Impact Of Israel’s Alliance With The United States: Analytical Essay

downloadDownload
  • Words 2955
  • Pages 6
Download PDF

Having celebrated its seventh decade of statehood recently, Israel has grown dramatically in its population, capital, and military strength. Yet another means to evaluate the country’s development is through analyzing whether or not it has experienced a parallel trajectory in its independence, especially considering its ties to the United States. In measuring this, one must seek to establish if there indeed is a similar trend of positive growth in Israel’s aptitude to make independent decisions in order to ensure its security and successfully endure as a Jewish state in an otherwise threatening region. Furthermore, it is imperative to study whether the solidification of Israel’s alliance with the United States in its modern state has caused it to be more or less independent than it was in its formative years before a strong partnership existed. Keeping this in mind, it raises the question: did the lack of American support in Israel’s formative years give it freedom to manoeuvre or rather constrict its growth?

Through understanding Israel’s protection of its interests as well as its ability to operate autonomously within the first decade of its statehood, one can decode the nature of its independence within international relations. This lens of analysis serves to reveal that Israel had a considerably larger decision-making ability in its formative years, when it didn’t have as firm of a partnership with the United States as it does today. Exploring significant happenings within Israel’s first decade of statehood such as its declaration of independence in 1948 and its construction of the Dimona nuclear reactor in 1958, one can delve into the level of Israel’s unilateral power it possessed in its first decade despite the lack of support it received from the United States in each instance.

Click to get a unique essay

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

Adding nuance to this question are the two main approaches one can take when considering Israel’s freedom in its formative years. The first school of thought considers measuring these two aforementioned events in 1948 and 1958 specifically within the scope of the United States and Israel bilateral relationship, irrespective of simultaneously occurring international affairs. This would suggest that Israel’s freedom of maneuver in the first decade of its partnership with the United States had no influence from other state actors, which appears to be a more reductive approach. Yet the other school of thought concerns itself with the world stage as a whole by analyzing other allied states’ contributions towards Israel or their neighboring countries. This more holistic approach seeks to understand how international influence affected Israel’s freedom to maneuver in its alliance with the United States. Granted that the first decade of Israel’s statehood also corresponded with the rise of the Cold War, understanding the intentions of other states clearly lends itself to the fact Israel indeed had greater freedom to make unilateral decisions in its formative years.

To begin proper analysis of Israel’s greater amount of freedom in its formative years in relation to its alliance with the United States, one must comprehend the historical background of the Jewish state first. In May 1948, Israel officially declared its independence. As a result of the consequential war waged on Israel by its surrounding Arab neighbors, 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled from the land. This in turn set the stage for the nascent state to have a significant Jewish majority. Keeping the events of 1948 in mind, one can mark this period as establishing both a legally and demographically Jewish state.

Yet the Arab threats to eliminate Israel did not stop following its victory in the War of Independence. It continued through the Jewish state’s first decade to 1958, where as a result Israel took a preemptive measure to ensure its security. Beginning the creation of the Dimona nuclear reactor in the Negev, Israel produced weapons for its classified but growing arsenal. Though the constructed facility was claimed to have been made merely for researching atomic science, the nuclear reactor in fact protected Israel’s survival from any imaginable threat of obliteration posed by Arab states.

Firmly establishing Israel’s presence in the Middle East as an independent Jewish state both demographically and militarily, these key events within the country’s first decade are crucial towards understanding its unilaterally-taken measures. Yet it is imperative to take note of the United States’ reaction towards these incidents, as Israel’s actions were not embraced as one may expect from their key Western ally. Rather, Israel was issued staunch warnings by the United States that they would abandon their partnership if these measures were indeed taken.

According to the reductive former approach of analyzing this from the perspective confined to their bilateral relationship championed by the work of Jeremy M. Sharp, this may seem to be enough in analyzing the initial freedom Israel experienced in its formative years given that they moved forward regardless. Yet perhaps we can gain a deeper understanding as to why exactly the United States was opposed to these measures by utilizing the latter approach of surveying the international arena to see if there were any strategic factors at play for the United States to threaten its alliance with Israel. Furthermore, we can use the second school of thought to understand why these threats ultimately had no impact on the independent decisions Israel ultimately made.

Returning back to the Israeli declaration of independence in 1948, historical context reveals that it had followed return of the Palestine mandate back to the United Nations after much violent infighting within the territory. Subsequently, in November 1947 the United Nations voted on partitioning the land into two separate Jewish and Arab states. Serving as President of the United States at the time, Harry Truman initially supported the concept of the territorial partition. Yet upon further contemplation, his administration reverted from their position in favor of an alternate solution: a United Nations trusteeship over the land as a whole.

Why would the United States reverse its position on the matter? Considering the reductive approach of only considering its bilateral relationship with Israel, works such as Warren Bass’s do not identify any immediate risks a partition would impose on the United States itself within their works. Yet with the holistic approach of considering the United States’ strategic positioning on the international stage, as in the works of Francis B. Sayre, it becomes clear that the reversal of American policy is a result of something much more complex than its views on Israel’s existence, Rather, it makes clear that the fear of the weakening of United States interests in Arab countries by supporting this partition was the reason why it ultimately supported a United Nations trusteeship over the land.

While these deliberations were taking place, Jews within the Palestinian mandate considered whether or not to declare independence. Yet before they could unilaterally take action, Marshall issued a cautionary notice to incoming foreign minister Moshe Sharrett. In this, he raised a concern about the impending threat of Arab hostility that could result from an Israeli declaration of independence. In this case, the United States would not provide assistance to Israel and the Jewish state would have to fend for itself. This clearly follows the holistic school of thought presented above by Sayre, where the United States put its strategic interests with the Arab countries first before its bilateral relationship with Israel.

Yet even after revealing Sharrett revealed this warning to incoming Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, Israel defiantly dismissed Marshall’s admonition and declared its independence in May 1948. The reductive approach suggested by Denise Garmo’s work shows that this defiance displays the ease in which Israel had in being able to move forward in its decisions freely without little regard towards retaliation by the United States. And while Truman instantly acknowledged and accepted Israel’s newfound statehood, the United States still enacted restrictions on weaponry shipments towards both Israel and the Arab states fighting in the following war of independence. This did not pose much of an inconvenience for the Arabs due to their partnership with for access to weaponry, yet Israel faced a more compromising situation. Yet with the Soviet Union’s state of Czechoslovakia providing them with arms shortly thereafter, Israel was able to firmly establish its presence as a Jewish state in the Middle East through a strong military victory in its war of independence. By taking into account this holistic approach suggested by Shlomo Slonim’s work when considering other international actors in the equation, we can see that Israel was able to move forward with its decree of independence granted that it had support of other allied countries as well.

Keeping the cold response of the United States in mind towards the Israeli declaration of independence, it is important to analyze its context to determine whether the lack of American support impacted Israel’s freedom in its unilateral measure and in the ensuing conflict. Given that the preexisting Jewish community in the Palestine Mandate, alternatively called the Yishuv, was not reliant on the United States prior to 1948, they held no hesitation in declaring Israel’s independence despite American warnings. Additionally, because Israel was not in need of American support, the outcome of the 1948 war ended in a strong victory for the Jewish state. Had Israel succumbed to the more passive American doctrine of compromise for the sake of peace within the region, the war may have concluded with a premature ceasefire. This would potentially leave Israel to be run by a declining Jewish majority, and eventually lose its very distinguishing trait of being a Jewish state once Palestinians made a demographic resurgence. Combining these factors with the alternate international support it received from Soviet actors such as Czechoslovakia, the holistic approach as taken by Ariel Gomberg’s work lends itself to guaranteeing that Israel indeed had freedom of maneuver despite United States pushback in this instance.

Given that the holistic approach has been proven to accurately describe Israel’s independence in decision-making even in its alliance with the United States, we will continue considering the influence of international actors by applying this latter school of thought to further study. Continuing onwards to the construction of the Dimona nuclear reactor one decade later in 1958, Israel was able to receive aid from France to begin its production. Despite claims attributing the site’s creation towards scientific research, the United States Central Intelligence Agency believed the reactor’s purpose was more so geared more towards gaining a nuclear advantage in the region. Ultimately though, the United States had clearly misjudged Israel’s ascending growth on the international military stage. It was not until May 1963 that President John F. Kennedy stepped forth and demanded Ben-Gurion to allow the American examination of the reactor. Because the United States held grave concerns regarding the potentially disastrous results nuclear weapons capability by Israel could have on international peacekeeping, Kennedy was desperate for access to the site. This was spurred by his primary fear of the Arabs pursuing nuclear arms production through assistance from the Soviet Union, tipping the balance on the world power stage away from the United States and its allies. Because the Cold War was intensifying at this time, the holistic approach used within Matteo Gerlini work lends itself to explaining why the United States wanted to control Israel as a proxy to restore its hegemonic presence on the international stage.

In addition to expressing his concerns, Kennedy also issued a warning to the Jewish state regarding the declining American commitment towards their alliance. Simply put, if the United States could not receive accurate information in regards to Israel’s developments in the nuclear field, then the United States would abandon of its partnership with Israel. While Israel did not take Kennedy’s threat lightly, they were still fully aware that they had French support in their endeavors to build Israeli military strength internally. As a result, significant efforts were made to cover up their nuclear developments until the Central Intelligence Agency revealed Israel’s progress otherwise a few years later. It was in 1968 that Israel’s defiant nature towards the United States was shown through its official acquisition of a nuclear weapon, violating the standards of partnership originally set by Kennedy’s administration. By applying Avner Cohen’s holistic approach in his work to Israel’s overall defiance, we can see that they still possessed freedom of maneuver once again due to their international alliances with countries other than the United States.

Once again, it is important to take this instance and evaluate whether the lack of American support in this nuclear weapon acquisition had any significant bearing on Israel’s freedom of autonomous decision-making. Granted that Israel was receiving aid from France during the time of tension in its relationship with the United States, it still possessed freedoms to defiantly move forward with its program despite Kennedy’s concerns according to the holistic approach. Therefore, this incident serves to reveal that the lack of United States support and unwillingness to supply Israel with conventional weaponry following its arms embargo ultimately had no major impact on Israel’s construction of the Dimona nuclear reactor. This clearly speaks to the level of freedom the Jewish state still possessed in making unilateral decisions even within its strained partnership with the United States.

While these decisions taken by Israel were made defiantly in response to United States opposition, it is imperative to note that these actions were not determined easily. In fact, the threats of American abandonment of Israel struck a chord all too common with Jews that may not be immediately perceived on the surface. Indeed, this would not be the first time that the United States had left the Jews alone from a historical perspective. In the 1930s prior to the Holocaust, the United States had denied Jewish Europeans escaping Hitler’s Nazi regime entry into the country. To take this further, a boat containing Jewish refugees that managed to arrive in America was also turned away in 1939. Once again, European Jews were subject to American abandonment during the Holocaust itself when the United States controversially abstained from taking part in any rescue initatives to aid the Jews being targeted in mass genocide overseas.

Having lived through these events, Marshall and Kennedy had assumed that issuing a threat to Israelis would strike deeply-rooted anxieties and successfully discourage them from acting in defiance against American demands. Yet this plan was not effective for two clear reasons: Israel was still not primarily dependent on the United States in its first decade of statehood, and following the holistic approach, had support from other international actors as well. Ultimately, the United States attempted to practice an impartial role in navigating its relationship with both Israel and Arab states, and though it issued continuous warnings to Israel, it remained detached in most of the Jewish state’s affairs. Missing the influence needed to make its threats of abandonment effective; the United States is clearly shown to have inadvertently granted Israel much more freedom of maneuver in their relationship than anticipated.

Keeping this perspective in mind, analyzing the current political climate in United States-Israeli relations can lend further insight into Israel’s freedom during its earliest years of statehood. In the Iran deal settled by the Obama administration in 2015 that was unsuccessfully contested by Israel, one may wonder if Israel longs to possess the freedom of decision-making it once enjoyed in its formative years. Without the military and diplomatic support provided by its strategic alliance with the United States, Israel would have limited methods of resistance against Iran. But that very partnership may well limit those options as well, demonstrating the challenges that are often attributed to including other international actors in the holistic approach taken by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in his article.

Straining Israel’s relationship with the United States, the Iran deal clearly illustrates the general pattern within this alliance that has been held in its current stage. In this, Israel is expected to either limit its preemptive measures or compromise its strategic interests in return for military or political backing. The prior method of abandonment threats used by the United States towards Israel in its first decade of statehood are now replaced by a carrot-and-stick tactic, the carrot representing the exorbitant military assistance package the United States awards Israel annually. This serves in stark contrast to the United States-Israeli relationship in its formative years, revealing that Israel’s independence, though declared seven decades ago, is a process that is still developing in accordance with significant changes occurring in the region.

As Israel marks seven decades and counting of legal statehood, it is imperative to understand that in its first decade, its dependence on the United States was very insignificant. This minimal reliance resulted in gains for the Jewish state – even with American condemnation and warnings, Israel solidified its demographic and military presence. Setting the foundation of its national security firmly, Israel’s unilateral actions has established itself as a viable sovereign state, as evidenced through its considerations of other international actors apart from the United States when making decisions in the holistic approach. By abandoning the reductive nature of the former approach, one can comprehensively understand the nuances influencing the Israeli-American relationship without limiting the scope of study to only the two states.

Yet even upon coming to the conclusion that Israel enjoyed greater freedom of maneuver in its relationship with the United States in its first decade, a more proactive approach is necessary to understand where Israel stands today. By analyzing the evolution of instances which occurred later on Israel’s history to have it reach the level of dependence it has in the case of the Iran deal, this information would be relevant in deciding why Israel does not possess the same autonomous strength as it did before. Keeping the above in mind, had it instead become a fully adhering American client earlier in its history, Israel would likely be missing these foundations which would make it a far weaker state today.

image

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.