American Foreign Policy toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Strategic Transformations.

• Author: Hamdi, Osama Anter
• Position: ARTICLE - Essay

Introduction

The U.S. has played an important role in settling the Arab-Israeli conflict. This role has been distinct and effective from the beginning of the conflict in the early 20th century until the establishment of Israel in 1948, and has continued to the present day. The U.S. has maximized its engagement in the recent period, especially after the events of September 11, during which America has exerted remarkable efforts to end the conflict, motivated by an understanding that this is the best way to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East.

Since the establishment of Israel, there has been a strategic shift in the U.S.'s role. This became crystal clear during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, during which this conflict was not a top priority on the agenda of decision makers. Instead, the American administration increased its emphasis on eliminating terrorism, and adapting the region to U.S. will by routing out the powerful countries. This strategy paved the way for the so-called "new Middle East project," which was launched by the administration of President George W. Bush, and which focused on a wide area, including all the Arab countries in addition to Turkey, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, to promote political, economic and social reform. This project also supported the superiority of Israel as a strategic American tool, and as a deterrent to regional powers which sought to play major roles in the region and threaten American and Western interests. This strategy is epitomized in the case of Iraq in the 1980s, when Israel launched a military strike targeting Iraq's nuclear program, although it was still peaceful.

The positions of most of the former U.S. presidents (Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Clinton) were largely aligned with that strategy. While a commitment to Israel's security has remained a fundamental principle throughout the decades, the techniques adopted by the presidents have been different. President Nixon may be taken as an example of the U.S. presidents' support of Israel; he expressly recognized that since the partition of the Palestinian lands, the U.S. has guaranteed Israel's security. (1) Nixon also noted that the U.S. was deeply committed to the existence of Israel, and that the U.S. and Israel relation was well-established. He added that Israel's security was a moral obligation that has not been violated by any U.S. president in the past, and that all the next U.S. presidents would be committed to ensuring Israel's security. (2)

In short, America considers Israel a strategic base for U.S. interests, and the mutual interests of the two countries are the secret behind America's support for Israel. As a military, civilizational and security base for the U.S., Israel is much cheaper to maintain than the 10 aircraft carriers that the U.S. would have had to build and send to the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea to protect American interests. (3) Thus, the U.S. strategy cannot be separated from Israel's in any way, as the elements of strategic planning for both countries are interconnected to a large degree. The U.S. believes that the safety and security of Israel guarantees the stability of the region and the protection of U.S. interests there. (4) With that in mind, the question arises about the nature of the shifts in U.S. foreign policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict. These shifts indicate the firmness of the U.S. position, despite the changes in administration, with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict issues, particularly those related to refugees, Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, and the establishment of the Palestinian state.

Although there are many studies that deal with U.S. policies towards the Arab-Israeli conflict, the importance of this study is to shed light on the role of the American administrations toward the settlement of the conflict. In addition, it shows the change of this role and to what extent the U.S. seeks to maintain the status quo or to use its power to impose specific solutions on one or both of the conflicting parties. (5) This article will proceed by interpreting the shifts in U.S. policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict, based on a historical approach. In addition to the assumptions of neorealism, which believes that foreign policy is a product of complex models of interaction between internal and external factors, it assumes that the choices in the process of making foreign policy are influenced by perceptions and values inherent in the decision makers themselves. (6) Under this framework, this study is divided into four parts: first, from the establishment of the Israeli state until October 1973; second, the Camp David Accords; third, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the U.S.' control of the conflict; and fourth, the September 11 events and changing American priorities.

American Policies toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict

The U.S.' policy toward the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict is of great importance to both parties because of its great influence in the conclusion of mutual peace agreements. Nevertheless, these agreements have failed to reach a comprehensive peace between the Palestinian and Israeli parties to date. This failure is due in part to the shifts in American policy, and in part to the U.S.' unconditional political, economic and military support for the Israeli practices towards the Palestinian people and its refusal to recognize the latter's legitimate right to establish an independent state on the 1967 borders. The U.S.' policies have raised many questions, especially regarding their stability and change from one administration to another. The U.S. administrations have exercised pressure, at times, on the Israeli government to make concessions to prevent the escalation of the conflict and to reach mutual understandings. But this pressure has had little influence due to Israel's ongoing violation of the U.S.-sponsored agreements, Israel's continuation of settlement building and its violation of the sacred Muslim shrines in Palestine.

In analyzing the American policies since the establishment of Israel until January 2017, it may be noted that the various American administrations have followed a strategic path which changes tactics but maintains a strategic vision of the conflict. This vision places Israel's security above all other considerations, as will be seen below.

From the Establishment of the Israeli State until October 1973

The U.S. presidents have consistently engaged in loose talk while their policies on the ground differ from their principles and policies towards the Arab-Israeli conflict. Before the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, then President Wilson emphasized the right of all peoples to self-determination and independence. He sent the King-Crane Commission to investigate facts in Palestine, and the Commission confirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. However, the U.S. administration overlooked this right, while welcoming the idea of establishing a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine. (7)

This contradiction was reified by successive American administrations, which ignored or dismissed the reports issued by the Commission. The King-Crane Commission considered that the establishment of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine would be a flagrant violation of the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination. (8) Its final report recommended granting the Palestinians their right to self-determination without any mandate. (9) This report was not revealed at that time, since the U.S. was afraid that it would negatively affect the deliberations at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, given that the report explicitly referred to "the desire of the Palestinians for independence, [and] their opposition and hostility to the Zionist movement." (10) The suppression of the report paved the way for the Balfour Declaration, which supported establishing a homeland for the Jews. (11)

The U.S. policy remained firm for two decades, as subsequent presidents Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover all followed the same policy with regard to the Palestinian cause. Therefore, it can be emphasized that the U.S. commitment to the Zionist movement had actually begun by the end of WW II. (12)

The period between the First and Second World Wars may be seen as a time of U.S. support as opposed to an effective commitment, as the U.S. supported the British role, which was compatible with the Zionist movement's position. (13) The U.S. commitment came into effect only after the Zionist movement exerted considerable pressure upon U.S. decision makers. Therefore, 1940 witnessed a shift of all forms of support from Britain to the U.S. for the Zionist movement. The U.S. not only replaced Britain; (14) it adopted the entire Zionist project in Palestine. (15) In his letter at a conference held by the American Zionists in 1944, then President Roosevelt confirmed his party's commitment to achieving the Zionist goals. Thus, he ignored the existence of a Palestinian nationalism and identity in his policy towards Palestine. (16)

During the early years of Israel's establishment, the U.S. strained every nerve to serve Israel, as it was hostile to Soviet expansion and a custodian of U.S. interests in the Middle East. (17) Therefore, the U.S. administration expressed its desire for guardianship over Palestine from the United Nations (UN) in March 1948, so as to give the Zionist entity international legitimacy. However, the UN did not agree to a temporary guardianship, which is why the U.S. decided to support UN Resolution 181--the "Partition Resolution." (18)

In fact, were it not for the U.S.' support for the Partition Resolution, the voting on this Resolution would not have occurred, as the delegates from Haiti, Siam (Thailand), Liberia and the Philippines opposed it. Nevertheless, the U.S. pressured these countries to vote in...