Israel's International Relations: The US, Europe and International Organizations
Dr. Shlomo Aronson

I shall offer a general survey of Israel's relations with Europe and the United States in terms of the cultural political infrastructure of such relations. Of course, this relates also to the particular economic and other assets, which directly influence the ongoing peace process. Israel's relations with Europe and the US are based on a cultural and political infrastructure. A number of elements support Israeli foreign policy, one among them regarding Europe is its Christian heritage. This is a complicated matter because the Christian heritage has also included anti-Semitism. However, Europeans in general have been sensitive to Jews and to Israel, and this stems from Europe's Christian culture, which includes the Old Testament of the Bible. This fact is well known and appreciated by both Christians who use it to work for or against the Jews and Israel.

The European nations are still very much historical nations, and for them the most important event in the last 50 years, even more than the Cold War, was World War II (WWII), which shaped the boundaries in Europe and created many of the states that currently comprise it. WWII also created a number of norms, which work both for and against Israeli interests. The first norm, established during and implemented immediately after the war, was punishing the Nazi and fascist regimes. This included, among other things, changes in boundaries and the removal of large numbers of populations from their birthplaces. For example, about 15 million Germans were removed from the former territories of Germany in 1937, including East and West-Prussia, to West Germany. Germans were also removed from the former Czechoslovakia and territories that became Poland. There was also the very major change of Polish boundaries from East to West on account of the Germans. The relations of the countries that were involved in WWII have been changed to a degree that works both for and against Israeli interests. On the one hand, for most Europeans the Nazi experience justified the creation and existence of a Jewish state. On the other hand, the Nazi experience also brought to light issues of the rights of minorities and the rights of occupied peoples. In Europe, the question of minorities under occupation was solved by force when the German minorities in practically every European country were simply pushed out. Therefore, there are no Germans anywhere anymore except in Germany itself. In this regard, we should examine the Palestinian problem from an Israeli point of view. My goal here is not to justify or to criticize the realities, but to present them as objectively as I can.

The fate of the Jews in Europe has been solved by Israel. In this sense, the Jews who survived in Europe after WWII had the right to go to Israel as a kind of compensation for their experiences in the Holocaust and as a result of the transformations that took place in Europe after Nazism and Fascism were defeated. Because the Jewish question was solved in such a way that the few surviving Jews could not and would not stay in Europe, the creation of their own state, based on the already existing foundation laid by the Zionists in Palestine, was a matter of political-moral truism for most Europeans.

The Palestinians perceive those who have come here since 1917 as foreigners or aliens. The Europeans will never accept this concept, because for them Jews, the Bible and this country are connected. On top of that, the Jewish question in Europe has been resolved by the two contradictory measures of the Holocaust and the transfer of survivors to Israel. This has to do with most of the Jews who came here after WWII, and is not the case with regard to the Jewish communities that exist in Europe now. The largest Jewish communities to remain in Europe are the North African Jewish community in France and the large and influential Jewish community of Great Britain. The other European countries, including Germany and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, are essentially free of Jews as a result of the Holocaust and the immigration of Jews to Israel.

At the same time, Israel's goals with regard to the Europeans and the Americans are clearly to enhance its interests, to secure its existence, to bring about the recognition of secure and peaceful boundaries, to maintain the unification of Jerusalem under Israeli rule, and to serve the Jewish people wherever they might remain. Israel sees itself as the guardian of the interests of Jews everywhere in the world.

The other dimensions of Israeli foreign policy with regard to Europe and to the United States are the enhancement of the Israel economic interest through technological development, the creation a favorable balance of payment with Europe, and the prevention or neutralization of any anti-Israeli activities among the Europeans within the ongoing peace process. From both our and the European point of view, the Arabs' advantage is their oil. The relative dependence of the European countries on Arab oil is still a major trump card for the Arabs, and although it can be played down it cannot be eradicated completely. Countries such as France, however, are now less dependent on oil and are more self-sufficient in terms of nuclear power. Germany is still dependent on oil, but Germany is especially supportive of Israel. The issue of the Holocaust still looms high on the horizon even for younger Germans, and no German government would be able to totally avoid or ignore it. As a result, Israel and Germany have special relations that are anchored in the legacy of the Holocaust and the degree of responsibility of every German government for things that occurred in previous generations.

Israeli-German relations are complicated by the question of refugees. Germany absorbed a large number of German refugees and accepted the removal of millions of Germans from their homelands. However, the millions of re-settled Germans are not claiming any right of return to West Prussia or other areas from which they were removed. When the right of return of Palestinians is brought up, the Israelis argue that because the German solution was acceptable there, so the Palestinian refugee problem has also been solved in its own way. The Europeans argue that the German problem has been solved, but Israel has a refugee problem that still exists. The compromise solution which seems to be acceptable to the Europeans, and the one which I believe they will support, is the right of return of the Palestinians refugees who were forced to leave in 1948 to areas within the West Bank and Gaza. There would be no right of return to Jaffa or Haifa or anywhere outside of the West Bank and Gaza. In practical terms, the question is: how can this occur when Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria and the US would like to return to the Palestinian state? How can such a movement be controlled? What will be the role of the Lebanese and the Syrian governments in this regard? These are very major issues, and when the Oslo Agreements were negotiated and finally signed, one of the questions raised by our European colleagues was why the Israeli negotiators did not mention the issue of the refugees with regard to the Arab governments. From the Israeli point of view, such a major issue should not have been left to the end of the discussions. There will not be a final agreement without a solution to refugees and the Jerusalem problem.

When we discuss this with Europeans, the issue is practical but also historical. For the younger generation, the events of 1940s belong to the ancient past, and they prefer to focus their attention on the realities of Palestinians sitting in refugee camps, the Israeli occupation and the question of Jerusalem. Very few people understand why the Jews should control Jerusalem when the city belongs to the three major religions. These are our problems when discussing policies with the Europeans in terms of their interests, which are oil, the vast dimensions of the Arab world, the number of the states, and the importance of the Arab Middle East and of Islam.

Europeans still have problems in creating a common foreign policy of the European Union. However, the negotiations between Israel and Syria and the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians are two fields in which Europe can demonstrate a unified foreign policy. Behind this unified front, however, are significant differences. For example, Germany wants to maintain its special relationship with France, but its post-unification situation is delicate. Furthermore, the future of the former Soviet Union is still uncertain. The nature of European unification relates to the possibility of a future united Middle East in matters such as open borders and a common economy, but these matters have not yet cemented far enough in Europe itself.

One of the issues in the former East Germany is preventing cheap labor from migrating into the country, which would marginalize the elderly workforce and undermine the German economy. The free movement of people, capital and trade over borders is still somewhat problematic. The prospects for the common monetary union and the role of the European Central Bank are still a matter of gathering experience, learning to cope with, and creating something similar to the US in principle.

In the European case, the principle does not work as well because its economies are different. The welfare state is a problem because it is too expensive and creates in many European countries a high degree of joblessness - 13 percent in Germany and 14-15 percent in France. As a result, the Europeans as a sort of a united whole are less able to influence world events than the United States.

The relationship between Israel and the United States is based on common ground. First of all, the US perceives itself at the largest democracy in the world, and because Israel is also a democracy, it shares a common base in this regard. Second, both nations share a heritage based on the current generation's pro-Zionist interpretation of Christianity. Americans are still religious to a large extent. Sometimes only superficially, but at other times seriously. Religion is not dying in America as it is in Europe. In the South, 40 million Americans worship and study the Bible. American Christians view Judaism as the origin of Christendom, and remember that Jesus was a Jew. Furthermore, some of them actually believe that once Jews occupy or re-win the whole country, Jesus will return. These people supported Netanyahu, because they represent the most conservative reactionary element in the right wing of the Republican Party.

On the other hand, Jews and everything Jewish is known in America. There is a degree of sympathy and of interest in Judaism found among Christian Protestants from the US all the way to New Zealand. It is a part of the Protestant tradition, and in this sense is perceived to be natural. At the same time, there is a large Jewish community in the US that plays a very important role in American politics. Jews are concentrated in the key states - New York, California, Illinois, Florida and more. I am referring to the American ballot system, which is, in principle, based on a majority-constituency system. One vote makes a difference in a state such as California or New York; when one candidate to an official job gets just one more vote he or she is elected. In Israel we have a different system of proportional vote, which lets every minority be represented in the elected bodies. The US or Great Britain have a two-party system based on a territorial constituency - which in America is based on the states. Since the Jewish communities are organized and are politically interested, number-wise they are large minorities and can swing a vote; a political fact that no American politician can ignore.

Jews are also very much now a part of the American political elite, serving as senators, congressmen, and key personalities in American politics. Once they were emancipated and allowed to break out of the ghettos, many Jews made the most out of the American opportunities and climbed the ladder to occupy key positions wherever they could. This became possible after WWII and as a result of the Holocaust, which destroyed the discriminatory system in America, not only against Jews but also finally against Blacks. I cannot imagine black emancipation without WWII and the war for equality and freedom, which was finally working in favor of Blacks, Hispanics, Jews and Catholics, all of whom were discriminated against before WWII. No one of Catholic origin would have ever made it to the White House before WWII; President Kennedy was the first Catholic who did. WWII was, in this sense, for the Americans a watershed of their own politics.

As a result of the Holocaust, Jews were very much united among themselves and adopted Zionism and the State of Israel as their most important self-identification. This was the case until recently, and paradoxically what is happening now is that the Holocaust is replacing Israel, to an extent, in the consciousness of American Jews seeking their own identity. Many American Jews, especially the liberal element among them, disapprove of Israeli politics since 1967, in particular the occupation, the Intifada, and the exclusive Israeli control over Jerusalem.

In addition to the role played by politics in shaping Israeli-US relations, strategic and economic roles have also been important. With regard to the strategic aspect, Israel is perceived to be a reliable American ally in a volatile region. At the same time, the Americans were very interested in a deal between Israel and Syria because they wanted to open Syria to free trade, to modernize it, and to bring about the end of the overall Arab-Israeli conflict. Syria's participation in a general agreement, along with the Palestinians, will make it easier for Saudi Arabia and everybody else to say that the situation in the Middle East has been settled. At the same time, the fact that President Hafez Al-Assad might not live much longer introduces uncertainty. The US would love to bring about an agreement, but Mr. Assad is worried about it. What his son Bashar may do is a matter of wait and see.

Compared to Syria and other countries Israel is a stable democratic society, but its democratic image is tarnished when it occupies or rules over others who do not want to be occupied. Therefore the occupation must be ended to preserve Israel's public image, and to uphold a principle of US foreign policy. The American-initiated UN Resolution 242 and the supplementary Resolution 335 never accepted the annexation or permanent occupation by Israel of territories beyond the 1967 boundaries without an agreed solution. American public opinion disagrees with the occupation of Jerusalem and the territories, which relates to the democratic character of the US itself.

Tactically, Israel's pre-1957 solution to its security problems was based upon three principles:

• the partition of the country within the 1967 boundaries;

 

• the de facto acceptance of the partition of Jerusalem;

 

• the production of nuclear weapons.

 

These objectives guided Israeli policy, including the purchase of intermediate range ballistic missiles, and only ended in the early 1970s when Israel deployed the Jericho II nuclear missiles. The partition of the country and the expansion of Israel into the empty Negev Desert was given up in 1967, and has a lot to do with Israeli domestic politics.

At the same time, Israel was always unable to dance between the US and the USSR, at least to guarantee its conventional arms needs, and the political clout related to it.

The game that Egyptian Presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar As-Sadat, as well as Syria's President Hafez AI-Assad played with the Soviet Union pushed the US behind Israel much more than the Americans had originally intended. Thus even these leaders had to reckon with American interests and basic support of Israel. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States is increasing pressure on Israel to accept an arrangement with both the Paand the Syrians. Therefore, Israel is not controlling American politics. They have their own interests, and for them the tactical game depends upon the reasonableness of the demands of both sides.

For instance, if during the final status negotiations the Palestinian side insists upon the Palestinian refugees' right of return to Jaffa, they will lose the support of the Americans. That argument is self-defeating and can only be understood in terms of domestic Palestinian politics. On the other hand if the Israelis claim the whole country, or there will again be no agreement. Furthermore, Israel's demand for the entire city of Jerusalem as its united capital is also unacceptable to the Americans. The Americans are the only remaining great power, whether Israelis like it or not.

A final point has to do with economy. Israel has managed since its creation in 1948 to become a mini-economic power. As a result of this, its weight in the US is also very much a function of its economic muscle which, though not terribly strong, cannot be denied. We have preferential economic agreements with the EU and the US, and as a result we can work as a bridge between both for joint preferential treatment. On the other hand, Israelis have undertaken high-tech activities because we do not have any other sources of gaining wealth from the traditional professions such as agriculture. For better or for worse the Israeli society has become very competitive, a significant break from its socialist origins, and this competition is now occurring in the context of the global economy. Globalization has created enormous differences within Israeli society, and enormous tension at the top with the rise of a very successful international high-tech elite. This new class is very influential because it knows everyone in the field worldwide and because it is respected and of political significance.

The problems of former Prime Minister Netanyahu with the Europeans were political, but had economic consequences. Europeans always combine politics with economics, and in order to achieve economic preferences, one has to make political concessions. When Netanyahu froze the political process, Europeans formed a coalition against him. When the Barak government returned to the negotiating table, the Europeans were ready to reopen their gates to Israeli economic initiative.

The founding fathers of Israel such as Ben-Gurion never negotiated anything without the backing of the parliament. Netanyahu, however, did it the other way around. First of all, he formed an unstable coalition. Secondly, he signed agreements that were hated by very many members of his own parliamentary coalition, which brought about his downfall.