By Sylvia T Villalobos
entities have spoken critically on what have been so-called “tacit matters” or “taboo issues” concerning: the power and influence of the “Israel Lobby,” the creation of Israel’s “apartheid” policy, the “neoconservative war” against Iraq, Israel’s “genocide” against the Palestinians, the political pressures for “impending” wars against Iran and Syria, and even about the character of the Jewish Holocaust and the alleged Nazi-Zionist connection during World War II and a number of opposing perspectives through description and illustrations on what can only be described the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel.
“Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . .I
want to tell you something very clear. Don’t worry about American pressure on
Israel. We Jews control America and the Americans know it.” (Ariel Sharon to
Shimon Peres in the Israeli Knesset, October 3, 2001, witnesses and reported on Kol
“The entire Islamic world condemned Iran. Nowadays, because of the unwarranted
invasion of Iraq by Bush and Blair, which was a completely unjust adventure based
on misleading statements, and the lack of any effort to resolve the Palestinian issue,
there is massive Islamic condemnation of the United States.” Former President
US- ISRAEL and the archetypal dog-tail analogy, where it is accepted that the larger, more powerful, and intelligent dog determines almost involuntarily what its smaller and less important tail will and should be doing. Hence, the dog is automatically dominant and the tail is quite reliant in this relationship. It is insensible for the relationship to be overturned. The dog-tail analogy, when applied to the relationship between the United States and Israel, then the former should be the dog and the latter must be the tail. The dominant pragmatist concept of international relations and foreign policy making and their capacity will be tough pressed to imagine how this relationship could be defined any differently over considerable time and space. The majority of mainstream political ideologies and frameworks for scrutiny might find it complex to explain any major or continued deviations, as
futile aberrations, from such expectations. ”What if the Israeli tale wagged the American dog? And, just as saliently, what if American society happened to be in the incipient stages of such being openly known and discussed? What would American policy analysts, researchers, people in the academe, politicians, political pundits, news correspondents, and the public do and say? More specifically, which model of foreign policy analysis might conceivably be adequate, if neither fully valid nor highly acceptable, to describe, explain, and predict the realities of this supposed power and influence by a weaker ally? Would an intellectual or academic crisis ensue, if not a political or policy one, from acquiring this knowledge through a consciously critical analysis or some reality-based awakening? What might this type and degree of power and influence indicate about the real nature of American pluralist democracy? Which paradigm of international relations might end up replacing the realist one as being dominant in the field?
How would the American people react if they discovered their leaders had compromised American national interests in functional and geographical areas many times in order to serve Israeli interests both during and after the Cold War? What if the public came to a realization of the 9-11 attackers’ willingness to commit terrorist atrocities was largely due, either directly or indirectly, to America’s one-sided support of Israel against the Arabs, Muslims, and the Palestinians. What if the public understood that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had not been tied in the least to these terrorists and their activities, but that possibly the Israelis knew ahead of time about these attacks? What if the American attack on and occupation of Iraq, with all of its considerable and continuing human and financial costs, had emanated from Zionist pressures to serve Israeli interests? What if the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty and Israel’s involvement in the Iran-Contra Scandal were reopened for investigation? And, what if any impending American attacks against Syria and Iran were to be seen as primarily in support of Israel’s security or grand design rather than of the United States? Why do these sensitive questions deserve attention, even on a nominal basis?”
In order to better: understand the realities of American democracy in action to eradicate taboos, myths, and political constraints in what can then be said, seriously, to be a free and an open American society. Intellectual, if not political, honesty demands asking these questions and addressing them seriously. The implications of the actual or potential answers to these questions suggest the necessity of addressing the nature of the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel.”
Unlike the typical, logical, and expected relationship between a dog and its tail, a special relationship between sovereign nation-states within a structure of international anarchy has been tremendously rare in the history of foreign affairs. A special relationship implies a status of familiarity represented either by a contractual set of diplomatic rights and obligations or, modestly, as an informal connection of political intimacy. It goes beyond being a coalition partners either as part of a tactical alliance in a collective defence arrangement based on military need or political pragmatism, or as part of a multilateral and universal collective security agreement. As such, a special relationship cannot always be simply explained on the grounds of a mindful and rational calculation of concrete and explicit nationally mutual interests. Softer factors, such as historical or cultural relations, including social ties, common religious values, and common emotional feelings, might plausibly undergird this type of relationship. Over a certain amount of time, a symbiotic relationship surfaced binding the entities, and then continues to expand. In doing so, the special relationship becomes naturalized, legitimized, and internalized over time and space on the basis of apparent mutual interests, common values, shared moral principles, and knotted emotions across some of the elites and masses of the two nations.
To some point an indication in the evolutionary progress of a special relationship, perchance an honest and a credulous friendship should be likely to occur, implying a bilateral devotion of protection and security of each to the other. In theory, a special relationship might be expected to be balanced, if not equal, in basis, particularly in the area of shared feelings. If it is asymmetrical and highly unequal, the logical or typical supposition is that the stronger nation will likely dictate to, as well as protect, the weaker nation. Frequently, there will be a trade-off the more influential nation will lead and dictate and the less powerful one will follow and submit. Being more reliant is the cost of security. Much as in an authority relationship, the weaker nation feels an obligation to comply with the stronger ones demands or wishes, especially if the stronger one continues to provide support for the weaker one’s survival and well-being. Thus, the dog is expected to wag the tail. There is also a possibility that the stronger nation might attempt to absorb at certain times a lopsided amount of the protection costs of the weaker nation. Absorbing these costs in the short run sporadically is thought to provide considerable support to maintaining the relationship into a wider extent. For this reason, it will sometimes appear that the tail is wagging the dog, whether it is truly doing so or not.
The results, penalty, and effects of a special relationship may consist of an amalgamation of triumphs and failures over time. Triumphs should be accepted to prevail over failures more often than not. The results tied to the activities significant to the special relationship may be conflicting, biased, faulty, offensive, and even blatantly illegal to some foreign actors and domestic challengers, whether they have been obviously critical of the relations from the outset or have been unfavourably affected by such in particular instances. Both positive and negative unintentional or unforeseen consequences can surface at any given time, creating either assurance or dissention in the relationship, correspondingly. In order for the special relationship simply to be maintained, if not fortified, then mutual security, principles, respect, confidence, allegiance, approval, and positive pay-offs must prevail over their antithetical values. But more than a cost-benefit or gainful set of calculations are mandatory to break or totally reshape a special relationship. Diminutive differences can be hidden or reorganized away over time. Nevertheless, major long-term costs or a series of crises might not be able to escape mass and elite attention and critical scrutiny.
Winston Churchill British Prime Minister and allied war leader, first coined the term, “special relationship,” to illustrate the intimately close and fundamentally beneficial connections among the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States as integral parts of the Anglo-American, trans-Atlantic partnership right after World War II. Churchill’s speech was published in the New York Times Herald and made public to Americans in 1945. It appeared to have been well received.
Since 1945, thereafter, this special relationship has expanded well beyond the historical, political, ideological, and diplomatic significance, possibly, to the social, economic, cultural, and psychological dimensions of life, as well. Just as to how is this special relationship indicated? There is substantial political and foreign policy accord between the two nations and their leaders, despite the consequences of which political parties or regimes are in power in the two nations. An extremely high level of cooperation is prevalent in military preparations and planning, as well as in military operation, intelligence sharing, and nuclear weapons technology. As such, the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom continues to travel well beyond that of a formal military alliance as in NATO. Indeed, the special relationship between the two nations is best confirmed by their supportive effort to assault and occupy Iraq since 2003, yet again, not considering of the ideological and political party differences between the respective governments of the two nations.
United States through time had these special relations with other sovereign nation states by virtue of military alliances, intense trade and foreign investment, previous Cold War commitments and cultural commonalities. Among, almost 200 nation-states and other political entities, the United States has relatively unique relations with around a dozen. Canada and Mexico have been related to differently .Due to their geographic proximity to the United States. Japan and Germany were treated differently after WWII due in part to the lessons learned of WWI and its outcome. South Korea and Taiwan were particularly vital to the United States because of the superpower effort during the Cold War.
However, the United States has a truly special relationship with another nation; the State of Israel comes to mind relatively quickly. US-ISRAEL relationship is incomparable to the preponderant magnitude and severe intensity of the special relationship between the United States and Israel, today. These two nations have no prescribed military defense commitments, per se, but in the aspect of economic, aid, and security ties are highly structured, intricate, and increasingly integrative. The possibility is almost certain that these ties have produced efficiently highly synchronized decision-making across their intelligence agencies, military-industrial complexes, political executive offices, and conceivably even their legislative branches. Moreover it is conceivable that part of the positive and cooperative relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom involves the special relationship between the United Kingdom and Israel. Therefore, these three nations emerge to have power as a relatively tight triangular relationship of quite unique bonds, prominent for sovereign nations.
America in the Middle East Today
America’s participation in Iraq, Afghanistan and in other parts of the Middle East has expand into more controversial arguments to an increasing number of Americans. Majority of Americans are wondering how and why the United States decided to attack and continue to occupy Iraq, especially in light of the grave human casualties and trillions of loses in economic aspect .Out of the dozens of reasons for the attack provided by the Bush Administration and its supporters, eliminating weapons of mass destruction which could be given to terrorists, removing Saddam because he was the likeness of evil to Adolf Hitler, reshaping the political map of the Middle East to uphold peace and to promote democracy, and planting the seeds of Iraqi freedom from oppression and cruelty. Persuading the American people of the sacredness of these motivations was reasonably easy when coupled with the popular idea of implicating Saddam Hussein in the infamous 9-11 attacks.
Evidently visible by their absence was any mention by the government or the mainstream media about other interests involved, either potentially or conceivably, including: infrastructure development corporations, the military-industrial, oil corporations, and Israeli security, to mention just a few. To who’s national interests were in reality being served by such: America’s or Israel’s?
Almost certainly since the Arab oil embargo during the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and the first skyrocketing of oil prices to 1975 has there been such an increasing figure of voices probing the nature of this special relationship due to the continued costs accruing to the United States. Diverse viewpoints on this relationship, across academic paradigms, political ideologies, and policy perspectives, do make the use of the dog-tail analogy quite applicable and useful. To sum it all, the crucial question to be begged is: which among US-ISRAEL is really the dog that wags the other as its tail?
It is quite clear, that any conceivable, if not accurate, answer to this question will have to take into consideration the characteristics of the special relationship consisting of the intricate and dynamic interests, ideology, powers of, and roles to be played by, the United States and Israel within diverse contexts of international relations. Of course, the positive values are presented by supporters of Israel, while the negative ones are asserted by critics of the power and influence of the pro-Israel lobby, especially of the American-Israel Political Action Counsel (AIPAC
The “pro-Israel” or “Israel-lobby” the most powerful, lobby in Washington, D.C. It is known to control, if not almost dominate, the shaping of the United States foreign policy in the Middle East and across related areas .The vital engine spearheading the campaign for unrelenting and enlarged American support of Israel is AIPAC—also commonly known, “The Lobby.” AIPAC is at the core of dozens, if not hundreds, of pressure groups, both explicitly and openly labelled as pro-Israel or Zionist organizations, aimed to influence American foreign policy progressively more toward supporting, if not emulating, Israel’s foreign and occupation policies, regardless of Israel’s logic or behaviour. Seeing that such, United States’ foreign policies have been, in the past, and by any measure, somewhat positively inclined to favour Israel: Since the early recognition of the State of Israel, to considerable American use of United Nations Security Council vetoes to protect Israel from political and legal attacks, to grant automatically $3 billion in aid annually, to provide emergency funds and weapons upon Israel’s demand in time of a war or the threat of war, to sustain liberal Israeli immigration policy and dual citizenship, to support in joint covert and concealed military operations, amongst others privileges. Specifically the Iraq War was chiefly motivated by the need to protect Israel’s security rather than to protect the United States from impending or even long term terrorist threats.
Both internal and external factors associated with the Israel Lobby determined whether or not the United States would be willing to destroy one of Israel’s main adversaries over the generations, Iraq:
Several decades, and the Six-Day War in 1967, the core of U.S. Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The steadfast support for Israel and the correlated effort to spread democracy” throughout the region has ignited Arab and Islamic judgment and jeopardized not only U.S. security but that of the rest of the world. This event is unmatched in American political history. Why has the U.S. been agreeable to deceive its people and risk its own security and that of many of its allies in order to uphold the interests of another state? . . . The driving force of U.S. policy in the region is acquired almost entirely from domestic politics, and in particular of the ‘Israel Lobby.
The war on global terrorism: “the aphorism that Israel and the U.S. are united by a collective terrorist threat has the fundamental relationship backwards: the U.S. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is a vital one, and it makes US engaging in the war rather than winning the war on terror and further making it more difficult.” Israel as the “the Great Benefactor” of aid and support from the United States. Compared to all other allied nations, Israel continues to be provided extraordinary benefits with minimal costs, obligations, or strings attached. Thus, “America’s support for Israel is, in short, unique…This extraordinary generosity might be logical if Israel were a vital tactical asset or if there were a compelling moral case for sustained U.S. backing. But neither raison d’être is credible.”
To the majority of Israelis, Jews, and Christian Zionists, and probably many other pro-Israel, non-Jewish, supporters willingly find this special relationship between the United States and Israel as both normal and advantageous. They share religious significant the Judeo-Christian values that each are founded upon, also the common objective of national security interests and democracy. Also the economic, social, cultural, and educational interactions between the two nations. Tourism, migration-immigration, and dual citizenship have flourished over various generations. All of American president has supported the foundation and maintained existence of the State of Israel. They have established a shared emotions and understanding of the historical persecution of the Jewish people. Most specifically, the horrors of the Jewish Holocaust during the World War II at the hands of Nazis and fascists. US-ISRAEL supporters of this special relationship obstinately assert that Israel, once a “Little David up against the Arab Goliath,” ultimately became a “cold war ally” of, and a “strategic asset” for, the United States. Presently, Israel is largely perceived as a “partner for peace” in the region and a “staunch ally” of the United States in the war against global terrorism. They support each other through research and development, military training, transferring military technologies, intelligence sharing, weapons testing, combating terror, and United Nations voting.
How Israel become an Asset to the US
Zionists and Israelis in almost all wealthy and powerful Western societies, chiefly in the United States of America. In relation to foreign, international, or global issues, Jews are asserted to be inclined on world domination through divide and rule scheme, economic and financial leveraging, and even instigating wars among nations. “Ben Franklin had warned about Jewish ownership of the United States within 200 years to the supposedly fabricated, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, to imaginative conspiracy theories on the 9-11 attacks and the motivations behind the Iraq War, Jewish Zionists and Israelis are considered to be the central players in most of these theories. They supposedly do so through the use of their economic and financial might, monopoly control over the media, and heavy cultural dominance, both formally and informally, both individually and group-wise. They are said to own the great bulk of the wealth, control the Federal Reserve System and most banks; rule Hollywood and Las Vegas; dominant the stock exchanges; disproportionately own most Internet, oil, and global corporations; own and manage all of the major TV networks, newspapers, magazines, and book publishing companies; hold heavily disproportionate leadership positions at elite colleges and universities, think tanks, and societal institutions, even to the top governmental positions. These attributes are considered to be vices which create an ability to influence heavily politicians, bureaucrats, and institutions making decisions and setting policies. In essence the main supporters of Israel have the highest levels of wealth, power, status, and influence in the United States and elsewhere.”
Jews, started wars, massacring people, promoting genocides, and occupying Palestine illegally, and repressing the Palestinian people, the long-standing and legitimate owners of the land, including all of Israel. The relationship between Israel and the United States is one to be described as that of dominance and dependence. It is befitting to surmise that, American foreign policy makers are “slaves” controlled by their Israeli-Zionist masters. These explains why the United States so steadfastly supports Israel in all its endeavours and attacks Iraq creating a pointless war by the United States—to uphold Israel’s interests not considering the human and financial costs, the contradictions in principles and their applications, and the loss of support and stature of the United States by other nations and international entities.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are liberals on the Iraq War, but can barely be set apart from neo-cons when the issues unfold about the special relationship between America and Israel. Equally both of them have taken money from Zionist interests, and also employed top pro-Israel advisors during their election campaigns. Accurately it can be said with respect to the mainstream media and Fox billionaire media moguls, Rupert Murdoch, Sumner Redstone, and more others are clearly inside as well. Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, a self-proclaimed traditionalist, has garnered various Jewish and pro-Israel awards. If the right-wing fascists are the opposite of the left-wing communists, then neoconservatives are hostile to Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda and what they call Islamofascists and terrorist organization with the same bent like Hamas and Hezbollah—extreme Muslim or Islamic views. The Wall Street Journal, The Chicago Tribune, Charles Krauthammer’s The New Republic, Rupert Murdoch’s FOX, and William Kristol’s The Weekly Standard continue to be primary supporters of neoconservative views and Likud Party policies. At the core, it is proper to say that Israel is America’s station in the region. Israel does America’s request more often than not to serve the latter’s bourgeois economic and security interests.
For Israel no matter what the cost to other nations and the world. The special relationship between the United States and Israel is the strongest when they have shared short-run interests, as is perceived in Iraq, regardless if it contradicts long-run interests. All in all, Israel uses the United States to dominate Palestine. “The United States uses Israel to dominate the Middle East;
Us –ISRAEL and IRAN
President Barack Obama last week have threatened to “nuke” the Islamic Republic of Iran, this confirmed his total submission to the Jewish Lobby. In the absence of any valid grounds or second thought he accused Iran of pursuing nuclear capability to make weapons which would initiate a nuclear arm race in the Middle East (as if the Zionist entity which has possessed over 240 nuclear bombs for the last three decades, is not located in the Middle East). He also lied that Iran has been “more isolated” since he moved into the White House. The US which has now been isolated in the world due to its sightless support for Israel and its international exploits especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s fascinating to note further that while Barack Obama laid the “option on the table” for Iran’s nuclear arsenal – he has constantly tucked a duct-tape on his mouth when it comes to Israel’s existing nuclear arsenal.
Vice President Joe Biden mentioned in an interview on ABC’s “The View” hardly the place one would expect to find breaking foreign policy news, Biden sought to assure the show’s viewers that Israel wasn’t about to attack Iran.
“They’re not going to do that,” insisted Biden, adding that Israel had already agreed to hold off on such an attack until they see what affect the next round of sanctions in the UN Security Council will have.
President Obama and Vice President Biden had just exhibited a critical view of the heavy tilt of American foreign policy in favour of Israel at the expense of the world’s Arab and Muslim populations. Israel and American dog tail…. it is time to either overturn the roles or change the special relationship.
Sylvia T Vilallobos is a doing her Law from Philippines. She is a research scholar, has her interest in International
Relations. She has started to contribute to Opinion Maker on regular basis.