Many
members of the Truman Administration opposed partition,
including Defense Secretary James Forrestal, who believed Zionist aims posed a threat to
American oil supplies and its strategic position in
the region. The Joint Chiefs of Staff worried that
the Arabs might align themselves with the Soviets if
they were alienated by the West. These internal opponents did a great deal to undermined U.S.
support for the establishment of a Jewish state.2
Although
much has been written about the tactics of the supporters
of partition, the behavior of the Arab states has been
largely ignored. They were, in fact, actively engaged
in arm-twisting of their own at the UN trying to scuttle
partition.3
The
whole region waits to be developed, and if it were
handled the way we developed the Tennessee River basin,
it could support from 20 to 30 million people more.
To open the door to this kind of future would indeed
be the constructive and humanitarian thing to do, and
it would also redeem the pledges that were given at
the time of World
War I.4
The
American public supported the President’s policy.
According to public opinion polls,
65 percent of Americans supported the creation of a
Jewish state. During the third quarter of 1947 alone,
62,850 postcards, 1,100 letters and 1,400 telegrams
flooded the White House, most urging the President
to use American influence at the UN.5
Rather
than giving in to pressure, Truman tended to react
negatively to the “Jewish lobby.” He
complained repeatedly about being pressured and talked
about putting propaganda from the Jews in a pile and
striking a match to it. In a letter to Rep. Claude
Pepper, Truman wrote: “Had it not been for the
unwarranted interference of the Zionists, we would
have had the matter settled a year and a half ago.”6 This
was hardly the attitude of a politician overly concerned
with Jewish votes.
Although
Israel is geographically located in a region that is
relatively undeveloped and closer to the Third World
than the West, Israel has emerged in less than 60 years
as an advanced nation with the characteristics of Western
society. This is partially attributable to the fact
that a high percentage of the population came from
Europe or North America and brought with them Western
political and cultural norms. It is also a function
of the common Judeo-Christian heritage.
Simultaneously,
Israel is a multicultural society with people from
more than 100 nations. Today, nearly half of all Israelis
are Eastern or Oriental Jews who
trace their origins to the ancient Jewish communities
of the Islamic countries of North Africa and the Middle
East.
While
they live in a region characterized by autocracies,
Israelis have a commitment to democracy no less passionate
than that of Americans. All citizens of Israel, regardless
of race, religion or sex, are guaranteed equality before
the law and full democratic rights. Freedom of speech,
assembly and press is embodied in the country’s
laws and traditions. Israel’s independent judiciary
vigorously upholds these rights.
Americans
have long viewed Israelis with admiration, at least
partly because they see much of themselves in their
pioneering spirit and struggle for independence. Like
the United States, Israel is also a nation of immigrants. Despite
the burden of spending nearly one-fifth of its budget
on defense, it has had an extraordinary rate of economic growth for most
of its history. It has also succeeded in putting most
of the newcomers to work. As in America, immigrants
to Israel have tried to make better lives for themselves
and their children. Some have come from relatively
undeveloped societies like Ethiopia or Yemen and arrived
with virtually no possessions, education or training
and become productive contributors to Israeli society.
Israelis
also share Americans’ passion for education.
Israelis are among the most highly educated people
in the world.
From
the beginning, Israel had a mixed economy, combining
capitalism with socialism along the British model.
The economic difficulties Israel has experienced — created
largely in the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War by
increased oil prices and the need to spend a disproportionate
share of its Gross National Product on defense — have
led to a gradual movement toward a free market system
analogous to that of the United States. America has
been a partner in this evolution.
In
the 1980’s, attention increasingly focused on
one pillar of the relationship — shared interests.
This was done because of the threats to the region
and because the means for strategic cooperation are
more easily addressed with legislative initiatives.
Despite the end of the Cold War, Israel continues to
have a role to play in joint efforts to protect American
interests, including close cooperation in the war on
terror. Strategic cooperation has progressed to the
point where a de facto alliance now exists. The hallmark
of the relationship is consistency and trust: The United
States knows it can count on Israel.
It
is more difficult to devise programs that capitalize
on the two nations’ shared values than their
security interests; nevertheless, such programs do
exist. In fact, these Shared Value Initiatives cover
a broad range of areas such as the environment, energy,
space, education, occupational safety and health. More
than 400 American institutions in 47 states, the District
of Columbia and Puerto Rico have received funds from binational programs with
Israel. Little-known relationships like the Free Trade Agreement,
the Cooperative Development Research
Program, the Middle East Regional Cooperation
Program and various memoranda of understanding
with virtually every U.S. governmental agency demonstrate
the depth of the special relationship. Even more important
may be the broad ties between Israel
and each of the individual 50 states and the District
of Columbia.
Some
people have the misperception that sympathy for Israel
was once much higher, but the truth is that before
the Gulf War the peak had
been 56 percent, reached just after the Six-Day War. In January
1991, sympathy for Israel reached a record high of
64 percent, according to Gallup. Meanwhile, support
for the Arabs dropped to 8 percent and the margin was
a record 56 points.
The most recent poll, reported by Gallup in August 2009, found that sympathy for Israel was 58 percent compared to only 8 percent for the Palestinians. Despite the violence of the preceding years, and a steady stream of negative media coverage, this is nearly the same level of support Israel enjoyed after the 1967 war, when many people mistakenly believe that Israel was overwhelmingly popular.
The
Arabs have always asserted that Middle East policy
must be a zero-sum game whereby support for their enemy,
Israel, necessarily puts them at a disadvantage. Thus,
Arab states have tried to force the United States to
choose between support for them or Israel. The U.S.
has usually refused to fall into this trap. The fact
that the U.S. has a close alliance with Israel while
maintaining good relations with several Arab states
is proof the two are not incompatible.
The
U.S. has long sought friendly relations with Arab leaders
and has, at one time or another, been on good terms
with most Arab states. In the 1930s, the discovery
of oil led U.S. companies
to become closely involved with the Gulf Arabs. In
the 1950s, U.S. strategic objectives stimulated an
effort to form an alliance with pro-Western Arab states.
Countries such as Iraq and Libya were
friends of the U.S. before radical leaders took over
those governments. Egypt, which was hostile
toward the U.S. under Nasser, shifted to the pro-Western
camp under Sadat.
Since
World War II, the U.S. has poured economic and military
assistance into the region and today is the principal
backer of nations such as Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, Morocco, Egypt and
the Gulf sheikdoms. Although the Arab states blamed
the U.S. for their defeats in wars they initiated with
Israel, the truth is most of the belligerents had either
been given or offered American assistance at some time.
The
U.S. effort to balance support for Israel with placating
the Arabs began in 1948 when President Truman showed
signs of wavering on partition and advocating
trusteeship. After the surrounding Arab states invaded
Israel, the U.S. maintained an arms embargo that severely
restricted the Jews’ ability to defend themselves.
Perhaps
the most dramatic example of American policy diverging
from that of Israel came during the Suez War when President
Eisenhower took a strong stand against Britain, France
and Israel. After the war, U.S. pressure forced Israel
to withdraw from the territory it conquered. David Ben-Gurion relied
on dubious American guarantees that sowed the seeds
of the 1967
conflict.
At
various other times, American Presidents have taken
action against Israel. In 1981, for example, Ronald
Reagan suspended a strategic
cooperation agreement after Israel annexed the Golan
Heights. On another occasion, he held up delivery
of fighter planes because of unhappiness over an Israeli
raid in Lebanon.
In
1991, President Bush held a press conference to ask
for a delay in considering Israel’s request for loan
guarantees to help absorb Soviet and Ethiopian
Jews because of his disagreement with Israel’s settlement policy. In
staking his prestige on the delay, Bush used intemperate
language that inflamed passions and provoked concern
in the Jewish community that anti-Semitism would be aroused.
Though
often described as the most pro-Israel President in
history, Bill Clinton also was critical of Israel on
numerous occasions. George W. Bush’s administration
has also shown no reluctance to criticize Israel for
actions it deems contrary to U.S. interests, but has
generally been more reserved in its public statements.
During the first year of the Palestinian War, the U.S.
imposed an arms embargo on spare parts for helicopters
because of anger over the use of U.S.-made helicopters
in targeted killings. The Bush Administration also
punished Israel for agreeing to sell military equipment
to China in 2005.8
The
United States provided only a limited amount of arms
to Israel, including ammunition and recoilless rifles,
prior to 1962. In that year, President Kennedy sold Israel
HAWK anti-aircraft missiles, but only after the Soviet
Union provided Egypt with long-range bombers.
By
1965, the U.S. had become Israel’s main arms
supplier. This was partially necessitated by West Germany’s
acquiescence to Arab pressure, which led it to stop
selling tanks to Israel. Throughout most of the Johnson
Administration, however, the sale of arms to Israel
was balanced by corresponding transfers to the Arabs.
Thus, the first U.S. tank sale to Israel, in 1965,
was offset by a similar sale to Jordan.9
The
U.S. did not provide Israel with aircraft until 1966.
Even then, secret agreements were made to provide the
same planes to Morocco and Libya,
and additional military equipment was sent to Lebanon, Saudi
Arabia and Tunisia.10
As
in 1948, the U.S. imposed an arms embargo on Israel
during the Six-Day War, while the
Arabs continued to receive Soviet arms. Israel’s
position was further undermined by the French decision
to embargo arms transfers to the Jewish State, effectively
ending their role as Israel’s only other major
supplier.
From
that point on, the U.S. began to pursue a policy whereby
Israel’s qualitative edge was maintained. The
U.S. has also remained committed, however, to arming
Arab nations, providing sophisticated missiles, tanks
and aircraft to Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia
and the Gulf states. Thus, when Israel received F-15s
in 1978, so did Saudi Arabia (and Egypt received F-5Es).
In 1981, Saudi Arabia, for the first time, received
a weapons system that gave it a qualitative advantage
over Israel — AWACS radar planes.
Today,
Israel buys near top-of-the-line U.S. equipment, but
many Arab states also receive some of America’s
best tanks, planes and missiles. The qualitative edge
may be intact, but it is undoubtedly narrow.
In
1951, Congress voted to help Israel cope with the economic
burdens imposed by the influx of Jewish refugees from
the displaced persons camps
in Europe and from the ghettos of the Arab countries.
Arabs then complained the U.S. was neglecting them,
though they had no interest in or use for American
aid then. In 1951, Syria rejected offers of
U.S. aid. Oil-rich Iraq and Saudi
Arabia did not need U.S. economic assistance, and Jordan was, until the late
1950s, the ward of Great Britain. After 1957, when
the United States assumed responsibility for supporting Jordan and
resumed economic aid to Egypt,
assistance to the Arab states soared. Also, the United
States was by far the biggest contributor of aid to
the Palestinians through UNRWA, a status that continues
to the present.
Israel
has received more direct aid from the United States
since World War II than any other country, but the
amounts for the first half of this period were relatively
small. Between 1949 and 1973, the U.S. provided Israel
with an average of about $122 million a year, a total
of $3.1 billion (and actually more than $1 billion
of that was loans for military equipment in 1971-73) .
Prior to 1971, Israel received a total of only $277
million in military aid, all in the form of loans as
credit sales. The bulk of the economic aid was also
lent to Israel. By comparison, the Arab states received
nearly three times as much aid before 1971, $4.4 billion,
or $170 million per year. Moreover, unlike Israel,
which receives nearly all its aid from the United States,
Arab nations have gotten assistance from Asia, Eastern
Europe, the Soviet Union and the European Community.
Israel
did not begin to receive large amounts of assistance
until 1974, following the 1973 war, and the sums
increased dramatically after the Camp David agreements. Altogether,
since 1949, Israel has received more than $90 billion
in assistance. Though the totals are impressive, the
value of assistance to Israel has been eroded by inflation.
Arab
states that have signed agreements with Israel have
also been rewarded. Since signing the peace treaty with Israel,
Egypt has been the second largest recipient of U.S.
foreign aid ($1.8 billion in 2005, Israel received
$2.6 billion). Jordan has also been the beneficiary
of higher levels of aid since it signed a treaty with Israel (increasing
from less than $40 million to approximately $250 million).
The multibillion dollar debts to the U.S. of both Arab
nations were also forgiven.
Israel
made the offer because it does not have the same need
for assistance it once did. The foundation of Israel’s
economy today is strong; still, Israel remains saddled
with past debts to the U.S., which, unlike those of
Jordan and Egypt, were not forgiven. In addition, Israel
still can use American help. The country still has
the tremendous financial burden of absorbing thousands
of immigrants, a very high rate of unemployment and
an alarmingly high number of people who fall below
the poverty line. The situation was further exacerbated
by the Palestinian War, which devastated the tourist
industry and all related service sectors of the economy.
Furthermore, concessions made in peace negotiations
have required the dismantling of military bases and
the loss of valuable resources that must be replaced.
The cost of disengaging from Gaza alone is estimated
at more than $2 billion.
In
2005, economic aid to Israel was expected to be reduced
to $360 million while military aid was to be increased
to $2.2 billion.
Israel
has peace treaties with only two of its neighbors.
It remains technically at war with the rest of the
Arab/Islamic world, and several countries, notably Iran, are openly
hostile. Given the potential threats,
it is a necessity that Israel continue to maintain
a strong defense.
Contrary to popular wisdom, the United States does
not simply write billion dollar checks and hand them over to Israel
to spend as they like. Only about 25 percent ($555 million of $2.2 billion
in 2004) of what Israel receives in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) can
be spent in Israel for military procurement. The remaining 75 percent
is spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. More than
1,000 companies in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
have signed contracts worth billions of dollars through this program
over the last several years. The figures for 2010 are below:
In
1952, Gen. Omar Bradley, head of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, believed the West required 19 divisions to defend
the Middle East and that Israel could supply two. He
also expected only three states to provide the West
air power in Middle Eastern defense by 1955: Great
Britain, Turkey and Israel. Bradley’s analysis
was rejected because the political echelon decided
it was more important for the United States to work
with Egypt, and later Iraq. It was feared that integration
of Israeli forces in Western strategy would alienate
the Arabs.16
Israel
proved its value in 1970 when the United States asked
for help in bolstering King Hussein’s regime.
Israel’s willingness to aid Amman, and movement
of troops to the Jordanian border, persuaded Syria to withdraw the tanks
it had sent into Jordan to support PLO forces challenging
the King during “Black September.”17
Though
still reluctant to formalize the relationship, strategic
cooperation became a major focus of the U.S.-Israel
relationship when Ronald Reagan entered office. Before
his election, Reagan had written: “Only by full
appreciation of the critical role the State of Israel
plays in our strategic calculus can we build the foundation
for thwarting Moscow’s designs on territories
and resources vital to our security and our national
well-being.”18
Reagan’s
view culminated in the November 30, 1981, signing of
a Memorandum
of Understanding on “strategic cooperation.” On
November 29, 1983, a new agreement was signed creating
the Joint Political-Military Group (JPMG) and a group
to oversee security assistance, the Joint Security
Assistance Planning Group (JSAP).
In
1987, Congress designated Israel as a major non-NATO
ally. This law formally established Israel as an ally,
and allowed its industries to compete equally with
NATO countries and other close U.S. allies for contracts
to produce a significant number of defense items.
By
the end of Reagan’s term, the U.S. had prepositioned
equipment in Israel, regularly held joint training
exercises, began co-development of the Arrow Anti-Tactical Ballistic
Missile and was engaged in a host of other cooperative
military endeavors. Since then, U.S.-Israel strategic
cooperation has continued to evolve. Israel now regularly
engages in joint training exercises with U.S. forces
and, in 2005, for the first time, also trained and
exercised with NATO forces.
Today,
strategic ties are stronger than ever and Israel has
become a de facto ally of the United States.
In
November 1985, the FBI arrested Jonathan Pollard, a
U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, on charges of selling
classified material to Israel. Pollard was subsequently
sentenced to life imprisonment. His wife, Anne, was
sentenced to five years in jail for assisting her husband.
Immediately
upon Pollard’s arrest, Israel apologized and
explained that the operation was unauthorized. “It
is Israel’s policy to refrain from any intelligence
activity related to the United States,” an official
government statement declared, “in view of the
close and special relationship of friendship” between
the two countries. Prime Minister Shimon Peres stated: “Spying
on the United States stands in total contradiction
to our policy.”20
The
United States and Israel worked together to investigate
the Pollard affair. The Israeli inquiry revealed that
Pollard was not working for Israeli military intelligence
or the Mossad.
He was directed by a small, independent scientific
intelligence unit. Pollard initiated the contact with
the Israelis.
As
promised to the U.S. government, the spy unit that
directed Pollard was disbanded, his handlers punished
and the stolen documents returned.21 The
last point was crucial to the U.S. Department of Justice’s
case against Pollard.
Pollard
denied spying “against” the United States.
He said he provided only information he believed was
vital to Israeli security and was being withheld by
the Pentagon. This included data on Soviet arms shipments
to Syria, Iraqi and Syrian chemical weapons, the Pakistani
atomic bomb project and Libyan air defense systems.22 Because
the information he took is classified, we
can't verify if this is true.
The
United States Attorney arranged a plea-bargain
with Pollard: he would plead guilty to the
one count of passing classified information
to an ally without intent to harm the United
States. There would be no trial, and no risk
of classified information being disclosed
in court. In return, the government said
it would not seek the maximum sentence. The
trial judge warned Pollard, however, that
he could still receive a life sentence.22a Pollard
nevertheless pled guilty on June 4, 1986.
Before sentencing, and in
violation of the plea agreement, Pollard
and his wife Anne gave defiant media interviews
in which they defended their spying, and
attempted to rally American Jews to their
cause. In a 60 Minutes interview,
Anne said, “I feel my husband and I
did what we were expected to do, and what
our moral obligation was as Jews, what our
moral obligation was as human beings, and
I have no regrets about that.”
Also prior to sentencing,
Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger submitted
a 46-page classified memorandum to the judge
outlining the damage to U.S. national security
done by Pollard. Contrary to some accounts,
Wolf Blitzer reported that Pollard and his
attorneys were permitted to read it and draft
a response.22b Weinberger
called for severe punishment and the memo
is widely cited as a major reason that the
judge ultimately sentenced Pollard to life
in prison for espionage.
His life sentence was the
most severe prison term ever given for spying
for an ally. It also was far greater than
the average term imposed for spying for the
Soviet Union and other enemies of the United
States.23 Many
convicted spies, however, have been given
life sentences, including Aldrich Ames, Robert
Hanssen, and John Walker.
In February 2006, Pollard
asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn
a federal appeals court ruling that denied
his attorneys access to classified information
used in his trial. Pollard’s attorneys
insist the documents are needed to make
Pollard’s case for clemency. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit ruled last year that
the federal courts lack jurisdiction to
review claims for access to documents for
clemency, which the court said is the “president’s
sole discretion.” On March 20, 2006,
the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Pollard’s appeal.
MYTH
“U.S.
dependence on Arab oil has decreased over the years.”
FACT
In 1973, the Arab oil embargo dealt the U.S. economy
a major blow. This, combined with OPEC’s subsequent price hikes
and a growing American dependence on foreign oil, triggered the recession
of the early seventies.
In 1973, foreign oil accounted for 35 percent of total
U.S. oil demand. By 2010, the figure had risen to 63 percent, and Arab
OPEC countries accounted for 22 percent
of 2010 U.S. imports (with non-Arab countries Angola, Venezuela, Ecuador
and Nigeria, the figure is 42 percent). Saudi Arabia ranked number three and Algeria
(#6), Iraq (#7) and Kuwait (#13) were among the top 15 suppliers
of petroleum products to the United States in 2010. The Persian Gulf
states alone supplied nearly 15% of U.S. petroleum imports for FY2010.27
The growing reliance on imported oil has also made
the U.S. economy even more vulnerable to price jumps, as occurred in
1979, 1981, 1982, 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2009. Oil price increases have
also allowed Arab oil-producers to generate tremendous revenues at the
expense of American consumers. These profits have subsidized large weapons
purchases and nonconventional weapons programs such as Iran’s.
America’s
dependence on Arab oil has occasionally raised the
specter of a renewed attempt to blackmail the United
States to abandon its support for Israel. In April
2002, for example, Iraq suspended oil shipments for
a month to protest Israel’s operation to root
out terrorists in the West Bank. No other Arab oil
producers followed suit and the Iraqi action had little
impact on oil markets and no effect on policy.
The
good news for Americans is that the top two suppliers
of U.S. oil today – Canada and Mexico – are
more reliable and better allies than the Persian Gulf
nations.
MYTHMYTH
“America’s
support of Israel is the reason that terrorists attacked
the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September
11.”
FACT
The
heinous attacks against the United States were committed
by Muslim fanatics who
had a variety of motivations for these and other terrorist
attacks. These Muslims have a perverted interpretation
of Islam and believe they must attack infidels, particularly
Americans and Jews, who do not share their beliefs.
They oppose Western culture and democracy and object
to any U.S. presence in Muslim nations. They are particularly
angered by the existence of American military bases
in Saudia Arabia and
other areas of the Persian Gulf. This would be true
regardless of U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. Nevertheless, an added excuse for their fanaticism
is the fact that the United States is allied with Israel.
Previous attacks on American targets, such as the USS
Cole and U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,
were perpetrated by suicide bombers whose anger at
the United States had little or nothing to do with
Israel.
“Osama
bin Laden made his explosions and then
started talking about the Palestinians.
He never talked about them before.”
— Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak28 |
Osama
bin Laden claimed he was acting on behalf of the Palestinians,
and that his anger toward the United States was shaped
by American support for Israel. This was a new invention
by bin Laden clearly intended to attract support from
the Arab public and justify his terrorist acts. Bin
Laden’s antipathy toward the United States has
never been related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Though
many Arabs were taken in by bin Laden’s transparent
effort to drag Israel into his war, Dr. Abd Al-Hamid
Al-Ansari, dean of Shar’ia and Law at Qatar University
was critical, “In their hypocrisy, many of the
[Arab] intellectuals linked September 11 with the Palestinian
problem — something that completely contradicts
seven years of Al-Qaida literature. Al-Qaida never
linked anything to Palestine.”29
Even Yasser Arafat told
the Sunday Times of London that bin Laden should
stop hiding behind the Palestinian cause. Bin Laden “never
helped us, he was working in another completely different
area and against our interests,” Arafat said.30
Though
Al-Qaida’s agenda did not include the Palestinian
cause, the organization has begun to take a more active
role in terror against Israeli targets, starting with
the November 28, 2002, suicide bombing at an Israeli-owned
hotel in Kenya that killed three Israelis and 11 Kenyans,
and the attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner with
a missile as it was taking off from Kenya that same
day.31 Al-Qaida
operatives have also now has begun to infiltrate the
Palestinian Authority.32
MYTH
“The
hijacking of four airliners in one day, on September
11, was an unprecedented act of terror.”
FACT
The
scale of the massacre and destruction on September
11 was indeed unprecedented, as was the use of civilian
aircraft as bombs. The coordinated hijackings, however,
were not new.
On
September 6, 1970, members of the Popular Front for the Liberation
of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked three jets (Swissair,
TWA and Pan Am ) with more than 400 passengers on flights
to New York. A fourth plane, an El Al flight, was also
targeted, but Israeli security agents foiled the hijacking
in mid-air and killed one of the two terrorists when
they tried to storm the cockpit. On the 9th, a British
BOAC jet was also hijacked by the PFLP.33
The UN could not muster a condemnation
of the hijackings. A Security Council Resolution only
went so far as to express grave concern, and did not
even bring the issue to a vote.
Instead
of flying their planes into buildings, they landed
them on airfields (three in Jordan, one in Egypt).
All four hijacked planes were blown up on the ground – after
the passengers were taken off the planes — on
September 12.
More
than three dozen Americans were among the passengers
who were then held hostage in Jordan as the terrorists
attempted to blackmail the Western governments and
Israel to swap the hostages for Palestinian terrorists held
in their jails. On September 14, after releasing all
but 55 hostages, the terrorists said all American hostages
would be treated as Israelis. A tense standoff ensued.
Seven terrorists were ultimately set free by Britain,
Germany and Switzerland in exchange for the hostages.34
After
the hijackings, shocked members of cCongress called for immediate and
forceful action by the United States and international
community. They insisted on quick adoption of measures
aimed at preventing air piracy, punishing the perpetrators
and recognizing the responsibility of nations that
harbor them.35 Virtually
nothing was done until 31 years later.
The
PFLP as an organization, and some of the individual
participants responsible for those hijackings still
are alive and well, supported by Syria, the Palestinian Authority and
others. In fact, Leila Khaled, the person who tried
to hijack the El Al jet, was going to be admitted into
the territories to attend the Palestine National Council
meetings in 1996, but she still refused to disavow
terrorism. Today, she is said to live in Amman.
MYTH
“Israel’s
Mossad carried out the bombing of the World Trade
Center to provoke American hatred of Arabs.”
FACT
Syrian
Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass told a delegation from
Great Britain that Israel was
responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks on
the United States. He claimed the Mossad had
warned thousands of Jewish employees not to go to work
that day at the World Trade Center. He was the highest-ranking
Arab public official to publicly voice a view that
is widespread in the Arab world that the attacks were
part of a Jewish conspiracy to provoke U.S. retaliation
against the Arab world and to turn American public
opinion against Muslims. One poll published
in the Lebanese newspaper An Nahar, for example,
found that 31 percent of the respondents believed Israel
was responsible for the hijackings while only 27 percent
blamed Osama
bin Laden. A Newsweek poll found that a
plurality of Egyptians believed the Jews were responsible
for the Trade Center bombings.36
The
conspiracy theory is also being circulated by American
Muslim leaders. Imam Mohammed Asi of the Islamic Center
of Washington said Israeli officials decided to launch
the attack after the United States refused their request
to put down the Palestinian intifada. “If we’re
not going to be secure, neither are you,” was
the Israelis’’ thinking
following the U.S. response, according to Asi.37
The passing years have
not reduced the popularity of the conspiracy
theories in the Arab world. An Egyptian
researcher, for example, told a television
interviewer (Iqra, May 26, 2005) the twin
towers were brought down by a pre-planned “controlled
demolition” and that “4,000
Jews caught influenza on that exact day.” A
Saudi women’s rights activist told
another interviewer (Al-Arabiya TV, April
12, 2005) that the attack was “premeditated” and
that Osama
bin Laden works for “global
Zionism.” An Egyptian professor claimed
the attack was “fabricated as a pretext
to attack Islam and Muslims” (Saudi
Channel 1, August 8, 2005). “The
plan was to take over the world’s
energy sources,” according to Abd
Al-Sabour Shahin, who concluded “a
dirty Zionist carried out this act.” The
editor of Middle East Magazine told
Al-Manar TV (December 30, 2004) that the
attack was a “grand scheme” engineered
by Zionists, evangelical Chrisians and “American
right-wing forces” to “push
America into war.”37a
No
U.S. authority has suggested, nor has any evidence
been produced, to suggest any Israeli or Jew had any
role in the terrorist attacks. These conspiracy theories
are complete nonsense and reflect the degree to which
many people in the Arab world are prepared to accept
anti-Semitic fabrications and the mythology of Jewish
power. They may also reflect a refusal to believe that
Muslims could be responsible for the atrocities and
the hope that they could be blamed on the Jews.
MYTH
“Groups
like Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas and the PFLP
are freedom fighters and not terrorists.”
FACT
When
the United States declared a war on terrorists and the
nations that harbor them after September 11, Arab states
and their sympathizers argued that many of the organizations
that engage in violent actions against Americans and
Israelis should not be targets of the new American
war because they are “freedom fighters” rather
than terrorists. This has been the mantra of the terrorists
themselves, who claim that their actions are legitimate
forms of resistance against the “Israeli occupation.”
This argument
is deeply flawed. First, the enemies of Israel rationalize
any attacks as legitimate because of real and imagined
sins committed by Jews since the beginning of the 20th
century. Consequently, the Arab bloc and its supporters
at the United Nations have succeeded
in blocking the condemnation of any terrorist attacks
against Israel. Instead, they routinely sponsor resolutions
criticizing Israel when it retaliates.
Second,
nowhere else in the world is the murder of innocent
men, women and children considered a “legitimate
form of resistance.” The long list of heinous
crimes includes snipers shooting infants, suicide bombers
blowing up pizzerias and discos, hijackers taking and
killing hostages, and infiltrators murdering Olympic
athletes. Hizballah, Islamic
Jihad, Hamas, the PFLP,
and a number of other groups, mostly Palestinian, have
engaged in these activities for decades and rarely
been condemned or brought to justice. All of them qualify
as terrorist groups according to the U.S. government’s
own definition — “Terrorism is the unlawful
use of force or violence against persons or property
to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance
of political or social objectives”38 — and
therefore should be targets of U.S. efforts to cut
off their funding, to root out their leaders and to
bring them to justice.
In
the case of the Palestinian groups, there is no mystery
as to who the leaders are, where their funding comes
from and which nations harbor them. American charitable
organizations have been linked to funding some of these
groups and SaudiaSaudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and
the Palestinian
Authority all shelter and/or financially and logistically
support them.
“You can’’t
say there are good terrorists and there
are bad terrorists.”
— U.S. National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice39 |
MYTH MYTH
“American
universities should divest from companies that do
business in Israel to force an end to Israeli ‘occupation’ and
human rights abuses.”
FACT
The
word “peace” does not appear in divestment
petitions, which makes clear the intent is not to resolve
the conflict but to delegitimize Israel. Petitioners
blame Israel for the lack of peace and demand that
it make unilateral concessions without requiring anything
of the Palestinians, not even the cessation of terrorism.
Divestment advocates also ignore Israel’s efforts
during the Oslo peace process, and
at the summit meetings with President
Clinton, to reach historic compromises with the
Palestinians that would have created a Palestinian
state. Even after Israel completely withdrew from the
Gaza Strip, certain individuals and groups persisted
in their campaign to undermine Israel and further demonstrated
that they are interested in Israel’s destruction
rather than any territorial compromise.
The
divestment campaign against South Africa was specifically
directed at companies that were using that country’s
racist laws to their advantage. In Israel no such racist
laws exist; moreover, companies doing business there
adhere to the same standards of equal working rights
that are applied in the United States.
Harvard
University President Lawrence Summers observed that
the divestment efforts are anti-Semitic.
“Profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly
finding support in progressive intellectual communities,” said
Summers. “Serious and thoughtful people are advocating
and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect,
if not their intent.”40
Peace
in the Middle East will come only from direct negotiations
between the parties, and only after the Arab states
recognize Israel’s right to exist, and the Palestinians
and other Arabs cease their support of terror. American
universities cannot help through misguided divestment
campaigns that unfairly single out Israel as the source
of conflict in the region. Divestment proponents hope
to tar Israel with an association with apartheid South
Africa, an offensive comparison that ignores the fact
that all Israeli citizens are equal under the law.
MYTH
“Advocates
for Israel try to silence critics by labeling them
anti-Semitic.”
FACT
Criticizing Israel does not necessarily make
someone anti-Semitic. The determining
factor is the intent of the commentator. Legitimate
critics accept Israel’s right to exist, whereas
anti-Semites do not. Anti-Semites use double standards
when they criticize Israel, for example, denying Israelis
the right to pursue their legitimate claims while encouraging
the Palestinians to do so. Anti-Semites deny Israel
the right to defend itself, and ignore Jewish victims,
while blaming Israel for pursuing their murderers.
Anti-Semites rarely, if ever, make positive statements
about Israel. Anti-Semites describe Israelis using
pejorative terms and hate-speech, suggesting, for example,
that they are “racists” or “Nazis.”
Natan
Sharansky has suggested a
“3-D” test for differentiating legitimate
criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. The first “D” is
the test of whether Israel or its leaders are being
demonized or their actions blown out of proportion.
Equating Israel with Nazi Germany is one example of
demonization. The second “D” is the test
of double standards. An example is when Israel is singled
out for condemnation at the United Nations for perceived
human rights abuses while nations that violate human
rights on a massive scale, such as Iran, Syria,
and Saudi Arabia,
are not even mentioned. The third “D” is
the test of delegitimization. Questioning Israel’s
legitimacy, that is, its right to exist is always anti-Semitic.41
No
campaign exists to prevent people from expressing negative
opinions about Israeli policy. In fact, the most vociferous
critics of Israel are Israelis themselves who use their
freedom of speech to express their concerns every day.
A glance at any Israeli newspaper will reveal a surfeit
of articles questioning particular government policies.
Anti-Semites, however, do not share Israelis’ interest
in improving the society; their goal is to delegitimize
the state in the short-run, and destroy it in the long-run.
There is nothing Israel could do to satisfy these critics.
MYTH
“Arab-Americans
are a powerful voting bloc that U.S. presidential
candidates must pander to for votes.”
FACT
Arab-Americans
represent a tiny fraction (less than one-half of one
percent) of the U.S. population. Unlike American Jews,
who are overwhelmingly supportive of Israel,
Arab-Americans are not a monolithic group. There are
approximately 1.2 million Arabs in the United States, and
they tend to reflect the general discord of the Arab
world, which has twenty-one states with competing interests.
While
the Palestinian cause receives most of the media’s
attention, because of the salience of the Arab-Israeli
conflict and the omnipresence of a handful of activists
and vocal Palestinian spokespersons, the reality is
that only about 70,000 Palestinians (6 percent of all
Arab-Americans) live in the United States. Roughly
38 percent of Arab-Americans are Lebanese, primarily
Christians.
In
addition, while attention has focused on the allegedly
growing political strength of Muslims in the United
States, fewer than one-fourth of all Arab-Americans
are Muslims.42Christian
Arabs, especially those from Lebanon, do not typically
support the Palestinians’ anti-Israel agenda,
largely because of their history of mistreatment by
Palestinians and Muslims.
Consequently,
Arab-American voters do not pursue a positive agenda
of strengthening U.S.-Arab ties; instead, they focus
on weakening U.S.-Israel relations. Presidential candidates,
however, and most Americans, historically
view Israel as an ally that supports American interests,
and are unwilling to support a reversal of this longstanding
policy.
The
divisions were apparent in 2000 when George W. Bush was
viewed with suspicion by most Jewish voters and
considered likely to be more sympathetic to the Arab
cause by Arab-Americans. In that election, 45 percent
of Arab-Americans nationwide voted for George Bush,
38 percent for Al Gore, and 13 percent for Ralph Nader
(who, incidentally, is of Lebanese descent).43The
situation changed dramatically in 2004 when Arab-Americans
perceived Bush as pro-Israel, and were disturbed by
his support for security measures that they viewed
as threats to their civil liberties. Consequently,
John Kerry received 63 percent% of
the Arab-American vote, while President Bush won 28
percent%.44 Once
again, this constituency did not change the outcome.
Even
if Arab-Americans vote as a bloc, their influence is
marginal, and restricted to a handful of states. About
half of the Arab population is concentrated in five
states — California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey,
and New York — that are all key to the electoral
college. Still, the Arab population is dwarfed by that
of the Jews in every one of these states except Michigan.
Jewish
and Arab Populations in Key States45
State |
Arab
Population |
Arabs
as % of
Total State Population |
Jewish
Population |
Jews
as % of
Total State Population |
CA |
142,805 |
.48 |
999,000 |
2.9 |
FL |
49,206 |
.38 |
628,000 |
3.9 |
MI |
76,504 |
.82 |
110,000 |
1.1 |
NJ |
46,381 |
.60 |
485,000 |
5.7 |
NY |
94,319 |
.52 |
1,657,000 |
8.7 |
MYTH
“The
United States must be ‘engaged’ to advance
the peace process.”
FACT
The
European Union, Russia, and the UN all have pursued largely
one-sided policies in the Middle East detrimental to Israel, which has disqualified
them as honest brokers. The United States is the only country
that has the trust of both the Israelis and the Arabs
and is therefore the only third party that can play
a constructive role in the peace process. This has
led many people to call for greater involvement by
the Bush Administration in
negotiations. While the United States can play a valuable
role as a mediator, history shows that American peace initiatives have
never succeeded, and that it is the parties themselves
who must resolve their differences.
The Eisenhower Administration tried
to ease tensions by proposing the joint Arab-Israeli
use of the Jordan River. The plan would have helped
the Arab
refugees by producing more irrigated land and would
have reduced Israel’s need for more water resources.
Israel cautiously accepted the plan, the Arab League rejected
it.
President Johnson outlined five principles for peace. “The
first and greatest principle,” Johnson said, “is
that every nation in the area has a fundamental right
to live and to have this right respected by its neighbors.” The Arab response came
a few weeks later: “no peace with Israel, no
recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it....”
President
Nixon’s Secretary of State, William Rogers, offered
a plan that sought to “balance” U.S.
policy, but leaned on the Israelis to withdraw to the pre-1967
borders, to accept many Palestinian refugees,
and to allow Jordan a role in Jerusalem. The plan was
totally unacceptable to Israel and, even though it
tilted toward the Arab position, was rejected by the
Arabs as well.
President
Ford’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger,
had a little more success in his shuttle diplomacy,
arranging the disengagement
of forces after the 1973 war, but he never
put forward a peace plan, and failed to move the parties
beyond the cessation of hostilities to the formalization
of peace.
Jimmy
Carter was the model for presidential engagement in
the conflict. He wanted an international conference
at Geneva to produce a comprehensive peace. While Carter
spun his wheels trying to organize a conference, Egyptian
President Anwar Sadat decided
to bypass the Americans and go directly to the Israeli
people and address the Knesset.
Despite
revisionist history by Carter’s former advisers,
the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement was
negotiated largely despite Carter. Menachem Begin and Sadat had carried on
secret contacts long before Camp David and had reached
the basis for an agreement before Carter’s intervention.
Carter’s mediation helped seal the treaty, but
Sadat’s decision to go to Jerusalem was stimulated
largely by his conviction that Carter’s policies
were misguided.
In
1982, President Reagan announced
a surprise peace initiative that
called for allowing the Palestinians self-rule in the
territories in association with Jordan. The plan rejected
both Israeli annexation and the creation of a Palestinian
state. Israel denounced the plan as endangering Israeli
security. The plan had been formulated largely to pacify
the Arab states, which had been angered by the expulsion
of the PLO from Beirut,
but they also rejected the Reagan Plan.
George
Bush’s Administration succeeded in convening
a historic regional conference in Madrid in
1991, but it ended without any agreements and the multilateral
tracks that were supposed to resolve some of the more
contentious issues rarely met and failed to resolve
anything. Moreover, Bush’s perceived hostility
toward Israel eroded trust and made it difficult to
convince Israelis to take risks for peace.
President Clinton barely
had time to get his vision of peace together when he
discovered the Israelis had secretly negotiated an
agreement with the Palestinians in Oslo. The United States
had nothing to do with the breakthrough at Oslo and
very little influence on the immediate aftermath. In
fact, the peace process became increasingly muddled
as the United States got more involved.
Peace with Jordan also
required no real American involvement. The Israelis
and Jordanians already were agreed on the main terms
of peace, and the main obstacle had been King Hussein’s unwillingness
to sign a treaty before Israel had reached an agreement
with the Palestinians. After Oslo, he felt safe to
move forward and no American plan was needed.
In
a last ditch effort to save his presidential legacy, Clinton put forward
a peace plan to establish
a Palestinian state. Again, it was Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s willingness
to offer dramatic concessions that raised the prospects
for an agreement rather than the President’s
initiative. Even after Clinton was prepared to give
the Palestinians a state in virtually all the West Bank and Gaza,
and to make east Jerusalem their capital,
the Palestinians rejected the deal.
President George W. Bush also
offered a plan, but it was undercut
by Yasser Arafat, who
obstructed the required reforms of the Palestinian Authority, and
refused to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and
stop the violence. Bush’s plan morphed into the road map, which drew the
support of Great Britain, France, Russia, and the United
Nations, but has not been implemented because of the
continuing Palestinian violence. The peace process
only began to move again when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made his disengagement proposal,
a unilateral approach the State Department had long
opposed. Rather than try to capitalize on the momentum
created by Israel’s evacuation of the Gaza Strip,
however, the Bush Administration remains wedded to
its plan, which stalled because Mahmoud Abbas
has been unable and/or unwilling to fulfill his commitments.
History
has shown that Middle East peace is not made in America.
Only the parties can decide to end the conflict, and
the terms that will be acceptable. No American plan
has ever succeeded, and it is unlikely anyone
will ever bring peace.
The end to the Arab-Israeli conflict will not be achieved
through American initiatives or intense involvement;
it will be possible only when Arab leaders have the
courage to follow the examples of Sadat and Hussein and
resolve to live in peace with Israel.
Notes
1Foreign
Relations of the United States 1947, (DC: GPO,
1948), pp. 1173-4, 1198-9, 1248, 1284. [Henceforth
FRUS 1947.]
2Mitchell
Bard, The Water’s Edge And Beyond,
(NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1991), p. 132.
3FRUS
1947, p. 1313.
4Harry
Truman, Years of Trial and Hope, Vol. 2,
(NY: Doubleday, 1956), p. 156.
5John
Snetsinger, Truman, The Jewish Vote and the Creation
of Israel, (CA: Hoover Institution Press,
1974), pp. 9-10; David Schoenbaum, “The United
States and the Birth of Israel,” Wiener Library
Bulletin, (1978), p. 144n.
6Peter
Grose, Israel in the Mind of America, (NY:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1983), p. 217; Michael Cohen, “Truman,
The Holocaust and the Establishment of the State of
Israel,” Jerusalem Quarterly, (Spring
1982), p. 85.
6a“Americans Still See More Enemies Than Friends in the Middle East,” Rasmussen Reports, (August 10, 2009).
7 Mitchell
Bard, U.S.-Israel Relations: Looking to the Year
2000, AIPAC Papers on U.S.-Israel Relations,
(1991), p.3.
8Nathan
Guttman, “US Stopped parts sales during intifada,” Jerusalem
Post, (September 22, 2005); Ze’ev Schiff, “U.S.
Sanctions still in place, despite deal over security
exports,” Haaretz, (August 28, 2005).
9Memorandum
of conversation regarding Harriman-Eshkol talks, (February
25, 1965); Memorandum of conversation between Ambassador
Avraham Harman and W. Averill Harriman, Ambassador-at-Large,
(March 15, 1965), LBJ Library; Yitzhak Rabin, The Rabin Memoirs, (MA: Little Brown
and Company, 1979), pp. 65-66.
10Robert
Trice, “Domestic Political Interests and American
Policy in the Middle East: Pro-Israel, Pro-Arab and
Corporate Non-Governmental Actors and the Making of
American Foreign Policy, 1966-1971,” (Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
1974), pp. 226-230.
11Memorandum
of conversation between Yitzhak Rabin et al., and Paul
Warnke et al., (November 4, 1968), LBJ Library.
12Speech
to B’nai B’rith on September 10, 1968,
cited in Bernard Reich, Quest
for Peace, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1977), p. 423n.
13Truman
campaign speech, Madison Square Garden, (October 28,
1948).
14USAID; Washington
Post, (May 27, 2005).
15Israeli
Ministry of Defense.
16Dore
Gold, America, the Gulf, and Israel, (CO:
Westview Press, 1988), p. 84.
17Yitzhak
Rabin, address to conference on “Strategy and
Defense in the Eastern Mediterranean,” sponsored
by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and
Israel Military Correspondents Association, Jerusalem,
(July 9-11, 1986).
18Ronald
Reagan, “Recognizing the Israeli Asset,” Washington
Post, (August 15, 1979).
19Reagan
Address to B’nai B’rith, cited in Mitchell
Bard, U.S.-Israel Relations: Looking to the Year
2000, AIPAC Papers on U.S.-Israel Relations, p.
6.
20Wolf
Blitzer, Territory of Lies, (NY: Harper & Row,
1989), p. 201.
21New
York Times, (December 2 and 21, 1985).
22Blitzer,
pp. 166-171.
22aBlitzer,
pp. 219-220.
22bBlitzer,
p. 224.
23Alan
Dershowitz, Chutzpah, (MA: Little Brown, & Co.,
1991), pp. 289-312.
24Washington
Post, (December 23, 2000).
25Washington
Post, (November 14, 2003).
26Matthew
E. Berger, “After court denies his appeal, Pollard
left with few legal options,” Jewish
Telegraphic Agency, (July 24, 2005).
26aDan Izenberg, “HCJ
rules Pollard not prisoner of Zion,” Jerusalem
Post,
(January 16, 2006)..
27 "US
Imports by Country of Origin - Petroleum and Other Liquids", US
Energy Information Administration, (July 2010).
28Newsweek,
(October 29, 2001).
29Al-Raya (Qatar),
(January 6, 2002).
30Washington
Post, (December 16, 2002).
31CNN,
(December 3, 2002).
32Maariv,
(October 17, 2005).
33Henry
Kissinger, The White House Years. (MA: Little
Brown & Co., 1979), pp. 600-617.
34Guardian Unlimited, (January 1, 2001).
35Near
East Report, (September 16, 1970).
36Arieh
O'Sullivan, “Syrian defense minister blames
WTC, Pentagon attacks on Israel,” Jerusalem Post, (October 19, 2001); Newsweek poll
quoted in “Protocols,” The New Republic
Online, (October 30, 2001).
37Jewish
Telegraphic Agency, (November 2, 2001).
37aMEMRI TV Special
Report: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories on Arab
and Iranian TV Channels 2004-2005, (September
9, 2005).
38Washington
Post, (September 13, 2001).
39Jerusalem
Post, (October 17, 2001).
40Address at morning prayers, Memorial Church,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, (September 17, 2002), Office
of the President, Harvard University.
41Natan
Sharansky, “Antisemitism in 3-D,”, Forward,
(January 21, 2005), p. 9.
42Alex
Ionides, “Getting Their House Together,” Egypt Today,
(November 2003).
43“Poll:
Bush losing Arab-American support,” Zogby
International, (March 13, 2004).
44James
Zogby, “Arab
Americans in election 2004,” Arab
American Institute - November 15, 2004, in
American Muslim Perspective.
45U.S. Census Bureau
(2000).
See also: Israel
U.S.-Israel Relations
Peace Process
Previous
Next
Table of Contents
Index
To order the paperback edition,
click HERE.
It
was only after it became clear that Israel had no other
sources of arms, and that the Soviet Union had no interest
in limiting its sales to the region, that President
Johnson agreed to 