At a convention center on the banks of the Jordan side of the Dead Sea on Wednesday, leaders of 21 Arab states reaffirmed their commitment to a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 28th Arab League Summit had a simple, unifying message: ties with Israel will not be fully normalized until a peace deal with the Palestinians is reached.

As the Arab world deals with a coterie of conflicts–civil wars in Syria, Yemen, and Libya; Islamic State and other terror groups; Iran’s proxy adventures and missile program–leaders showed the decades-old conflict still serves as a unifying force in the region.

The summit meeting comes as the Trump Administration mounts an aggressive campaign to strike a peace deal. President Donald Trump has not thrown his whole weight behind the two-state option, instead opting for whatever approach “both parties like.” And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has broadened his language as well; in recent speeches, he eschews the “two-state” label while still saying he supports peace.

Trump is set to meet with a trio of Arab leaders–Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and the Palestinian Authority’s President Mahmoud Abbas–in the coming weeks. Trump’s envoy for the conflict, Jason Greenblatt, was an observer at Wednesday’s gathering. A statement from the U.S. Embassy in Jordan said Greenblatt “listened to their views and ideas, and held a round of bilateral meetings with Arab leaders and other foreign delegations to discuss U.S. perspectives and policies.”

“He reaffirmed President Trump’s personal interest in achieving a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians and his belief that such a peace agreement is not only possible, but would reverberate positively throughout the region and the world,” the statement added.

Affirming their support for normalizing ties with Israel in exchange for a sovereign Palestinian state, the Arab leaders referenced the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative as a blueprint for a future deal. That initiative calls for a “just and comprehensive peace,” including “full Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since” the Six Day War in 1967, in which Israel captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and east Jerusalem.

Israel has rejected the initiative, because it fails to recognize the Jewish people’s ties to east Jerusalem, which contains the religion’s holiest site, the Temple Mount complex. Jordan is a custodian of the fiercely contested site; Jews are currently allowed to visit, but not pray at the site. The initiative also failed to include land swaps for areas of the West Bank inhabited by Israeli settlers, which lay beyond the pre-1967 boundary, a condition Israel says is a pre-requisite for any peace deal.

But for Arab leaders, the West Bank settlements are illegal intrusions on Palestinian land. “Israel is continuing to expand settlements and undermining the chances of achieving peace,” Jordan’s Abdullah said at the summit. In their closing statement, the Arab leaders seemed to recognize the importance the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has for region as a whole, saying “peace is a strategic option” for Arab nations.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arab Leaders Throw Support Behind Two-State Solution for Israel-Palestine appeared first on Law Street.

In the words of President Donald Trump, it would be the “ultimate deal.” But it is a deal that has flummoxed the negotiating partners for 70 years: the elusive partitioning of historic Palestine into two states, Israel and Palestine. For decades, the U.S. has been a vital broker for and backer of a two-state path. But with Donald Trump in office, the standard, seemingly immortal U.S. position may be in question. In a Wednesday press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said he is “looking at two-state and one-state” solutions, and he prefers “the one that both parties like.”

Trump’s statements cannot be chiseled in stone to represent a permanent shift in the U.S. stance. For one, Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations directly contradicted Trump on Thursday at a Security Council session on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “We absolutely support a two-state solution,” Haley said. “But we are thinking out of the box as well, which is–what does it take to bring these two sides to the table, what do we need to have them agree on?”

David Friedman, Trump’s choice for ambassador to Israel, also expressed support to the two-state solution in his confirmation hearing on Thursday. “It still remains the best possibility for peace in the region,” he said. And despite the fact that Friedman has poured millions of dollars into an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, he said settlements “may not be helpful” for peace, adding that it “makes sense to tread very carefully in that area.”

Present Dilemma: Waning Desire for a Two-State Solution

So while Trump’s envoys say one thing, he says another. Though he has not decisively aborted the two-state route, he has said he is open to other, less popular routes. But as we have seen, a fleeting statement at a press conference might not always coalesce into a sturdy position for Trump.

For instance, after he won the election, he accepted a call from Taiwan, infuriating China, which worried he would abandon the decades-old “One China” policy. Trump further compounded China’s fury when he explicitly questioned the wisdom of “One China.” But then Trump backtracked. He recently told Chinese President Xi Jinping the U.S. will recognize the longstanding policy. The threat of an unprecedented U.S. pivot subsided.

Now, a rogue Taiwan provoking Trump into undermining “One China” is not quite on the same scale as a true shift in U.S. policy regarding the two-state solution. But Trump has shown that he can be in flux, and say one thing on Monday, and another thing on Thursday.

Regardless of the American position on the intractable conflict, alternatives to the two-state solution seem to be gaining steam. It is unclear what other paths to peace would look like, but one thing is fairly clear: a slim majority of Israelis and a large minority of Palestinians still support two states. According to a Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research poll, 55 percent of Israelis, and 44 percent of Palestinians back a two-state solution. Support for a single, bi-national state is fractured in Israel, as 19 percent of Israeli Jews and 56 percent of Israeli Arabs support that idea. Thirty-six percent of Palestinians support a single state.

But despite popular support on both sides, the political will to strike a deal is withering. The Palestinian leadership is fractured among the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and Hamas–a designated terrorist group by the U.S., Europe, and Israel–in the Gaza Strip. And in Israel, an emboldened right-wing government that is calcifying its position that a two-state solution is an impossible by encouraging more settlement growth. Netanyahu still supports two states, though of late he has primarily alluded to his position than thrown his full weight behind it.

Past Failures

It is useful to understand the history of the two-state ordeal. In 1937, before Israel was established as a state, a British commission recommended partitioning the land of Palestine into two states–one for Jews, one for Arabs. In terms of land mass, the proposed Arab state would have dwarfed the Jewish state. The Jews accepted the plan, and the Arabs declined. A decade later, in 1947, the U.N. voted for a similar partition plan. Again, the Jews accepted the internationally-backed plan; the Arabs did not, instead deciding to launch a full-scale war against Israel, after it was established as a state, in 1948.

Israel won the War of Independence but ceded the territory now known as the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan and Egypt respectively. In June 1967, Jordan and Egypt prepared to launch a second war against Israel, with the promise of obliterating the Jewish State. Israel launched a preemptive strike, won the war, and control of the West Bank and Gaza changed hands: from that point on, Israel occupied the territories that would make up any future Palestinian state.

The next opportunity–and the last true glimmer of peace–came in 2000 during the Camp David Summit. In late July, President Bill Clinton, the first U.S. leader to attempt to broker a two-state solution, announced the two sides were unable to reach an agreement. Jerusalem, which both sides claim as their capital, was the ultimate, insurmountable obstacle to lasting peace.

Future Success?

And now, nearly two decades later, here we are: Israeli settlements are slowly creeping along the hills of the West Bank; Hamas fires rockets indiscriminately into Israel; the PA glorifies violence against Israelis and praises martyrs. The two-state solution is looking more dim and unlikely than ever before.

So where does the U.S., the most important international player in the conflict, stand? Of course, before Trump, there was President Barack Obama, who, like previous U.S. administrations, steadfastly supported two states. Trump has shown less opposition to Israeli settlements than his predecessors, and he has expressed an openness to other solutions in a way that is unprecedented for a U.S. president.

But, though reading the tea leaves of Trump’s mind is a precarious business, it seems that he is in favor of two states. As many people still believe, and as U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres recently said, “There is no Plan B to the situation between Palestinians and Israelis but a two-state solution.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does the U.S. Stand on the Two-State Solution? appeared first on Law Street.

Standing next to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Wednesday afternoon, President Donald Trump said that Israel can expect strong support from the U.S., but also cautioned further settlement building in the West Bank, calling it an impediment to peace. But in stark contrast to the decades-long U.S. position on Israel and Palestine, Trump said he is open to a one-state or two-state solution to the conflict, as long as it’s one that “both parties like.”

The press conference, which preceded a closed-door meeting between Trump and Netanyahu, was a highly anticipated litmus test to see where Trump stood, not only on the two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians, but also on other regional issues, like Iran’s nuclear program, and whether he would move the U.S. embassy currently in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Trump’s ascendence to the presidency has been a hopeful development for Netanyahu, who had a fairly terse relationship with President Barack Obama. As Israel continues to construct settlements in the West Bank–Netanyahu recently approved an entirely new settlement for the first time in 25 years–many see the two-state solution, in which an Israeli and Palestinian state exist side-by-side, as the folly of a bygone era. Israeli lawmakers to the right of Netanyahu have been ramping up the pressure to annex the territory, which Israel has occupied since 1967, after it defeated Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states in the Six Day War.

In his remarks on Wednesday, Netanyahu insisted his official stance on the conflict (he supports two states) “hasn’t changed.” But he did not explicitly express support for the idea. And neither did Trump. “I’m looking at two states and one state, and I like the one that both parties like,” Trump said, adding that the U.S. “will encourage a peace, and really a great peace deal,” regardless of what that deal ultimately looks like.

Trump did say continued settlement building is an obstacle to peace, which has been the mainstream U.S. position for decades. He told Netanyahu to “hold off on settlements for a little bit,” then, tilting his head to the right, looked at Netanyahu and said: “Both sides will have to make compromises. You know that, right?” Netanyahu chuckled and responded: “Both sides.” Netanyahu, in his comments, called on the Palestinians to hold up their end of the bargain. Trump stressed that in the end, a deal could only be struck directly by the two negotiating partners.

Netanyahu named two “prerequisites” for peace. “First, the Palestinians must recognize the Jewish State,” the prime minister said. “They have to stop calling for Israel’s destruction. They have to stop educating their people for Israel’s destruction.” Second, Netanyahu said, Israel must retain security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River, which includes Israel and the West Bank. Otherwise, he said, there will be “another radical Islamic terrorist state.”

Welcome to the United States, @IsraeliPM Benjamin & Sara!#ICYMIJoint Press Conference: https://t.co/GN6ALWUusN pic.twitter.com/bH60nBL5FP

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2017

Trump has recently embraced the so-called “outside-in” approach to solving the conflict. According to this strategy, Israel would forge deeper relationships with Sunni Arab states like Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan. Concentrating on common issues like trade, and common enemies like Iran and Islamic State, the Arab world would then come together to pressure the Palestinians to negotiate with the Israelis and, ideally, forge a state of their own. But this is still somewhat of a fringe idea, as many Arab states are experiencing crises of their own, and the Palestinian issue is hardly at the front of their agendas.

The two leaders discussed other pertinent issues as well. One reporter asked Trump about his plans to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which Israel claims as its capital and the Palestinians claim as the capital to any future state. Without much detail, Trump said he would “love to see that happen.” It is not clear if that sentiment is mutual in Israel, both among the populace and the government. Many Israelis see it as a move that can wait; it could incite Palestinian violence as well.

Toward the end of the press conference, an Israeli reporter asked Trump about the rising anti-Semitism in the U.S., and about the xenophobic elements of his campaign. Trump responded by gloating about his election victory: “Well, I just want to say that we are, you know, very honored by the victory that we had.” In response to the rise in anti-Semitic incidents since his election win, Trump pointed to his daughter Ivanka, who converted to Judaism, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is an Orthodox Jew. “You’re going to see a lot of love. Okay? Thank you,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Says He’s Open to a One-State or Two-State Solution for Israel-Palestine appeared first on Law Street.

For the first time, representatives from Israeli settlements in the West Bank will attend the inaugural ceremony of a U.S. president. According to one of the attendees, Oded Revivi, the invitations did not come from President-elect Donald Trump, but from a member of his “first circle.” Revivi, the mayor of the Efrat settlement just east of Jerusalem, will be joined by two other settlement mayors.

The settlements have been a lightning rod of controversy of late, and in inviting settlement representatives, Trump is signaling that his administration will take a different approach than U.S. presidents have over the past five decades. In an interview with The Associated Press, Revivi, who is also the chief foreign representative of the Yesha Council, which represents more than 120 settlements in the West Bank, acknowledged that times are changing.

“I definitely agree that we are now getting the VIP treatment, which is something that we have been working on for many years,” he said. “You could basically argue that it has taken 50 years, since 1967, to be recognized on such a level for such an event.” For decades, the international community, including the U.S., Israel’s most important partner, have condemned the settlements, which dot the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

Just landed in DC bumped into an old friend, @RepTrentFranks pic.twitter.com/AyU9xHK6yr

— עודד רביבי (@odedrevivi) January 19, 2017

Israel captured those territories from Jordan–and the Gaza Strip from Egypt–during the war of 1967. The rush of victory, coupled with security concerns after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, catalyzed settlement building. In December, the U.S. decided to abstain in a vote for a UN resolution that called the settlements a “flagrant violation” of international law.

President Barack Obama’s decision, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s subsequent speech, caused a stir, thrusting the Israel-Palestine issue to the forefront of the global conversation. Earlier this week, representatives from more than 70 countries, not including Israel or Palestine, met in Paris to reaffirm the international community’s belief in the two-state solution.

Change in the Israel-U.S. relationship might be on the horizon. Trump has voiced enthusiastic support for Israel, its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the settlement movement. Bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman, Trump’s choice for ambassador to Israel, has donated millions of dollars to the Beit El settlement. But as is the case with most things in the region, not everyone is happy to see change.

“By linking up with the settlers and the illegal settlements enterprise, Trump is placing the new American administration squarely outside the law and is encouraging Israeli lawlessness,” said Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian official. “He is destroying the chances of peace and preparing for further conflict and instability and violence.”

Palestinians say the main obstacle to striking a two-state deal is the settlement issue; Israelis say Palestinian car and knife attacks–which were especially frequent last summer–and weak Palestinian leadership are stymying peace.

Yesha, the umbrella group that Revivi represents, opposes an autonomous Palestinian state alongside Israel; the group also does not advocate for a single, bi-national state. Revivi, without offering specifics, said he would like to improve the lives of the Palestinians living in the West Bank (over two million) without giving them full citizenship. Critics say that Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic if it annexes the disputed territories.

Today, there are roughly 400,000 settlers sprinkled across the West Bank; there are about 200,000 in east Jerusalem, a sector of the holy city that contains the holiest site in Judaism. Given the settlers’ burgeoning friendship with Trump, these numbers could grow in the coming years.

For Revivi, the invitation to Trump’s inauguration certainly represents a new direction for the much-maligned settlement movement: “Inviting us over to his ceremony is an indication that the relationship is going to be different,” he said. “When you have a dialogue, when you have a tight relationship, the sky is the limit.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Representatives from Israeli Settlements Invited to Inauguration appeared first on Law Street.

Representatives from 72 countries will be in Paris on Sunday, discussing a highly contentious issue that has befuddled the international community for decades: a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the conference was “rigged,” and suggested that it could push the prospect of peace further away.

During a meeting in Jerusalem with Norway’s foreign minister, Netanyahu, who declined an invitation to the Paris conference, said: “It’s a rigged conference, rigged by the Palestinians with French auspices to adopt additional anti-Israel stances.” He added: “This pushes peace backwards. It’s not going to obligate us. It’s a relic of the past.”

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict captured the world’s attention last month, when the U.S. abstained in a U.N. Security Council vote on a resolution that called Israeli settlement activity a “flagrant violation” of international law. Secretary of State John Kerry, who will be leaving office next week, followed the contentious abstention with a longwinded speech that called Israel’s West Bank settlements a major impediment to peace, and an obstacle to forging an eventual Palestinian state.

The speech drew the ire of Netanyahu and President-elect Donald Trump, who has promised to strengthen the U.S.-Israel partnership. Trump nominated David Friedman, a New York bankruptcy lawyer, as his ambassador to Israel. Friedman is an staunch advocate for West Bank settlements, and has donated to the settlement movement in the past.

He has also suggested moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which could inflame tensions even further–the Palestinians claim Jerusalem as the capital of a future state. Trump’s team recently said they might have Friedman live and work in Jerusalem while keeping the embassy in Tel Aviv.

In a recent speech, French President Francois Hollande, addressing the Paris conference, said: “I cannot accept the status quo, letting people think that the conflict would resolve itself. It is not true. That is why France took the initiative of a conference on the Middle East.”

Hollande acknowledged that peace can only come through bilateral talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. The Paris conference is meant to reaffirm the international community’s commitment to a two-state solution. The last round of bilateral talks came in 2014. Those talks, brokered by the U.S., quickly fizzled.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Netanyahu Calls Paris Peace Conference “Rigged” and “Anti-Israel” appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine peace talks where the two parties vying for compromise are absent at the negotiating table. This is the reality in the long, fraught history of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. On Friday, France hosted diplomats from all over the world–including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon–to discuss a two state solution for Israel and Palestine, an elusive bargain that all sides say cannot materialize unless talks directly involve those two parties.

For decades, the U.S. has been the lead mediator for peace, and though France’s decision to host talks doesn’t mean it will take over that mantle, it is seen by the Palestinians as a step toward having a more neutral government at the forefront of the talks. The PLO–Palestinian’s governing body–views America’s close ties with Israel as a potentially problematic factor in hosting neutral peace discussions.

“We must act, urgently,” said French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, “to preserve the two-state solution, revive it before it is too late.”

The French effort comes at a time of deepening mistrust between Israelis and Palestinians, as months of stabbings and violence have cast a pall over an already darkening mood. Israeli settlements in the West Bank–which, along with the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem would likely make up a future Palestinian state–are an unmovable obstacle for peace.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected Friday’s discussions, saying peace can only happen with direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the PLO, while not present in Paris, embraced the French initiative, if only because it represented a step in shifting the mediating role from the Americans to a more neutral partner in France.

The most recent brush with peace came in 2012, when a majority of the U.N. General Assembly recognized Palestine as a state. Israel did not, so a two-state reality remained out of reach. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry tirelessly worked at achieving peace in 2014 but no deal was reached. On the latest stab at peace by the French, Kerry said: “We’re just starting, let’s get into the conversations.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Baby Steps: France Initiates New Round of Israel-Palestine Peace Talks appeared first on Law Street.

The current conflict in Israel has brought the alliance between Israel and the United States under scrutiny. While this alliance looks strong today, the two nations have not always been so close. Read on to learn more about how the alliance began, what the two nations get out of it, and whether or not the current conflict might spell trouble for the friendship.

Has the U.S. always strongly supported Israel?

No. While it might feel like America and Israel have always been close friends, there was a time when there was debate over whether or not the United States should even support Israel as a state.

Recognition of Israel was a huge point of contention for President Harry Truman’s administration. Truman’s Secretary of State George Marshall was staunchly against the creation of a Jewish state, in part because he believed that many of the Jews immigrating to the Middle East were communists. He was so opposed the creation of a Jewish state that he threatened to vote against Truman if Israel were to be recognized. However, counsel to the President Clark Clifford urged Truman to vote for the partition, arguing that the United States could curb Soviet expansion in the Middle East by supporting a Jewish state. Truman sided with Clark, but it wasn’t just Marshall that opposed the plan. The entire American delegation to the United Nations nearly resigned when Truman eventually decided to recognize Israel in 1948.

Here is a good summary of the factors surrounding this decision:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower was not much friendlier. During the Suez Canal crisis of 1957, Eisenhower told Israel to withdraw all troops from the Sinai region. If Israel did not comply, Eisenhower would withdraw all monetary aid from Israel.

When did the United States become strong allies with Israel and why?

The United States began seriously supporting Israel under the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson understood that supporting a Western-style democracy in the Middle East was vital to projecting American dominance abroad. He also understood the domestic power of the Jewish voting bloc. In 1964, Johnson increased the amount of aid given to Israel by 75 percent. He then doubled that amount in 1966. This aid continued during the Six-Day-War, a fight between Israel and Egypt. Since Egypt was backed by the Soviet Union, this conflict became a proxy war. While the United States did not give military assistance to Israel, it did give the country political support and tried to work out a diplomatic solution to the crisis. In the end, the United States benefitted from Israel’s surprising victory over Soviet-backed Egypt. As a result, Johnson broke with the precedent that Eisenhower set and did not demand that Israel return the new land which it had conquered.

After the war, American public opinion strongly shifted to support Israel. Some American Jews became Zionists (those who support the concept of a Jewish state) and America’s foreign policy followed suit. The United States has strongly supported Israel ever since.

What forces maintain this alliance?

Even after the Cold War, the United States has continued to support Israel for a few reasons.

One reason is that Israel maintains a stable status quo in a volatile region. This status quo is important in a region where the slightest amount of unrest can send shockwaves through global markets. Israel’s stable democracy is attractive to the U.S. when compared to nearly any other Middle Eastern nation.

There are also huge domestic pressures on politicians to keep supporting Israel. In a CNN/ORC poll conducted last month, 60 percent of Americans either had very or mostly favorable views of Israel. Support for Israel is even higher when they are not involved in what are seemingly becoming their regular conflicts with Gaza.

Israel’s American lobbying arm, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is incredibly influential. Fortune magazine once ranked it as the second most powerful interest group in America. The lobbying organization is known for being highly influential in Congress. Watch President Barack Obama speak highly of Israel at an AIPAC conference during the 2012 presidential campaign:

How does the alliance benefit Israel?

The most tangible benefit of Israel’s alliance with the United States comes in the form of aid. The exact dollar amount differs depending on the source, but it is estimated that the United States gives over $130 billion dollars in aid to Israel. This money allows Israel to afford and develop technologies like the Iron Dome–Israel’s rocket defense system that has kept their casualty rate so low during the current conflict.

The United States is also the only consistent ally that Israel has in the international community. America is often the only vote in favor of Israel on UN resolutions. On July 24, the United States was the only vote against a UN inquiry into potential war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. When the UN voted to give Palestine non-member observer status, the United States was one of nine countries that voted against the measure. Watch UN Ambassador Susan Rice react to the vote:

Who else voted with the United States and Israel on Palestine’s status?

• Czech Republic
• Canada
• Marshall Islands
• Micronesia
• Nauru
• Panama
• Palau

With the possible exception of Canada, this is not exactly a list of nations that share America’s status on the world stage. The United States is the only very powerful country willing to stand up for Israel in the international community. This does not mean much in the historically weak General Assembly. However, it matters a great deal in the Security Council, where the United States has veto power over any binding resolutions.

How does the alliance benefit the United States?

Many supporters of Israel argue that the United States and Israel should continue to be allies simply because the two countries share values and ideals. Israel and America are both liberal democracies. This common trait is enough for some Americans.

However, there are more pragmatic reasons to keep the alliance around.

Israel is inarguably one of America’s best security partners in the world. Israel shares a significant amount of intelligence with America, which is then used to counter terrorist threats in the Middle East. Israel has also undertaken military action to prevent Syria and Iraq from gaining nuclear weapons.

There are also economic incentives. Silicon Valley companies utilizes Israel’s technological industry to further their own products. Watch this report on Israel’s technology industry:

Twenty-five percent of American exports to the Middle East go to Israel, making them our best buyer in the region. Israeli business partnerships are responsible for an estimated 10,000 American jobs.

The United States military also benefits from the Israeli alliance. American troops can train in Israel, American planes can refuel in Israel, and the Pentagon is constantly working with the Israeli military on new technologies.

Why do some people criticize the alliance?

There are some critics in the United States that want the alliance to end because they disagree with the policies of the Israeli government, mainly the occupation of Gaza and the settling of the West Bank.

Israel ceded the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians in 2005. Yet, they still maintain control over Gaza’s airspace and borders. Nothing comes in or out without Israeli approval, including any trade. This control has been referred to by critics as everything from occupation to apartheid, and is one of the reasons that Gaza has a 40 percent unemployment rate. The violent struggles in Gaza between Hamas and Israel have also troubled some American critics. Hamas fires hundreds of rockets into Israel with no regard to civilian life, but Israel has killed a disproportionate amount of Palestinian civilians over the past few years in retaliation. This disproportionate response is in part thanks to the Iron Dome that America helped pay for and the hefty military aid that the United States provides to Israel.

Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, also under Palestinian control, have been seen as a major roadblock towards a peace agreement. These Jewish-only communities on Palestinian land are often seen as clear violations of international law. Palestinians have cited a freeze on settlements as a precondition to any peace negotiations.

The United States has tried to sway Israeli action on both of these issues with little success. Israel has strongly rejected American ceasefire plans and has been ignoring President Barack Obama’s calls for an end to settlements since the beginning of his presidency. Critics cite this intransigence when they claim that the alliance gives the United States little to no sway in Israeli politics.

How has the current conflict impacted American attitudes toward Israel?

Even in America, Israel is losing the messaging battle in this conflict.

Jonathan Chait, a New York Magazine writer who has almost always been pro-Israel, recently wrote an article titled “Israel Is Making It Hard To Be Pro-Israel.” In the piece, Chait expresses a frustration shared by many liberal American Jews that Israel, specifically Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has abandoned any hope of a two-state solution with Palestine and has no plan to deal with the current conflict. To Chait, constant military conflict is an unacceptable option.

Chait is not alone in this criticism. Many pro-Israel elites have begun to express similar qualms.

Ezra Klein, founder of Vox and one of the most prominent voices in online journalism, recently penned an article largely agreeing with Chait. Klein is quick to point out that he is pro-Israel, but has “become much more pessimistic about its prospects, and more confused and occasionally horrified by its policies.”

Roger Cohen, a New York Times columnist and self-proclaimed Zionist, recently lambasted the Israeli government for creating an environment for Hamas to thrive in, and ended his column with this particularly powerful sentence:

This corrosive Israeli exercise in the control of another people, breeding the contempt of the powerful for the oppressed, is a betrayal of the Zionism in which I still believe.

To be clear, these are people who usually strongly support Israel. Something about this conflict, whether it is the death toll or the lack of a coherent strategy, has caused them to rethink their support of Israel in a way they never have before.

Even the government of the United States is criticizing Israel. The State Department released a statement on August 3 referring to Israel’s shelling of a United Nations school in Gaza as “disgraceful” and stated that “Israel must do more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties.” This is the strongest language the United States has used against Israel during this conflict.

This report from The New York Times showcases other sources in the White House and State Department that are frustrated with Netanyahu’s government.

Yet, it is important to note that none of these commentators take Hamas’s side. They all agree that Hamas is employing disgusting tactics (firing rockets from populated areas, using human shields, etc.) and that they are a terrorist organization. The criticism of Israel seems to stem mostly from Netanyahu’s leadership.

This elite criticism has not translated into public support for Israel significantly dropping. As noted earlier, a plurality of Americans still support Israel and few Americans support Hamas. While support is dropping among younger Americans, the shift is slight and has not yet permeated the larger American population.

America also has not seen the same kind of anti-semitic rallies that Europe has been plagued with in recent weeks. This indicates that American support for Israel is still higher than support abroad.

Is the alliance at risk?

No. This tweet shows why:

Classic: CNN reports Obama expresseing concern to Israel about dead civilians–while also shipping new weapons. http://t.co/iUfvorw1NI

— Greg Mitchell (@GregMitch) July 30, 2014

Obama would not continue to arm the already lopsidedly powerful army if an immediate ceasefire in Gaza was really the primary concern of the United States. Yes, Obama would like a ceasefire to happen, but Israel’s safety and security is much more important.

Regardless of what critics say, America’s alliance with Israel provides significant military, security, and economic benefits. It is hard to imagine a scenario where America forgoes the significant advantages Israel offers while taking on the political behemoth that is the Israel lobby. Like it or not, the America-Israel alliance is probably here to stay, at least for now.

Resources

Primary

Truman Library: Timeline of Truman’s Recognition of Israel

United Nations: US Votes Against Palestinian Non-Member Status

Other

CS Monitor: Five US-Israel Low Points

Jewish Press: A Look Back at LBJ and Israel

Jewish Virtual Library: The 1968 Sale of Phantom Jets to Israel

Polling Report: Polls of the American Public on Israel

Wired: US Funds Iron Dome System

Mondoweiss: US Casts Lonely Vote Against War Crimes Inquiry

Foreign Affairs: FriendsWith Benefits: Why the Alliance is Good

Vox: American Aid to Israel Doesn’t Buy Any Leverage\

New York Magazine: Israel is Making it Hard to be Pro-Israel

Huffington Post: I’m Done Apologizing For Israel

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The US-Israel Alliance: A Strong But Turbulent Friendship appeared first on Law Street.