No More Bro Hugs: Time to Reset U.S./Israel Relations
Photograph Source: U.S. Embassy Tel Aviv – CC BY 2.0
Israeli ground troops enter Lebanon. Iran sends missiles into Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promises to retaliate. Violence in the Middle East escalates, but this didn’t have to happen. In another example of the bizarre co-dependent nature of U.S./Israel relation, last week news sources reported that Israel was ready to agree to a U.S. backed 21-day ceasefire including Gaza and Lebanon. Instead, Netanyahu backtracked. In opposition to the agreed ceasefire, the Israeli Prime Minister declared at the United Nations General Assembly; “All that has to happen is for Hamas to surrender, lay down its arms, and release all the hostages. But if they don’t, we will fight until we achieve victory. Total victory.” He went on; “And we’ll continue degrading Hezbollah until all our objectives are met.” Shortly after his U.N. speech, Netanyahu ordered the assassination of the Hezbollah leader in Beirut, continues sending rockets raining down on Beirut and now initiates a ground invasion into Lebanon. All are diametrically opposed to the ceasefire that had been agreed upon.
Beware of friends and allies and not just enemies is wise diplomatic advice. Netanyahu is supposed to be a friend and ally. But he continues to fail to cooperate with the United States except when he desperately needs its help to defend Israel. If Israel continues killing innocent civilians and causing one million displaced in egregious breaches of International Humanitarian Law (IIHL), emboldens a larger Middle East conflict and possibly costs the Democratic Party the 2024 election, why should the United States continue to back Israel with Netanyahu as its leader?
Besides causing horrific suffering and destruction, Netanyahu has also humiliated the United States. Even though President Biden said that the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah was “a measure of justice” for his many victims, and added that Washington fully supported Israel’s right to defend itself against Iran-supported groups, there is no question that the United States is often out of the loop when Netanyahu makes major decisions. (“The United States was not involved in this operation [the assassination of Nasrallah] and was not warned in advance,” said Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh.) The Israeli leader no longer considers Washington a priority in his decision-making process despite the fact that Washington continues to be Israel’s significant funder and weapons supplier.
As Patrick Wintour wrote in The Guardian about Netanyahu’s about face on the ceasefire: “For Washington, this is a diplomatic humiliation and a display of its inability, or refusal, to control its troublesome ally…In some ways, it is the culmination of nearly 12 months of an American strategy that now lies in ruins. Time after time since the 7 October attacks by Hamas, the US has asked Israel to adopt a different strategy over the delivery of food into Gaza, protection zones, a ground offensive in Rafah, the terms of a ceasefire and, above all, over avoiding conflict escalation…Each time, Netanyahu acknowledged the US position, sidestepped a clear response and then ultimately ignored Washington. Each time, the US – vexed and frustrated – has expressed misgivings about Netanyahu’s strategy, but each time it has continued to pass the ammunition.”
How far will the United States accept diplomatic humiliation? Ronald Reagan famously said “trust but verify” when dealing with Mikhail Gorbachev during the Cold War. (The expression trust but verify comes from a Russian proverb that rhymes overyay, no proveryay). But Reagan was dealing with the leader of the Soviet Union, the sworn enemy of the United States.
Netanyahu and the United States are supposed to be friendly allies. But friendships and alliances have their limits. If “trust but verify” was used by Reagan in dealing with an enemy, why shouldn’t a “trust but verify” posture be applied now when dealing with an ally who continues to renege on his promises?
The verification process has taken place. Netanyahu is not to be trusted.
What should follow? According to USAFacts, “The United States committed over $3.3 billion in foreign assistance to Israel in 2022, the most recent year for which data exists. About $8.8 million of that went toward the country’s economy, while 99.7% of the aid went to the Israeli military.”
Stopping or reducing funding to Israel as well as changing the arms shipments would be a first step. Canada and the Netherlands have already halted arms shipments to Israel in recognition of how Israel’s use of weapons has violated IHL. Israel’s use of American weapons clearly violates IHL. The assassination of the Hezbollah leader was by a 2000 pound “bunker buster” bomb supplied by the United States. During the targeted assassination, Israeli media reported that 15 missiles were fired at Beirut, resulting in the destruction of six buildings, the death of eight people, and injuries to 91 others. The use of these bombs in densely populated areas is prohibited under the Geneva Convention due to their potential for widespread, indiscriminate destruction.
It is time to challenge the oft-repeated assumptions in the following recent piece by Roger Cohen, former Opinion columnist for The New York Times: “The United States does have enduring leverage over Israel, notably in the form of military aid that involved a $15 billion package signed this year by President Biden. But an ironclad alliance with Israel built around strategic and domestic political considerations, as well the shared values of two democracies, means Washington will almost certainly never threaten to cut – let alone cut off – the flow of arms.”
What “ironclad alliance”? What “shared values of two democracies”? These assumptions are from the past. The continuing invasion of Gaza, the indiscriminate bombing in Lebanon, and now the ground forces incursion are more than proof of why this friendship/alliance must evolve. We are well past 1948 and the role of the United States in the establishment of the state of Israel. We are well past President Biden’s October 2023 bro hug with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. We should also be well past “Washington will almost certainly never threaten to cut – let alone cut off – the flow of arms.”
Netanyahu’s policies have caused enormous, unnecessary human suffering as well as physical, political, diplomatic, and moral damage. Supporting Israel against Iran does not deal with the fundamental question of Benjamin Netanyahu’s illegal and dangerous solo diplomacy which risks engaging the United States in a larger conflict. Netanyahu no longer merits the United States’ trust. The relationship between the United States and Israel needs immediate resetting.
Netanyahu’s Dangerous Militarism
Photograph Source: U.S. Embassy Tel Aviv – CC BY 2.0
“Israel, in sum, has recovered the military primacy it lost when Hamas fighters surged across the Gaza border on Oct. 7 and ravaged Israeli civilians.”
– David Ignatius, oped, Washington Post, October 2, 2024.
“We Absolutely Need to Escalate in Iran.”
– Bret Stephens, editorial, The New York Times, October 3, 2024.
The mainstream media has been largely critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dangerous use of military power, and largely supportive of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s equally dangerous use of military power. The leading proponents of these contrasting views have been David Ignatius in the Washington Post and Bret Stephens in the New York Times.
Ignatius could not be more wrong about Israel recovering its military primacy. Israel never lost the primacy it established in the Six-Day War in 1967 in the rapid sequencing of defeating the military forces of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in that order. The surprise attacks of the October War in 1973 and the Hamas attacks of October 2023 were essentially aberrations that could be attributed to intelligence and political failures on both occasions. Prime Minister Golda Meir lost her leadership because of her failures; Prime Minister Netanyahu will lose his whenever Israel gets around to holding another election.
The Middle East is facing its greatest peril at this juncture because Netanyahu now has a free hand to conduct any military operation he desires against Iran. Netanyahu no longer has to be concerned with the responses of Hamas and Hezbollah to an Israeli attack against Iran because both organizations have been strategically defeated on the battle field. Netanyahu no longer has to be concerned with U.S. calls for restraint because the Biden administration is tethered to the demands of an imminent presidential election and President Joe Biden has shown no interest in using the only leverage in his policy quiver—the withholding of military assistance. Netanyahu no longer has to be concerned with domestic opposition because it has vanished, and even former prime ministers such as Naftali Bennett are calling for Israel to destroy the network of pipelines, refineries, and oil terminals on Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf as well as the missile complex in Isfahan.
Stephens is the major U.S. cheerleader for Bennett’s proposed bombing campaign. He has invoked the need to defeat the “axis of evil” (Russia, China, and North Korea) before it provides technical help for Iran’s nuclear ambitions. According to Stephens, Biden—“at a minimum”—should destroy the Isfahan missile complex as a “direct and and proportionate response” to Iran’s aggressions. Carrying out such a threat, according to Stephens, could convince Iran to order Hezbollah and the Houthis to “stand down” and even “pressure Hamas to release its Israeli hostages.”
Stephens makes no mention of the Iran nuclear accord of 2015 that placed significant limitations on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, including its enrichment of uranium, construction of centrifuges, and production of weapons-grade plutonium. The agreement also prohibited research activities that contributed to designing and developing a nuclear device in perpetuity. If Iran is closer to development of nuclear weapons, it is due to Donald Trump’s decision in 2018 to abrogate a treaty that had significant international support, including from Russia and China. And if Iran has enough near-weapons grade nuclear fuel for several nuclear bombs, it is due to Trump and his national security adviser, John Bolton.
Stephens (and Netanyahu) wants the completion of the “decapitation” of Hezbollah and the “evisceration” of Hamas in Gaza. He has supported an Israeli invasion of Lebanon, but makes no mention of previous Israeli failures in Lebanon in 1978, 1982, and 2006, which led to unexpected losses and an unanticipated long-term occupation. U.S. efforts to pull Israeli chestnuts out of the fire led to U.S. losses in 1983. Israel successfully forced the ouster of Yasir Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization from Lebanon, but in doing so a far more dangerous Hezbollah emerged, a group that didn’t exist until Israel invaded the Lebanese capital of Beirut in 1982.
Greater use of Israeli military power has not provided Israel with greater security over the years, and there is no reason to believe that any retaliation—other than a symbolic response similar to the April attack—would end the current cycle of permanent occupation. Israeli analysts continue to speak of “escalate to deescalate,” “escalation dominance,” and “restoration of deterrence,” but Israel’s “targeted assassinations,” the violence of settlers on the West Bank, and the genocidal campaign in Gaza will never serve any long-term strategic purpose. The collusion of the Israeli defense forces, the police, and the military courts speaks to the apartheid that exists on the West Bank. Until the United States understands the necessity of diplomatic dialogue with Iran, and Israel understands the the necessity of Palestinian sovereignty on a land that they can call their own, the cycle of permanent war will continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment