the Arab world. , and in other foreign countries, in their own backyard, and a more normal relationship could benefit Israel, too.
For a long time, open American support allowed Israel to pursue policies that put its long-term future in greater doubt, foremost among which is the settlement project itself, and the undisguised desire to create a “Greater Israel” that includes the West Bank and confines the Palestinians to an archipelago of isolated enclaves, but We can add to the list the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which spawned Hezbollah, previous Israeli efforts to strengthen the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in order to weaken Fatah, and the deadly attack on the Mavi Marmara relief ship, off the coast of Gaza, in May 2010, the brutal air war against Lebanon in 2006, which made Hezbollah more popular, and previous attacks on Gaza in 2008, 2009, 2012 and 2014.
The unwillingness of the United States to make aid conditional on granting Israel a viable state for the Palestinians helped destroy the Oslo peace process, squandering the best chance for a real two-state solution, and a more normal relationship, in which US support would be conditional rather than automatic, that would force the Israelis to to reconsider their current course and do more to achieve real and lasting peace.
In particular, they will have to rethink the belief that the Palestinians will simply disappear, and start thinking about solutions that would guarantee the political rights of both Jews and Arabs. A rights-based approach is not a panacea, and it will face many obstacles, but it will be consistent with the stated values. For the United States, it provides more hope for the future, better than what Israel and the United States do today, and most of all Israel will have to start dismantling the apartheid system that it created over the past decades, because even America will find it increasingly difficult to maintain a normal relationship If this system remains the same, and none of these positions indicates the slightest approval of an approach or support for "Hamas", which is guilty of war crimes in the recent fighting.
Do expect changes anytime soon
No, although a normal relationship with Israel, similar to that which the United States associates with nearly every country in the world, should not be a particularly controversial idea, there are still powerful interest groups championing the special relationship, and many politicians are stuck with An outdated view, however, change may be imminent and more likely than some might think, which is why defenders of the status quo are quick to distort and marginalize anyone who proposes alternatives.
And I can remember when it was possible to smoke on planes, when Moscow ruled Eastern Europe with an iron fist, and when few people thought it strange to see women, or people of color on boards, or in colleges or in public office.
Once the public discussion of a topic becomes more open and honest, outdated attitudes can change surprisingly quickly, and what was once unimaginable can become both possible and natural.
• US unwillingness to condition aid on granting Israel a viable state for the Palestinians has helped to destroy the Oslo peace process, squandering the best chance of a true two-state solution.
The special relationship, and the familiar mantra that America's commitment to Israel is "unwavering," made the idea of being pro-Israel a major test of service in the US government.
• The unhealthy state of the relationship with Tel Aviv prevents US administrations from seeking the best talent, further misleads US public discourse, and ambitious politicians quickly learn not to say what they think about issues related to Israel.
• Some supporters of Israel have changed their positions, and "The New York Times" published an article detailing the facts of the conflict in an almost unprecedented manner, and the old cliched images, about the "two-state solution" and "Israel's right to defend itself", are losing their strength.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news