It is often asserted that the United States and Israel share a long history of strategic Middle East cooperation and political alignment. Evidence to support this understanding includes substantial military aid, joint military exercises, and intelligence sharing. The U.S. has repeatedly vetoed UN resolutions critical of Israel, to demonstrate commitment to its security and diplomatic standing.
Both nations identify as democracies with market economies, fostering a sense of shared values and mutual understanding, facilitating cooperation on various fronts, including trade, technology, and cultural exchange.
However, the belief that the U.S. is Israel’s friend and ally is complicated by historical and contemporary evidence that suggests a more transactional, and at times, adversarial relationship.
While shared democratic values and strategic interests are often cited as indications of this friendship, several critical points challenge this assessment, suggesting that the United States might be a hidden enemy of Israel, while maintaining a friendly facade for diplomatic reasons.
This perspective is often countered by arguments emphasizing the strong strategic alliance between the two nations. However, the U.S. and Israel’s strategic alignment may be purely transactional, not based on genuine friendship. The U.S. must prioritize its own broader regional interests, even if they conflict with Israel’s, masking these tensions with diplomatic cosmetics. If this is so, it means that the U.S. uses Israel as a strategic asset when convenient, not out of deep commitment to its well-being.
While the U.S. provides significant military aid to Israel, it also often pressures Israel into concessions. This “even-handed” approach has consistently undermined Israel’s security and strategic depth. This pressure, even if couched in the language of peace, weakens Israel and serves U.S. interests in the region, regardless of the cost to Israel.
Incidents like the 1967 USS Liberty attack, while officially explained as an accident, suggest American willingness to endanger Israel and to sacrifice its interests when they conflict with U.S. goals.
The USS Liberty was an intelligence-gathering vessel operating close to the front lines of the Six-Day War. The U.S. was actively monitoring Israeli military operations and facilitating the transmission of its order of battle to Egypt, operating so close to the conflict zone as to comprise a deliberate act of provocation. This intelligence, that included Israeli troop movements, strategic plans, and vulnerabilities, could have been used to inflict significant damage on Israel, thus rendering the Liberty’s mission an act of betrayal, and demonstrating American willingness to undermine Israel’s security.
The swift acceptance of Israel’s explanation of the attack as a “tragic mistake” has been interpreted as a cover-up, while the U.S. intentionally downplayed the incident to avoid exposing its own treachery.
Strategic implications emerging from the Liberty’s mission are many: If the U.S. was willing to risk jeopardizing Israel’s military success for its own geopolitical goals, this demonstrates U.S. willingness to prioritize its own interests at the expense of its supposed ally.
Furthermore, some point to instances where the U.S. prioritized relationships with Arab states over its relationship with Israel, signifying a calculated balancing act rather than unwavering support.
For example, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the U.S. imposed an arms embargo on the region, disproportionately affecting the nascent state of Israel, which lacked established supply lines, weakening Israel at a critical moment. Other examples include delays in delivering promised military aid at crucial times, even when agreements were in place.
Throughout the various Arab-Israeli conflicts and peace negotiations, the U.S. has often pressured Israel to make territorial concessions, weakening Israel’s strategic depth and security in pursuit of broader regional interests, rather than prioritizing Israel’s survival. Examples include the pressure applied during the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, and later during the Camp David, Oslo, and Wye Accords, and subsequent negotiations.
While providing military aid to Israel, the U.S. has also sold or pressured Israel to sell advanced weaponry to Arab states, some of which have been hostile to Israel. This “balance of power” endangers Israel’s military advantage. Examples include arms deals with Saudi Arabia and other nations.
The U.S. has, at times, supported or abstained from UN resolutions condemning Israel, signaling willingness to isolate Israel diplomatically. While the U.S. often uses its veto power to protect Israel, it has also refrained from doing so to exert pressure.
The 2015 nuclear deal with Iran is seen in Israel as a major security threat. Critics argue that the deal weakened sanctions on Iran and paved the way for it to develop nuclear weapons, thereby endangering Israel’s existence.
Several sources maintain that the State Department has a history of antisemitism, arguing that the department’s focus on Israeli actions and “Palestinian” grievances disproportionately singles out Israel for criticism, while overlooking similar actions by other nations.
Antisemitism within certain segments of the U.S. government, particularly the State Department, supports the view that the outward show of American friendship is a facade. These undercurrents of prejudice influence policy decisions in subtle but significant ways, undermining Israel’s interests while maintaining the appearance of support.
AMERICAN JEWS AND ACCUSATIONS OF DUAL LOYALTY
Historically, and even in recent times, concerns about dual loyalty have surfaced within U.S. government agencies. The existence of “Jew-free” zones or hiring practices within certain agencies, driven by suspicion of divided allegiances regarding Israel, directly contradicts the narrative of a close, trusting friendship.
These examples indicate that the U.S. government itself has at times harbored concerns about the potential for conflicting loyalties, particularly concerning the U.S.-Israel relationship. While there may be overlapping strategic goals, U.S. and Israeli interests do diverge. These disagreements, while perhaps not always publicly aired, indicate that the two nations are not always aligned, and that the relationship is subject to the contradictions implied by differing national agendas.
Meanwhile, it has been noted that not only the U.S. government, but American Jews themselves may also prioritize their own status, wealth, position, and prestige over Israel’s interests.
While individuals can and often do hold multiple allegiances, the crucial question is whether these allegiances create genuine conflicts of interest, and how individuals navigate those potential conflicts.
The fear of dual loyalty accusations plays a significant role in how some American Jews might prioritize their concerns and engage with issues related to Israel. Some American Jews might be hesitant to criticize U.S. foreign policy, even when it conflicts with Israeli interests, for fear of being accused of placing loyalty to Israel above loyalty to the United States.
While fear of dual loyalty accusations is not the only factor influencing how American Jews prioritize their concerns, the fear of being accused of divided loyalties is a real and significant concern for many American Jews, and it can have a notable impact on their attitude towards Israel.
Concerns about antisemitism and backlash against American Jews for actions committed by the Israeli government can render American Jews hesitant to publicly express strong support for Israel or criticize its detractors. This fear could lead to prioritizing one’s personal safety and well-being over that of Israel.
Historically, many Jewish communities in the diaspora have faced pressure to assimilate into the dominant culture. In the U.S., this has meant striving for economic success and social acceptance, sometimes requiring downplaying or de-emphasizing Jewish identity or Zionist leanings. The desire to avoid accusations of dual loyalty or to maintain social standing has historically led the American Jewish establishment to prioritize its own interests over Israel’s safety and future.
THE ABRAHAM ACCORDS – A TROJAN HORSE FOR ISRAEL?
In the context of potential U.S. willingness to endanger Israel, Israelis may view the Abraham Accords with wariness, as the Accords represent a realignment of regional powers. This, despite the perception that so many prominent, politically conservative American Jews are counted among its architects. By examining the Abraham Accords through the historical lens of the European Union’s formation, we can gain valuable insights into the goals of regional integration in the Middle East.
The EU began as the European Coal and Steel Community, a trade-focused agreement aimed at fostering economic interdependence and preventing future conflicts. Similarly, the Abraham Accords emphasize economic cooperation and investment as key drivers for regional integration.
The EU’s formation was driven by strategic geopolitical objectives, including containing Soviet influence and fostering stability in post-war Europe. Similarly, the Abraham Accords are seen as a strategic realignment in the Middle East, ostensibly to counter Iranian influence and promote regional stability.
The European public was not fully informed of the ultimate goal of political union. The EU’s evolution from a trade bloc to a political union was a gradual process, with incremental steps taken over decades. Similarly, the Abraham Accords may have undisclosed long-term objectives beyond the stated goals of normalization and economic cooperation, with initial economic agreements leading to loss of Israeli sovereignty and independence of action.
In the case of the EU, the slow creep of integration allowed for a situation where the general public did not fully understand their loss of national sovereignty until it had already occurred. With Jerusalem and all it represents at stake, there is great concern that the Abraham Accords represents a similar Trojan horse for Israel.
“It is difficult to argue with fear and with insecurity. Respectability is the last refuge of a frightened Jew,” wrote Rabbi Meir Kahane. “It stems from his fear of anti-Semitism and has its roots in insecurity, doubts of the future, and suspicion of his true position in non-Jewish society. These fears and tensions lead the Jew to weigh each and every word and deed on the nervous scale of the opinion of the non-Jew. The need to win the approval of the non-Jew leads the frightened Jew to do those things we think they will like and to refrain from those things they will oppose.
“Such a conduct requires a constant survey of what is acceptable and what is not. It leads to a paralysis of will and action. Though we know that we should behave a certain way for the good of another Jew or for his survival, we refrain from acting because we are paralyzed by its lack of respectability. We refrain from doing the correct Jewish thing because we are lashed to the stake of Respectability.”
In contradistinction to this, Irgun Commander Menachem Begin stood publicly at the graves of those who were hung by other friends and benefactors, the British, and thus gave their lives for a Jewish State. A Jewish State had, indeed, arisen. Begin spoke, saluted the dead, and said:
“We have come to you from all corners of the land and stand before you with trepidation, resignation, and holiness. We are here to inform you that the wicked arm that plucked you from amongst us is broken, and that the British oppressive rule has been removed from our homeland. The hangmen who led you to the gallows have been driven out. The land has been rid of the British army of occupation. The basis has been laid for Jewish independence in the land. The State of Israel has risen, and tens of thousands of Jewish soldiers stand ready to beat back the enemy, destroy the foe, and realize the national hope of independence for the entire homeland.
“And you converse amongst yourselves during the night, you who died heroes’ deaths in our time and the Ten Martyrs of old – you who have fallen in Galilee in our time and you who died of old. There is conversation among you, the greatest conversation of its kinds ever heard in the world. A golden chain links you all. At night, your souls commune with one another concerning Galilee and the entire land, concerning our eternal people which has been beset by so many enemies and has been able to withstand them because it never forsook its faith.
“It is not the voice of lamentation and bitter weeping which is heard when you speak to each other, but joy breaks forth from the heavens above, and gladness and delight are heard in the world. By virtue of this faith there arose heroes whose like has not been seen among our people since the days of Rabbi Akiba and Bar Kochba. By virtue of this faith, we renewed the ancient days of our land.
“Members and soldiers of Irgun Zvai Leumi: Attention!
“At the graves of our national martyrs let us all take the oath to Jerusalem which as yet has not been fully liberated, and to whose liberation they dedicated their lives and their death:
“If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember thee not; if I set not Jerusalem above my chiefest joy.”
