Internal conflicts
Israel can and should manage them on its own
In a recent column, Thomas Friedman called on President Joe Biden to “save Israel from itself,” referring to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government’s planned reform of the judicial system. He claims that “the Israel Joe Biden knew is vanishing” and that the new government is “hostile to American values.” Mr. Friedman’s approach is wrong, paternalistic, and heavily biased.
Israel and the US have enjoyed a long history of cooperation based on shared values and interests. At the same time, a serious disagreement emerges every now and then. In fact, at least once a decade since 1948, Israel’s relations with the US have experienced serious friction.
The secret pact that Israel signed with France and the UK prior to the 1956 war was not shared with the US, and created distrust and frustration toward Israel during the Eisenhower administration. The Israeli Air Force attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day war threatened the special relations that were starting to form in the mid-1960s between the defense agencies of the two countries.
President Ford’s frustration with the lack of progress in peace negotiations with Egypt and Jordan led his administration to “reassess relations with Israel” in the mid-1970s. The Pollard espionage fiasco soured relations in the mid-1980s. The Bush administration had a bitter quarrel with prime minister Shamir’s government in the early 1990s.
There are more examples, but ties between the two countries have proven to be much stronger than these and other temporary tensions. Both countries always found the appropriate channels of communication to quickly resolve their disagreements.
Sadly, in recent years, growing political tensions – particularly between Democratic administrations in the US and right wing coalitions in Israel – seem to threaten the fabric of these relations. The Iran nuclear deal, the war in Ukraine, and the attitude toward Saudi Arabia given their record on human rights, have all contributed to the tension.
The common thread behind the historical frictions between
the two countries is the way in which they revolve regional and global conflicts, particularly Israel’s relations with its neighbors. For the most part, the two countries honored an informal, mutual understanding to refrain from meddling in each other’s internal affairs.
Netanyahu’s controversial speech on Capitol Hill in 2015, (mentioned in Mr. Friedman’s article) was perceived by many in the US – especially by supporters of the Democratic Party – as a violation of that mutual understanding, while the majority of Israelis thought otherwise. Be that as it may, the issue addressed in that speech was the Iran nuclear deal, one of the (many) domestic issues ripping the US apart in recent years.
THE FACT is that Israel and the US are not equal or “symmetric” partners. The US is a global superpower, while Israel is a tiny country in the Middle East. Consequently, there is no comparison between the two countries’ dependency on one another. Still, that doesn’t mean that the US should feel free to intervene in internal Israeli affairs, such as the current
debate over judicial reform.
Israel is no longer a “babystate.” After nearly 75 years of independence, Israel is quite capable of handling its own internal matters without the need for others to intervene.
Urging President Biden to embark on a rescue mission to “save Israel,” as Mr. Friedman arrogantly suggests, is wrong in more ways than one. First, it carries the pretentious implication that the American judicial system is a great (if not perfect) role model for others to follow.
One has only to study the history of abortion laws, the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade by the US Supreme Court, and the public protests that ensued, to understand the fallacy of such an implication. As the old American adage goes, “You have to clean up your own house before you tell other people that they aren’t doing it right.”
Second, it implies that Israel is some sort of vassal state that must follow orders from its US patron, as if it has no other options. This is a very dangerous assumption. Small as it might be, Israel is a major player in the Middle East and as such has been, and will continue
to be “courted” by others.
One can recall that the former Soviet Union was the main provider of weapons and ammunition to Israel during the turbulent 1948-50 era, when the newly-independent state was fighting for its existence. This was part of a strategic gamble made by the Russians, who believed that Israel, led by the socialist Labor party, would join the Soviet Block.
At the same time, the US imposed an embargo on arms shipments to Israel. How lucky we are that prime minister Ben-Gurion’s government chose to ally itself with the US rather than Russia.
Third, Friedman’s call implies that Israeli society and its institutions, built over the last 75+ years, are not mature or strong enough to overcome major internal strife, hence some “responsible grown-up” should come to help the “children of Israel” sort out a solution to their problems.
The reality is, of course, quite different. Israel’s parliament is functioning on a par with its counterparts in other developed countries; Israeli press is independent, strong and “biting” (when it needs to
be); Israelis take to the streets, demonstrate, and express their opinions freely; Israeli academic institutions are independent and chart their own course; and yes – its judicial system is also independent and strong, and the people of Israel will ensure that it remains so in the future.
Israel and the US are close friends, and friends should listen to one another. Mr. Friedman, like any American citizen, is more than welcome to express his views about Israel, no matter how critical of our decisions and actions they may be. We respect his opinions even if we do not necessarily accept them. But he and other like-minded individuals should remember that friends overcome their disagreements through constructive dialogue and not through arm-twisting.