My post yesterday on the resounding chorus of Israeli politicians decrying the external "pressure" and "challenges to its sovereignty" (sound familiar Ayatollah Khamenei?) was a lead into the question I posed and half answered: Who is more powerful: Israel of the United States?
Let me expand a bit...
First let me confess that using the term “powerful” is a bit misleading. What I’m trying to get at is “power” in the sense of who has a bigger influence on the other’s policy making. This isn’t a question of who is militarily stronger or who has a more effective international diplomatic reach. This is purely a question of which state is more reliant on the other.
Now I should also admit that historically the case has always been that Israel has benefitted greatly from American patronage. Without a doubt the United States has always been “more powerful” than Israel. The military aide – and more importantly the weapon sales concessions – that Israel has received from the US has gone a long way in solidifying the Israeli Defense Forces as one of the premier militaries in the world. Diplomatically, the Americans have been involved in most of the successful (and failed) peace efforts between Israel and its neighbors (Egypt and Jordan), and the Palestinians. There has been no equivalent to Camp David – no “Camp Adam” to facilitate peace between the United States and Cuba.
So has that balance shifted in the opposite direction? Sort of…
I doubt that Israel will ever be in a position to negotiate a settlement between an American President and Raul Castro. Israel, in many ways, benefits more from its perceived position of weakness in relation to the US. It relies a great deal on funds raised in the Diaspora for various “emergencies” and while immigration from the West has dropped considerably in the last two decades there is no doubt that there still exists a strong emotional connection between a great many diasporic Jews and their perceived homeland. This is maintained considerably by Israel projecting a sense that their existence is under siege. I won’t get into whether it’s true, or why they think they face these existential threats but that perception (valid or not) has been a great boon to Israel’s state coffers.
But the nitty-gritty of this question of relative power really comes down to need. Who needs who more? I don’t remember a time when the two men leading these states have had as much of an ideological gap between them as today. While Obama is hardly the Marxist Muslim many feared, his liberal centrism is about as far away an American President can get from Benyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s extremism has been bolstered by his own far right leaning coalition government and the country’s domestic fatigue for the ongoing stalemate with the Palestinians. The only person who is trying to moderate Netanyahu – the only person that counts – is Barack Obama.
So when Netanyahu announces that, despite firm proclamations from the Obama administration that the settlement construction in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (East Jerusalem in particular) must stop, Israel will continue with said construction regardless, we have Obama’s first real challenge in his effort on the Arab-Israeli front. How can Netanyahu get away with such intransigence? Because Netanyahu is gambling that Israel is no longer beholden to American power. In fact, he may think that the dynamic is quite the opposite.
Without overstating their influence, we have in the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies. Detailed in their book “The Israel Lobby” Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have laid out a damning indictment of Israel’s influence over American foreign (and in some cases, domestic) policy. In courting the vote of AIPAC supporters (quick: where did Obama make his first major speech after winning the Democratic nomination?) Obama had to continuously assert that American support for the state of Israel is unwavering. On top of that, and in words that should come back to haunt him, he said “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, secure and undivided”. AIPAC has long been controlled by vocal supporters of the Likud party (now under Netanyahu) and the need to vigorously court the support of AIPAC voters has to be seen as a compromise to Likudniks.
Now, it would seem, Netanyahu is cashing that check Obama wrote in front of the AIPAC audience back in June.
Obama, on the other hand, has little to offer Israel. There is no effective organ for promoting American interests among Israeli voters like AIPAC does stateside. Israeli hawks are benefiting from a status quo that hasn’t seen an American President do anything but murmur displeasure with Israeli actions. And even economically – as dire straits as the Israeli economy may be in – they are no longer the struggling economy they once were. On the other hand, being viewed as Israel’s unquestioning patron has cost the United States billions of dollars in both direct aide and costs through association. Their diplomatic stature suffers in both the Arab street and in more progressive European capitals. At some point a Realist look at the US-Israel relationship will conclude that the costs outweigh the benefits when you have so little influence you can’t stop the construction of a single apartment building.
Or, they may conclude that toning down that relationship may be too costly politically. And if this is the conclusion, is it that much of a stretch to suggest that Israel now has the upper hand in its relationship with the United States?
Let me expand a bit...
First let me confess that using the term “powerful” is a bit misleading. What I’m trying to get at is “power” in the sense of who has a bigger influence on the other’s policy making. This isn’t a question of who is militarily stronger or who has a more effective international diplomatic reach. This is purely a question of which state is more reliant on the other.
Now I should also admit that historically the case has always been that Israel has benefitted greatly from American patronage. Without a doubt the United States has always been “more powerful” than Israel. The military aide – and more importantly the weapon sales concessions – that Israel has received from the US has gone a long way in solidifying the Israeli Defense Forces as one of the premier militaries in the world. Diplomatically, the Americans have been involved in most of the successful (and failed) peace efforts between Israel and its neighbors (Egypt and Jordan), and the Palestinians. There has been no equivalent to Camp David – no “Camp Adam” to facilitate peace between the United States and Cuba.
So has that balance shifted in the opposite direction? Sort of…
I doubt that Israel will ever be in a position to negotiate a settlement between an American President and Raul Castro. Israel, in many ways, benefits more from its perceived position of weakness in relation to the US. It relies a great deal on funds raised in the Diaspora for various “emergencies” and while immigration from the West has dropped considerably in the last two decades there is no doubt that there still exists a strong emotional connection between a great many diasporic Jews and their perceived homeland. This is maintained considerably by Israel projecting a sense that their existence is under siege. I won’t get into whether it’s true, or why they think they face these existential threats but that perception (valid or not) has been a great boon to Israel’s state coffers.
But the nitty-gritty of this question of relative power really comes down to need. Who needs who more? I don’t remember a time when the two men leading these states have had as much of an ideological gap between them as today. While Obama is hardly the Marxist Muslim many feared, his liberal centrism is about as far away an American President can get from Benyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s extremism has been bolstered by his own far right leaning coalition government and the country’s domestic fatigue for the ongoing stalemate with the Palestinians. The only person who is trying to moderate Netanyahu – the only person that counts – is Barack Obama.
So when Netanyahu announces that, despite firm proclamations from the Obama administration that the settlement construction in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (East Jerusalem in particular) must stop, Israel will continue with said construction regardless, we have Obama’s first real challenge in his effort on the Arab-Israeli front. How can Netanyahu get away with such intransigence? Because Netanyahu is gambling that Israel is no longer beholden to American power. In fact, he may think that the dynamic is quite the opposite.
Without overstating their influence, we have in the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies. Detailed in their book “The Israel Lobby” Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have laid out a damning indictment of Israel’s influence over American foreign (and in some cases, domestic) policy. In courting the vote of AIPAC supporters (quick: where did Obama make his first major speech after winning the Democratic nomination?) Obama had to continuously assert that American support for the state of Israel is unwavering. On top of that, and in words that should come back to haunt him, he said “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, secure and undivided”. AIPAC has long been controlled by vocal supporters of the Likud party (now under Netanyahu) and the need to vigorously court the support of AIPAC voters has to be seen as a compromise to Likudniks.
Now, it would seem, Netanyahu is cashing that check Obama wrote in front of the AIPAC audience back in June.
Obama, on the other hand, has little to offer Israel. There is no effective organ for promoting American interests among Israeli voters like AIPAC does stateside. Israeli hawks are benefiting from a status quo that hasn’t seen an American President do anything but murmur displeasure with Israeli actions. And even economically – as dire straits as the Israeli economy may be in – they are no longer the struggling economy they once were. On the other hand, being viewed as Israel’s unquestioning patron has cost the United States billions of dollars in both direct aide and costs through association. Their diplomatic stature suffers in both the Arab street and in more progressive European capitals. At some point a Realist look at the US-Israel relationship will conclude that the costs outweigh the benefits when you have so little influence you can’t stop the construction of a single apartment building.
Or, they may conclude that toning down that relationship may be too costly politically. And if this is the conclusion, is it that much of a stretch to suggest that Israel now has the upper hand in its relationship with the United States?
