America After Our Election
Following our election, when it became clear Benjamin Netanyahu was able to form a center-right coalition, many said "the U.S. will not agree to it,” or "he won't be able to visit anywhere abroad," or "it's not only between Livni and Netanyahu; what Obama says also matters." All of this is nonsense.
In the democratic world, everybody understands the game rules of free election, and recognize that it is the very essence of democracy (except a few commentators who refuse to accept the election results because they are not to their liking). Moreover, whoever thinks that a foreign minister or prime minister will be welcomed to another country based on their opinions or merits is mistaken. They will be accepted according to ceremonial codes, as representatives of the state of Israel.
Obviously, beyond protocol, a personal relationship matters where the atmosphere during the visit is concerned.
But with all due respect to the prime minsters' talents, not a single country in the world has changed its attitude towards Israel because of personal relationships, as good as they may be. These relationships are important and beneficial, but have not been detrimental.
It seems to me there is an exaggeration as to the amount of political pressure placed on Israel from the United States.
At the most important crossroads, Israel independently chose the way of withdrawals and concessions without American pressure.
This was the case when Begin returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt without American involvement, and even though there was extensive U.S. involvement at the end of the process during talks held at Camp David, the fundamental territorial concessions were made by Israel's prime minister before the Americans entered the picture.
Even during the Oslo Accords, Americans were surprised by a radical Israeli move that turned Yasser Arafat into a permanent guest in the White House; a move that the Americans would not have made without Israeli encouragement. In any case, it is clear that the Oslo Accords were not accomplished because of pressure from the Americans. The U.S. also didn't pressure Israel to stop the military operations in Lebanon in 2006 or in Gaza a month ago.
In each of these cases, the decisions were made by Israel alone.
Indeed, there have been were instances of American pressure along the time line of Israel's history. This was the case in 1956 when Ben-Gurion withdrew from Sinai.
In 1981, American president Ronald Reagan punished Israel after the bombardment of the Iraqi Nuclear reactor. Another time, George H. W. Bush suspended financial support (government securities for Israeli loans) due to differences regarding Israel's right to expand settlements in Judea and Samaria.
But there haven’t been any instances where the United States has risked Israel's most important interests, especially not in the realm of security. Those who threaten horrific predictions of American punishment are misleading and mislead.
This does not mean Israel should ignore its relationship with the United States; on the contrary, whoever becomes prime minister will have to take this relationship into account, consider its wishes, try to coordinate important actions and be attentive to its advice – and do all of this, of course, in subjection to the interests of the state of Israel.
The Americans know how to be angry when they suspect they are being cheated, or when promises were made that were not kept. They are also taken aback by actions that seem to be damaging to American interests around the world. Such was the case in past dealings between Israel and China, during which the American defense department thought the Israeli prime minister was trying to maneuver within a gap between the Pentagon and the White House in such a way that was undignified by American standards.
The conclusion drawn from this long experience with the relationship between America and Israeli is that an Israeli prime minister who is open and honest with his American counterpart will be warmly welcomed, even if there are disagreements about the modus operandi. Those who are sowing panic in regards to the future of the American-Israeli relationship under a particular Israeli leadership lack a foundation for their predictions and don’t have a leg to stand on.
In the democratic world, everybody understands the game rules of free election, and recognize that it is the very essence of democracy (except a few commentators who refuse to accept the election results because they are not to their liking). Moreover, whoever thinks that a foreign minister or prime minister will be welcomed to another country based on their opinions or merits is mistaken. They will be accepted according to ceremonial codes, as representatives of the state of Israel.
Obviously, beyond protocol, a personal relationship matters where the atmosphere during the visit is concerned.
But with all due respect to the prime minsters' talents, not a single country in the world has changed its attitude towards Israel because of personal relationships, as good as they may be. These relationships are important and beneficial, but have not been detrimental.
It seems to me there is an exaggeration as to the amount of political pressure placed on Israel from the United States.
At the most important crossroads, Israel independently chose the way of withdrawals and concessions without American pressure.
This was the case when Begin returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt without American involvement, and even though there was extensive U.S. involvement at the end of the process during talks held at Camp David, the fundamental territorial concessions were made by Israel's prime minister before the Americans entered the picture.
Even during the Oslo Accords, Americans were surprised by a radical Israeli move that turned Yasser Arafat into a permanent guest in the White House; a move that the Americans would not have made without Israeli encouragement. In any case, it is clear that the Oslo Accords were not accomplished because of pressure from the Americans. The U.S. also didn't pressure Israel to stop the military operations in Lebanon in 2006 or in Gaza a month ago.
In each of these cases, the decisions were made by Israel alone.
Indeed, there have been were instances of American pressure along the time line of Israel's history. This was the case in 1956 when Ben-Gurion withdrew from Sinai.
In 1981, American president Ronald Reagan punished Israel after the bombardment of the Iraqi Nuclear reactor. Another time, George H. W. Bush suspended financial support (government securities for Israeli loans) due to differences regarding Israel's right to expand settlements in Judea and Samaria.
But there haven’t been any instances where the United States has risked Israel's most important interests, especially not in the realm of security. Those who threaten horrific predictions of American punishment are misleading and mislead.
This does not mean Israel should ignore its relationship with the United States; on the contrary, whoever becomes prime minister will have to take this relationship into account, consider its wishes, try to coordinate important actions and be attentive to its advice – and do all of this, of course, in subjection to the interests of the state of Israel.
The Americans know how to be angry when they suspect they are being cheated, or when promises were made that were not kept. They are also taken aback by actions that seem to be damaging to American interests around the world. Such was the case in past dealings between Israel and China, during which the American defense department thought the Israeli prime minister was trying to maneuver within a gap between the Pentagon and the White House in such a way that was undignified by American standards.
The conclusion drawn from this long experience with the relationship between America and Israeli is that an Israeli prime minister who is open and honest with his American counterpart will be warmly welcomed, even if there are disagreements about the modus operandi. Those who are sowing panic in regards to the future of the American-Israeli relationship under a particular Israeli leadership lack a foundation for their predictions and don’t have a leg to stand on.
Previous article![]( "Can’t Pay or Won’t Pay?")
