Gayle Meyers
"With all due respect to the United States, the highest duty of the Israeli leadership is to its children, to turn over every stone to ensure that they will not be sent to be killed or to kill except in a war of no choice."Aid comes with strings. The U.S. has a right and responsibility to spend its taxpayers’ dollars in a way that advances its interests. Israel, on the other hand, has a right and a responsibility to pursue its own ends.
When those two conflict, the U.S. should be prepared to stop giving, and Israel to stop taking. In the case of Israeli negotiations with Syria, the restrictions imposed by America are absurd–and unpopular in Israel.
“Excuse me, ma’am,” read the headline on a February 23 editorial in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, protesting U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s demand that Israel refrain from even exploring the seriousness of Syria’s recent offers to negotiate. “With all due respect to the United States, the highest duty of the Israeli leadership is to its children, to turn over every stone to ensure that they will not be sent to be killed or to kill except in a war of no choice,” the editorial continued. “And with all due respect to Israel’s duty to be attentive to the U.S., there are levels of independence that a sovereign state must reserve for itself.”
The accusation that Israel’s foreign policy is being distorted by its obligation to the United States comes as an Israeli blue-ribbon delegation is visiting Washington to discuss the future of U.S. aid. The proposed fiscal year 2008 budget, which Congress is reviewing, contains $2.4 billion in military aid to Israel. This is the last year of a 10-year plan between Israel and the United States to phase out economic aid to Israel while gradually increasing the amount of military aid. During the past decade, Israel’s total aid package has decreased from $3 billion — $1.8 billion in military aid and $1.2 in economic assistance — to $2.4 billion in military assistance.
This aid package, the largest given by the U.S. to any single country, is often brandished as evidence of Israeli influence over U.S. It has, however, been a source of disagreement between the two.
Some of the disputes have had to do with restrictions placed on the use of weapons and technology that the U.S. sells or gives to Israel—or to any other nation. The festering conflict about Israel’s possible transfer of U.S. technology to China or last summer’s reprimand of Israel for using cluster bombs in populated areas of Lebanon were unpleasant but clearly within the purview of the United States to control its arms exports.
More rarely, U.S. aid has been used directly to influence Israel’s behavior on a core policy issue. In the George H.W. Bush administration, Secretary of State James Baker postponed loan guarantees for Israel over concerns that the money would be used to settle new immigrants in the West Bank. The current administration similarly trimmed loan guarantees in 2003.
Rice did not link the issue of Syria directly to aid. However, this is a case where U.S. foreign policy interests are clearly overshadowing those of Israel. The U.S. is hoping to isolate Syria in order to persuade the country to restrict activities in Iraq, end its support for Hezbollah, and prevent it from warming relations with Iran. To be sure, Israel would also like to see Syrian behavior curtailed, but it also has a compelling need to investigate any reasonable opportunity for peace on its northern border.
Israeli intelligence analysts are divided about whether the Syrian peace overtures are genuine, and Prime Minister Olmert has said that Syria must stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas before talks can begin, but this is not a case of Israeli foot dragging. This time, the U.S. is—to use Baker’s phrase—an obstacle to peace.
Israel and the U.S. still can respond differently. If Asad is bluffing, they should call his bluff and invite him to the table. The U.S. could even declare that his moderation came as a result of American pressure. If U.S. will not join in, Israel should respond on its own, either openly or discreetly.
As the Yediot editorial stated, “A responsible Israeli leader cannot be satisfied with estimating the intensions of the Syrians; he must check them. A strong leader would have understood that this is exactly the subject on which he is obligated to take on the United States. In our case, we are speaking of a strong ‘case’ and a weak leader.”
