Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

thescroll_header

United States and Israel at a ‘Crossroads’?

Think-tanker Haim Malka calls for less military aid, for Israel’s good

Print Email
Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama last week.(Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

Haim Malka, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan think-tank in Washington, D.C., has published a new study, “Crossroads,” that has gotten some attention. Its central argument is that the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship” is constituted to exist between two countries that in fact no longer do exist—rather, Israel and the United States have changed profoundly, and neither side has fully reckoned with this yet. For example: “Today,” he writes, “Israel’s Jewish population is more nationalistic, religiously conservative, and hawkish on foreign policy and security affairs than that of even a generation ago, and it would be unrecognizable to Israel’s founders.” What is called for, he argues, is a re-evaluation of the alliance that sees strong ties maintained but also a decrease in U.S. military aid—for the good, above all, of Israel’s. I chatted with Malka recently about his report.

How has Israel changed?
Israeli society is very different from the Israel most Americans think they know. Most American Jews have this idea of Israeli society that is idealistic and outdated. That’s in part because the Israelis most Americans interact with have been mostly secular, liberal Israelis who speak English well and have similar worldviews. Israel is much more complex and diverse.

The first trend that I pointed out is that in the last generation, once-marginal communities like the ultra-Orthodox and Russian-speaking Israelis are now participating in Israeli public life in new ways, while the secular, liberal elite, the part of Israeli society that most Americans are familiar with, have retreated to some degree.

The second political dynamic that the report raises is the breakdown of the left and the creation of a new center-right political constellation in Israeli politics. The distribution of Knesset seats in the last decade illustrates this clearly. In the 1999 elections, left-wing parties—Labor, Meretz, etc.—controlled a little less than half of the Knesset. In the 2009 elections, that number dropped by half, so they now only control 30 out of 120 seats. Political ideology has always been balanced between the right and left in Israel. Today Kadima has become the political counterweight to the Likud, but with no attachment to the secular liberal values of Israel’s founding fathers.

Could the tent protests of this summer be seen as a reaction to this?
What’s interesting is that so far the social protest movement hasn’t taken on a political agenda that the traditional left or the Labor Party has been able to harness in any way. In fact no political party can claim to represent that popular sentiment.

And how has America changed?
Then there’s the growing frustration of many liberal American Jews with Israeli policies. Peter Beinart did a good job of articulating that estrangement especially among the younger generations. This isn’t a new development—this liberal disaffection started in the ‘80s with the invasion of Lebanon and then the first intifada—but it’s intensifying and threatening to erode Israel’s connection with a large segment of Diaspora Jewry.

Part of this liberal frustration stems from a misreading of Israel, which hangs on to these idealistic notions of Israel as a liberal society.

So what does your report say we should do to address this?
What I’m arguing in the report is that we need to acknowledge these trends and not pretend that there’s no problem. The dramatic events in the Middle East over the last six months highlighted by the ousting of President Mubarak should remind us that there are no certainties in such a fluid environment. Let’s figure out how to strengthen the U.S.-Israel partnership and adapt to the changes.

First is that Israel and the United States need to restore a sense of common mission. Over the last forty years, the U.S. and Israel have always shared a common strategic outlook. Today, it seems that strategic priorities and assessments are increasingly diverging on the most pressing issues, most importantly Iran and the Palestinian issue. And I think neither American nor Israeli officials can articulate their common mission.

It’s hard for me to see any common regional strategy that doesn’t address the Palestinian conflict. Not because the Palestinian issue is the root of all evil or its resolution will transform the region—it won’t—but because as long as it continues, it will be manipulated by political actors across the region to undermine the United States and Israel and cause tension in the relationship. The problem is that a resolution of the conflict seems increasingly unlikely in the immediate future.

At one point, you write, “‘Israel can only depend on itself’ has become a regular refrain both inside and outside of government.” Do you think that strain of thinking is dominant?
There are significant doubts in Israel today about the meaning of America’s commitments to Israel’s security. There’s a paradox, that at a time when many Israelis believe Israel needs to become more self-reliant and that they can only depend on themselves, they are growing more dependent on the United States to address and mediate both their diplomatic and security challenges.

So should the U.S. cut military aid?
It has to come from Israel! The point I raise in the report—and this is consistent with the views of many Israeli officials—is that Israel’s long-term security interests and viability are better-served by being less dependent on the United States. Some level of interdependency is important. But the long term Israeli goal should be to wean itself off U.S. military aid in exchange for greater military-to-military cooperation, joint research and development of new defense systems, and greater Israeli access to American military technology. Essentially maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge.

Do you think this is likely to happen?
I’m not predicting anything. What I’ve done is pointed out trends that are affecting the relationship and will likely continue to strain and erode relations in the future. The U.S.-Israel partnership is strong and ingrained in America’s and Israel’s foreign policies and societies. It’s a deep partnership which has weathered many storms. The strength and durability of this partnership has been its ability to adapt to changing circumstances. We need to acknowledge and understand these changes now while there is an opportunity to adapt.

There is more than one area of dependence. Is the United States right to pledge to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution giving the Palestinian Authority full membership?
The United States is in a bind either way. The administration understands that U.N. resolutions declaring a Palestinian state will actually undermine efforts to resume negotiations. Israel is facing international isolation, and the Palestinian strategy will likely deepen the diplomatic assault against Israel. At the same time, the administration is coming up short, with no clear practical strategy to get the two sides talking again.

You write: “While the core argument of the Mearsheimer-Walt tracts—that the United States went to war in Iraq because of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States—was seriously flawed, the authors reignited an old debate over Israel’s strategic value to the United States that had been largely dormant for decades.” You don’t really address the less controversial part of their thesis, which is that the special relationship is frequently contrary to American interests. How do you feel about that?
I point out in the book how Mearsheimer and Walt’s arguments are seriously flawed. Still, there is a perception that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complicating American interests in the Middle East which has become widely accepted within the U.S. national security establishment and bureaucracy. More than in the pas,t many American officials see the Israeli government as the biggest impediment to reaching an agreement because Israel holds most of the cards. Look at the Gates statement that recently came out. For several decades, Israel has consistently proven that it’s an asset to the United States in the Middle East. And now that the region is in turmoil, the burden is on Israel to continue proving it is an asset to U.S. interests in the region because Israel has the most to lose from any deterioration in US-Israeli relations.

Print Email

Very good article.

A flawed and prejudiced analysis. If commentators in the US said things about Blacks in the US says about Russians and and Orthodox they would be accused of prejudice. In addition, the “left” lost it’s hold on power in 1977 when Begin was elected which is 34 years ago. Also, relative to a country surrounded by enemies, Israel is a very liberal society.

I beg to differ. Yes Israel has turned right/conservative but so has America. The liberal left got slaughtered in Nov ’10. The last poll records that Americans are 3% more likely to identify as conservatives than three years ago.The Tea Party has shifted the balance and Republicans are totally in sync with the new Israel. The problem is that Jewish American and the Democratic Party that they embrace are the ones out of sync like the Left in Israel. It has been acknowledged that US/Israel strategic and military cooperation is at an all time high. The only thing out of sync was Obama’s decision to undermine Mubarak, attack Syria and embrace the Brotherhood and al Qaeda..

Furthermore, after saying Meirsheimer and Walt were flawed, he embraces them. He quotes Gates and could similarly quote Pres Clinton, both of whom attacked Israel. Not only were they both wrong but they both represent Obama’s attempt to undermine Israel. The three of them aren’t in sync with the facts or the American people. Malka is also shilling for Obama when he says that Israel should sacrifice itself to American interests. CSIS may be Non-partisan but that doesn’t preclude them being left of center.

Sorry, the more I read the article the more I disagree with it. The title is a lie. He said Israel should wean itself off the aid. Like Meirsheimer and Walt he looks upon it as aid but in reality it is compensation for the many things Israel gives the US in the way human intelligence, technological enhancement etc. Many Senators have acknowledged that the US wouldn’t give it if she didn’t get more in return. One general acknowledged that if the US didn’t have Israel there she would have to station an aircraft carrier there. But the relationship is also detrimental to Israel because she is required to buy more expensive hardware from the US than she could get elsewhere and she is not permitted to sell in many places or compete with US military sales. Finally, how does our separation solve the Palestinian conflict? Instead the US should do away with the stupid tw0state solution and support Israel’s annexation of Judea and Samaria in whole or in part.

In my first co0mment I meant “attack Libya” rather than Syria.

Ted, there was an awful man who said something in some similarity to what you just said in 1938:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message795892/pg1

The two cases are not remotely analogous. You are in effect calling those of us who advocate annexation to be Nazis. That makes you despicable. Judea and Samaria are not Palestinian lands. They were given to Jews by the League of Nation’s Mandate. Israel has the best legal, historical and moral claim to these lands. And she possesses them. Its OK by you for the PA to want the land Judenrein but it is not OK for Israel to annex the settlements.

I am calling you moral cowards because you are nothing more and nothing less.

Why are we “moral cowards? In what way?

How are the founding fathers secular if the whole basis behind the country’s founding was to find a religious home, excluding all other people of different religious faiths?

Its good to point out these trends but the purpose is misplaced. His purpose is to fix Israel’s deteriorating relationship with US. The purpose should be to fix all the wrongdoings done by the state toward humanity. Check out the website called If Americans Knew.

The great and sincere Jewish people have been lied to by corrupt leaders who don’t respect the great religion of Judaism.

ronnie says:

dear haim,
you live safely in Washington. When you live in Israel threatened on all borders you can call for less military aid.Which I doubt you will do.With all your big words and ideas Israel needs weapons not words. from afar

Beatrix says:

Established countries are rarely as liberal or idealistic as they are at the beginning. Neither are most people as we age. America has maintained relations with European nations through enormous changes. I think we can do the same with Israel, just as they do with us.

Palestine will be a separate nation, which is better for Israel and for Palestine. But Palestinians didn’t achiever nationhood with Arafat, and they probably won’t with his assistant, Abbas, who wants to retire and be remembered as standing up to Israel as Arafat did. He, like Arafat, considers peace to be capitulation.

Beinart is living proof that while epiphanies may be life changing, not all epiphanies are accurate.

I’d need to examine with you here. Which isn’t one thing I usually do! I take pleasure in reading a publish that will make individuals think. Also, thanks for permitting me to remark!

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

United States and Israel at a ‘Crossroads’?

Think-tanker Haim Malka calls for less military aid, for Israel’s good

More on Tablet:

Celebrity Rabbi, Heal Thyself

By Batya Ungar-Sargon — Shmuley Boteach—rabbi, sexpert, Michael Jackson pal—has led many lives. But none of them can obliterate his past.