The “I” Word and the War on Terror: Is U.S. support for Israel Undermining our Efforts to Combat International Terrorism?
By Elliot Gillerman, International Affairs Staff Writer
A longstanding pillar of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been a strong bilateral relationship with Israel. Proponents of this often argue that the United States must support Israel out of moral conviction, stating that it is the only full-fledged democracy in the region and that historical mistreatment of Jews warrants strong U.S. support. Critics of the relationship, however, argue that the current level of support for Israel is costing the United States far more than just the billions of dollars of annual aid to Israel—it is also compromising our national security and undermining our ability to combat international terrorism. Given the dynamics of U.S. foreign policy since September 11th, 2001, is it possible that the present state of U.S.-Israeli relations is now at odds with other key U.S. national security interests?
Since Israel’s establishment in 1948, and particularly since the October War in 1973, the level of U.S. support for Israel has steadily increased. Since 1976, Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid and today receives approximately $3 billion each year, nearly one-fifth of the total U.S. foreign aid budget. [1] All of this support exists despite the fact that Israel is far from a developing country—its GDP of almost $24,000 per capita is comparable with that of Spain, South Korea, and Greece. [2] The level of support that Israel enjoys today is a direct result of the efforts of lobby groups like AIPAC in Congress as well as the presently large number of influential neo-conservatives in the Bush administration.
The Al Qaeda Connection
Reading the words of Islamist extremists like Osama bin Laden, it is clear that U.S.-Israeli relations play some role in inspiring terrorism in the Middle East. Bin Laden himself has issued numerous public statements, including his 1996 and 1998 fatwas, containing strong condemnations of U.S. support for Israel. In these and other statements bin Laden has expressed outrage at the United States for being “directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq.” [3] He supports this claim by arguing that U.S. military aid to Israel has been used to kill Muslims around the world, and that the United States has blood on its hands as a result. Bin Laden has even raised these complaints during interviews with American television networks, as he did in a 1997 interview with Peter Arnett of CNN. Despite these unambiguous public statements, few in the U.S. want to believe that September 11th was caused by something other than terrorist hatred of American culture and freedom.
Given these statements and the harsh criticism that they contain, a broader issue that must be examined is not only our policies towards state-sponsors of terrorism, but also the role that U.S. policies play in inspiring terrorism. This direct criticism should be a sign to U.S. government officials that it’s time for a serious discussion about the origins of bin Laden’s hateful ideology. Some may argue that such a course of action would force the United States to submit to the demands of terrorists, but all options must be considered in countering an ideology that has led to the deaths of three thousand civilians. What matters is that bin Laden firmly believes in his ideology and that he has and will continue to use violence to support it.
Like a House of Cards
Another major element of U.S. counter-terrorism strategy is a reliance on moderate Arab governments—Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt—to act as regional partners in combating terrorism. Relations with these states, however, have been weakened in recent years by a number of factors, including the perceived imbalance of U.S.-Israel relations when compared to U.S. relations with other regional Arab governments. In September 2006, Philip Zelikow, then Counselor for the Department of State, spoke of the “corrosive effects” of U.S. Middle East policy, including the perceived failure of the United States to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Zelikow warned that this failure is “undermining some of the friends we need to confront the serious dangers we must face,” [4] most likely referring to the moderate Arab governments mentioned above. Not surprisingly, these “corrosive effects” have produced tensions in the region, most recently during the March 2007 meeting of the Arab League in Riyadh. During the summit, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia caught many U.S. officials by surprise when he condemned the U.S. presence in Iraq as an “illegal foreign occupation.” According to Mustapha Hamarmeh, director of the Central for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan, Abdullah’s message was a signal that the United States must “listen to their allies rather than imposing decisions on them and always taking Israel’s side.” [5]
The governments of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states are vital partners in effectively fighting the War on Terror, but cooperation will be difficult if U.S. policies continue to be viewed as unconditionally supporting Israel. Arab leaders must remain sensitive to domestic pressures on them, and by aligning themselves too closely with a country that supports Israel to the degree that the United States does, they are jeopardizing their political legitimacy. An effective way to combat these image problems, and to better combat terrorism in the region, is to adopt a more even-handed and objective approach to U.S.-Israeli relations.
The Road Ahead
The United States still faces an uphill battle in re-establishing its credibility with moderate Arab governments, namely Saudi Arabia. In recent months, King Abdullah has increased his profile as a regional leader and has become increasingly proactive in brokering Arab-Israeli peace talks. At the same time, however, Abdullah has shown that he will not accept every aspect of the U.S. approach. Prior to his comments at the Arab League summit, Abdullah irritated U.S. officials in brokering the Mecca accord, which established a Palestinian Authority government uniting Fatah and Hamas. Given the demonstrated commitment of both the United States and some Arab leaders towards brokering a lasting peace deal, all efforts should be made to establish U.S. legitimacy in order to further collaboration in this arena.
Contrary to AIPAC’s rhetoric, a balanced and equitable approach to U.S.-Israeli relations will not jeopardize the existence of Israel. It will, however, succeed in neutralizing terrorist ideologies and help to repair the image of the United States among its Arab allies. Confronting these problems requires serious U.S. leadership, but in order to legitimize its involvement in this process, the United States must prove itself to be a neutral arbiter in the region. There’s no way to disguise the fact that this is a difficult and sensitive debate for many to engage in. However, for the sake of U.S. national security, victory in the War on Terror, and the stability of the Middle East, it is a debate that must be had. Until we can engage in it fully, the future of our national security will remain hanging in the balance.
Share your thoughts on this article on the GW Discourse Discussion Board
[1] John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby,” London Review of Books, March 10, 2006, p. 8.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Osama bin Laden, interview by Peter Arnett, CNN, March 2007.
[4] Philip Zelikow, “Building Security in the Modern Middle East,” Weinburg Founders Conference, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Washington, September 15, 2006.
[5] Hassan M. Fattah, “U.S. Role in Iraq Called Illegal by Saudi King,” The New York
Times, March 29, 2007.