From: hm@cs.brown.edu (Harry Mamaysky)
Subject: Re: american opinion
Organization: Somewhere East or Somewhere West
Distribution: talk
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:56:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.1777.21756@channel1>, "wayne mcguire" <wayne.mcguire@channel1.com> writes:
|> Yes, there is a good deal of anti-Semitism in the U.S. and around
|> the world, some of it dangerous, and all of it needing to be
|> carefully monitored and countered, but I an NOT saying that
|> anti-Semitism is the basis of the increasing disillusionment in
|> the Western democratic world with Israel. On the contrary. The
|> disillusionment is based on honest and vigorous disagreements
|> with specific Israeli policies and specific tactics of the
|> Israeli lobby. Americans have every right and obligation to
|> express these disagreements as part of our democratic culture.
|> 
|> One example: although you have not yet responded to the point, I
|> think it is outrageous that Israelis are receiving nearly $1000
|> per citizen per annum in U.S. aid while other nations in greater
|> need are receiving mere pennies. This is a state of affairs which
|> can only cause bad feeling and resentment towards Israel, and I
|> am surprised that Israeli supporters are not more sensitive to
|> the problem. In the long run all those billions in American aid
|> will not be worth it if the final effect is permanently to
|> alienate Americans from Israel. Does Israel really want to
|> continue promoting the image of itself as the world's supreme
|> schnorrer state? My words may seem harsh, but this is nothing
|> less than the truth, and it is a truth which is doing Israel
|> great harm.

[stuff deleted]
|> Wayne

American foreign policy is dictated by that which is good for America.
The people in Washington are perhaps a little more clever than you
give them credit for. In the days of the cold war (and these days are
not too long ago), the Soviets had a very major presence in the Middle
East - which has always been strategically important for its great
natural reserves. Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, etc. were all receiving
enormous financial support from the USSR. The Soviets sent military
commanders to those countries, they sent weapons, money, etc. The
Soviets, by the early sixties (perhaps earlier), had established a
major presence in this very important region.

America could not allow the USSR to establish such a firm grasp in the
region without itself establishing roots there. What better place to
root, though, than in Israel - a country with which many Americans can
well identify. So, America decided to pour lots and lots of money into
Israel and into Israel's military. Why? Two major reasons, I would
reckon. (1) America does pride itself as a just country. And Israel
was (and is) the morally correct country in the region. So, at least
the aid could be justified on the grounds of doing the right thing.
But, (1) was hardly the major reason.  After all, look at what we did
to the Curds in Iraq after they stopped being useful. Look at what we
have not done in Serbia. Look at how long it took us to help the
Samalis. America is moral in world affairs when this suits America -
but that is another issue.

Anyhow, (2) the second reason was to establish a very strong American
presence in the same region which saw a very strong Soviet presence.
This was just another consequence of the Cold War. Of course, such aid
was (and is) very very useful to Israel. Israel was therefore able to
make up in technology what it lacked in man power. That the American
Israeli lobby is quite powerful was, of course, not detrimental to
Israel's interests. But ultimately, America poured all this money into
Israel because this suited America's purposes. For Israel to be strong
and for Israel to be an American ally in a region in which America did
not have any trusted allies, was a very major benefit to American
foreign policy. Cerainly, an American presence in this region only gave
more credence to America's claim as a super power. This relationship,
then, was beneficial both to the Americans and to the Israelis.

Remember, if you will, that in 1948, the Soviets voted for the
creation of a Jewish state, as did the Americans. The Soviets, for
one, saw in Israel (with its hords of Russian immigrants - many of
whom along with their Zionist ideals, were also Communists) a very
real possibility of the establishment of a Communist puppet state in
that region. The Soviets (Stalin) were already anticipating the
insuing competition between themselves and the Americans. So, how
could they pass such an opportunity up. And thus, they voted for the
creation of a Jewsih state - only to sever ties with it when the Jews
refused to establish a Communist state and refused, furthermore, to be
manipulated by the Soviets. America, of course, aside from what were
very probably genuine intentions, also saw in this new country a
chance for a major ally in what was not (and still is not, with the
exception of Israel and nations like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) a very
friendly region for America. Let us not delude ourselves. From its
very inception Israel was always seen by the Americans as a chance to
counteract the Russian presence in the Middle East.

It should not surprise us, then, that the Bush administration was one
of the least friendly ones Israel has ever seen in this country. It is
no coincidence that this lack of friendliness happened to have
perfectly coincided with the end of the Cold War. After all, now that
the USSR has absolutely no resources nor any desire to support any of
the Arab states in the region, and now that the USSR presence in the
region is virtually non-existent, there is no one for the US to
compete for world prominence (at least militarily) against. So, what
reason, other than (1), is there for the US to support Israel with the
same vigor as it has done in the past. Certainly, (2) is no longer
valid.

Remember, too, that George Bush is most definitely one of the good old
boys. He has served in the Army and in the CIA - he knows all about
international policy and prestige. Israel was very important, for
example, during the Reagan years - in the heat of the Cold War - and
good old George did not complain much about aid to Israel. No one
dangled loan guarantees in front of Begin because those loan
guarantees were of as much benefit to the US as they were to Israel.
Now, however, that the usefulness of Israel to American interests has
wained, it would seem that (1) is not a strong enough reason to
maintain the same level of support to Israel that Israel has
traditionally received from the US. yes, the Israeli lobby is still
powerful, but it can not reinstitute the Cold War. It can not do the
impossible. And the fact is that the US simply does not need Israel as
it once did.

Of course, let us not deceive ourselves into believing that the
American people are not aware of this situation. In the Cold War days
Israel was seen very much as an ally of the US in the fight against
the USSR and its Communists. It was the US and Israel vs. the USSR and
the Syrians, the Egyptians (until 1979), the Iraqis, the Lybians, and
so on. How could Americans not like Israel. The two countries found
themselves on the very same side of a very major conflict, which cost
thousands of American lives in places like Vietnam and Korea. Of
course, Americans supported Israel - not because there was an
overwhelming love of Jews or of a Jewish state - but because the two
countries really has the same enemy. And each needed the other in the
conflict. They were partners in the same war. 

Israel has not changed its policies since the days of the Cold War.
What has changed is the need America had for Israel to be her ally. So
now, instead of concentrating on (1), America and her people are
concentrating on finding faults to justify the lessening of aid. Of
course, Israel has its faults - it always has. This does not change
the fact that Israel has been wronged by the Arabs in the Middle East
conflict. But this is largely irrelevent in the context of this
discussion. Fact is, American actions and American public opinion are
profoundly shaped by what is good for America. If something benefits,
America, then it is quite easy to support it. If something does not,
then support is not so easy to come by (for Israel) or to justify (to
the American people). This is why places like Serbia and Ethiopia have
never received the amount of assistance from the US that Israel has.
Like it or not, they were never (and still are not) as important to
America as Israel. America's supporting Israel was and is far more
advantageous for AMERICA than suporting those other countries.
Because of this (everything else is truthfully a lot less significant)
Israel has been graced with American help. Help and support have both
now wained simply because Israel has lost some (though not nearly all)
of its importance.

I am not, mind you, indicting the American people or the American
government for any wrong doing here. America's attitude of putting her
interests first is probably the way things ought to be done - or at
least the way they usually are done in this world. Israel has her
interests in mind, America hers, Syria its, and so on. But let us not
delude ourselves into believing that the shift in American opinion has
been caused by the fact that the once highly moral Israel has now
turned irrevocably corrupt. No, Israel is the same Israel it always
was. The world has changed. And Israel has lost some of her
importance. So all of your opinion polls and so on reflect this fact.
And I agree that this has indeed happenned. But, opinions are flighty
things, at best. Two years ago, or so, in the midst of the Persian
Gulf War, I would venture to guess that American public opinion of
Israel was very high indeed - as it was. Why? Because again the two
countries found themselves on the same side of a conflict. Nothing
breeds camaraderie more than mutual hardship.

So, in the final anaysis relations between America and Israel have
merely shifted into a deifferent stage. The two countries still (and
always will) view each other as allies. Only now their relationship
must shift from that of two participants who found themselves on the
same side of a struggle, to that of two countries who share similar,
albeit not identical, ideologies. Ideology, however, is a far weaker
cause of bonding between two nations than is necessity. The necessity
is gone. That leads to a far more scrupulous investigation of the
ideology. This is happenning - and Israel will have to adapt to this
new relationship. And worry not, for she most certainly will.

Harry.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:23819 soc.culture.arabic:5798