April 7, 2024
Source: Informed Comment
President John. F Kennedy coined the term “special relationship” to describe the American-Israeli relationship. This “special relationship” has only continued to grow stronger, sometimes by fits and starts, since the inception of the Jewish state in 1948.
Despite its support for Israel, when it came to the issue of Palestine, the United States held on to the hope of achieving a two-state solution. To this end, American foreign policy has always sought to show support for both parties and sought a central role as a mediator on more than one occasion. Yet under Trump and Biden, America’s foreign policy has displayed an unbalanced and unwavering support for Israel that has inevitably harmed America’s position in the international community and has left in tatters what little trust Palestinians had in America’s mediation.
Since its creation, Israel has been the biggest beneficiary of American foreign aid, which has over the years totalled $300 billion (adjusting for inflation). Furthermore, since 1945, the United States has acted as a political shield for Israel. It has used more than half of its vetoes in the UN’s Security Council to defend Israel from any repercussions for its illegal behavior. It also shares with Israel a strong economic relationship that reached an annual sum of $50 billion in bilateral trade.
Many readers may be surprised to discover that America’s support for Israel hasn’t always been as unconditional as it is today.
The relationship between the two countries was rocky at times. For instance, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, President Harry Truman slapped an arms embargo on both Israel and the Arab countries as he saw the conflict as a source of instability that might give aid the spread of Communism in the region.
President Dwight Eisenhower was even more stern, when Israel invaded Egypt in October 1956. Eisenhower warned, “Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?”. Eisenhower threatened to call in US loans to Israel and crash its economy if Tel Aviv did not immediately withdraw from the Sinai Peninsulat and the Gaza Strip, which it had seized from Egypt. The Israelis completely caved to the angry demands of the former Supreme Allied Commander who had vanquished the Third Reich.
These two examples reflect the major goal of American foreign policy; Ensuring the stability of the Middle East. Hence, many previous American administrations, while they generally supported Israel, tried to be at least a little even-handed between Israel and Palestine.
The downfall: Trump
The long-standing foreign policy of the United States always had cracks in its neutrality but the rise of Donald Trump ushered in an era of unilateral support for Israel that caused unrest in the region. The Biden administration’s failure to undo Trump’s damage and its unwillingness to condemn or punish Israeli war crimes in the current Gaza war will likely deepen this unrest and fatally undermine U.S. credibility in the eyes of the international community.
During Trump’s presidency, many controversial policies halted the path towards the two-state solution and rendered it even harder. The biggest blow to Palestinians and Arabs was the relocation of the American Embassy to Jerusalem and the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. That move was condemned by the Palestinians, who still see (at least East) Jerusalem as their capital. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas warned that this step was proof of the United States’ inability to be neutral.
To add insult to injury, the Trump administration envisioned a peace plan “Peace to prosperity” for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that bypassed any Palestinian input, ignored the key demands of Palestinians and provided Israel with the whole of Jerusalem. This plan was rejected vehemently by Palestinians and in turn by the Arab League which led to the disruption of ties between Palestinians, Israel and the US.
The downfall continues: Biden
The ascension of the Democrat Joe Biden to the presidency signified to many people a return to diplomacy and inspired some hopeful thinking about the Middle East. However, throughout his tenure, President Biden had only reversed a part of Trump’s policies, failed to restart any meaningful talks for peace and most glaringly mishandled the current conflict in Gaza to the point that America’s neutral position as a mediator has been damaged beyond repair.
In retaliation for the October 7th attacks on Israel, the Israeli military launched a brutal and long-lasting attack on Gaza aimed at wiping out the entire Hamas paramilitary of some 37,000 men. Israel’s attack on Gazans resulted in the deaths of over 30.000 people in the months that followed, all with the support of American tax dollars.
In response to the attacks, President Biden gave his full support to Israel, “We will not stand by and do nothing again. The support was nothing out of the norm as most Western countries and the international community witnessed an outpouring of sympathy for Israel and the victims of October 7th. However, Biden’s support surpassed that of any previous American leader. His presence and inclusion in the Israeli-war cabinet meeting signified to Palestinians and everyone else, that America was on the side of Israel.
As the war slowly evolved from retaliation and self-defense into genocide, the support for Israel started to wane across the international community. However, at a time when the world began to question and condemn Israel’s actions. the United States led by President Biden is preparing to provide an extra $17.6 billion in new military assistance. This action goes against American law. The Leahy Act forbids the US from sending assistance to foreign governments that are committing gross human rights violations — a characterization that many scholars along with the international community would see as fitting of Israel’s actions.
American double standards:
At the current stage of the war, more than one-quarter of Gazans are on the doorstep of starvation warn UN officials. Most observers agree that the only solution is to implement an immediate ceasefire to alleviate the humanitarian crisis. Yet, the United States keeps beating around the bush.
The United States’ decision to build a pier on the shores of Gaza to provide humanitarian aid made Biden the laughingstock of the international community. This idea has been ridiculed from different sides, Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria said “This is applying a very small Band-Aid to a very big wound.”. While Mustafa Barghouti, the secretary general of the Palestinian National Initiative claimed that this idea is nothing but a diversion to distract the international community from the real issue.
The strength of American foreign policy had always been its ability to distance itself from conflicts to adopt a somewhat impartial posture. Howeve, today this is further from the case. After vetoing several different UN ceasefire resolutions over the course of the war, the resolution drafted by the United States calling for a conditional ceasefire was initially vetoed by China and Russia over allegations of prioritizing Israeli demands. When the US abstained and allowed a UNSC demand for a ceasefire to pass, administration spokespersons made a mockery of it by deriding it as “nonbinding.” In the eyes of the international community, if the United States fails to hold Israel accountable for its actions, it will lose any credibility it had in the Middle East and all of the gains of the Abraham Accords would be lost.
Mohamed Jegham an Informed Comment regular, is from Tunisia. He has degrees in English and Cultural Studies.
President John. F Kennedy coined the term “special relationship” to describe the American-Israeli relationship. This “special relationship” has only continued to grow stronger, sometimes by fits and starts, since the inception of the Jewish state in 1948.
Despite its support for Israel, when it came to the issue of Palestine, the United States held on to the hope of achieving a two-state solution. To this end, American foreign policy has always sought to show support for both parties and sought a central role as a mediator on more than one occasion. Yet under Trump and Biden, America’s foreign policy has displayed an unbalanced and unwavering support for Israel that has inevitably harmed America’s position in the international community and has left in tatters what little trust Palestinians had in America’s mediation.
Since its creation, Israel has been the biggest beneficiary of American foreign aid, which has over the years totalled $300 billion (adjusting for inflation). Furthermore, since 1945, the United States has acted as a political shield for Israel. It has used more than half of its vetoes in the UN’s Security Council to defend Israel from any repercussions for its illegal behavior. It also shares with Israel a strong economic relationship that reached an annual sum of $50 billion in bilateral trade.
Many readers may be surprised to discover that America’s support for Israel hasn’t always been as unconditional as it is today.
The relationship between the two countries was rocky at times. For instance, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, President Harry Truman slapped an arms embargo on both Israel and the Arab countries as he saw the conflict as a source of instability that might give aid the spread of Communism in the region.
President Dwight Eisenhower was even more stern, when Israel invaded Egypt in October 1956. Eisenhower warned, “Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?”. Eisenhower threatened to call in US loans to Israel and crash its economy if Tel Aviv did not immediately withdraw from the Sinai Peninsulat and the Gaza Strip, which it had seized from Egypt. The Israelis completely caved to the angry demands of the former Supreme Allied Commander who had vanquished the Third Reich.
These two examples reflect the major goal of American foreign policy; Ensuring the stability of the Middle East. Hence, many previous American administrations, while they generally supported Israel, tried to be at least a little even-handed between Israel and Palestine.
The downfall: Trump
The long-standing foreign policy of the United States always had cracks in its neutrality but the rise of Donald Trump ushered in an era of unilateral support for Israel that caused unrest in the region. The Biden administration’s failure to undo Trump’s damage and its unwillingness to condemn or punish Israeli war crimes in the current Gaza war will likely deepen this unrest and fatally undermine U.S. credibility in the eyes of the international community.
During Trump’s presidency, many controversial policies halted the path towards the two-state solution and rendered it even harder. The biggest blow to Palestinians and Arabs was the relocation of the American Embassy to Jerusalem and the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. That move was condemned by the Palestinians, who still see (at least East) Jerusalem as their capital. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas warned that this step was proof of the United States’ inability to be neutral.
To add insult to injury, the Trump administration envisioned a peace plan “Peace to prosperity” for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that bypassed any Palestinian input, ignored the key demands of Palestinians and provided Israel with the whole of Jerusalem. This plan was rejected vehemently by Palestinians and in turn by the Arab League which led to the disruption of ties between Palestinians, Israel and the US.
The downfall continues: Biden
The ascension of the Democrat Joe Biden to the presidency signified to many people a return to diplomacy and inspired some hopeful thinking about the Middle East. However, throughout his tenure, President Biden had only reversed a part of Trump’s policies, failed to restart any meaningful talks for peace and most glaringly mishandled the current conflict in Gaza to the point that America’s neutral position as a mediator has been damaged beyond repair.
In retaliation for the October 7th attacks on Israel, the Israeli military launched a brutal and long-lasting attack on Gaza aimed at wiping out the entire Hamas paramilitary of some 37,000 men. Israel’s attack on Gazans resulted in the deaths of over 30.000 people in the months that followed, all with the support of American tax dollars.
In response to the attacks, President Biden gave his full support to Israel, “We will not stand by and do nothing again. The support was nothing out of the norm as most Western countries and the international community witnessed an outpouring of sympathy for Israel and the victims of October 7th. However, Biden’s support surpassed that of any previous American leader. His presence and inclusion in the Israeli-war cabinet meeting signified to Palestinians and everyone else, that America was on the side of Israel.
As the war slowly evolved from retaliation and self-defense into genocide, the support for Israel started to wane across the international community. However, at a time when the world began to question and condemn Israel’s actions. the United States led by President Biden is preparing to provide an extra $17.6 billion in new military assistance. This action goes against American law. The Leahy Act forbids the US from sending assistance to foreign governments that are committing gross human rights violations — a characterization that many scholars along with the international community would see as fitting of Israel’s actions.
American double standards:
At the current stage of the war, more than one-quarter of Gazans are on the doorstep of starvation warn UN officials. Most observers agree that the only solution is to implement an immediate ceasefire to alleviate the humanitarian crisis. Yet, the United States keeps beating around the bush.
The United States’ decision to build a pier on the shores of Gaza to provide humanitarian aid made Biden the laughingstock of the international community. This idea has been ridiculed from different sides, Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria said “This is applying a very small Band-Aid to a very big wound.”. While Mustafa Barghouti, the secretary general of the Palestinian National Initiative claimed that this idea is nothing but a diversion to distract the international community from the real issue.
The strength of American foreign policy had always been its ability to distance itself from conflicts to adopt a somewhat impartial posture. Howeve, today this is further from the case. After vetoing several different UN ceasefire resolutions over the course of the war, the resolution drafted by the United States calling for a conditional ceasefire was initially vetoed by China and Russia over allegations of prioritizing Israeli demands. When the US abstained and allowed a UNSC demand for a ceasefire to pass, administration spokespersons made a mockery of it by deriding it as “nonbinding.” In the eyes of the international community, if the United States fails to hold Israel accountable for its actions, it will lose any credibility it had in the Middle East and all of the gains of the Abraham Accords would be lost.
Mohamed Jegham an Informed Comment regular, is from Tunisia. He has degrees in English and Cultural Studies.
No comments:
Post a Comment