Israel-United States Relation and its impact on the Middle East Peace Process
Israel-United States relations are a multifaceted and strategic alliance, rooted in shared democratic values, historical connections, and mutual interests in regional stability and security. Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, the U.S. has been a steadfast ally, providing substantial diplomatic, military, and economic support.
This partnership has evolved through various historical phases, influenced by the broader geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East and the shifting sands of global politics. Key aspects of this relationship include military aid, intelligence sharing, and cooperative defense technologies, such as the Iron Dome missile defense system.
Additionally, the U.S. has played an active role in mediating peace processes between Israel and its neighbors. Despite occasional tensions over policy differences, particularly concerning peace with the Palestinians and settlement activities, the alliance remains robust, underpinned by strong institutional ties and the significant support of the American public and lawmakers.
This enduring partnership continues to shape the political landscape of the Middle East and the strategic calculations of both nations.
Our nation’s relation with Jews before and during WWII
Before Louis Brandeis joined the Federation of American Zionists in 1912, support for Zionism among American Jews was limited. Brandeis’s involvement and the establishment of the Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs in 1914 marked a significant shift, empowering the committee to handle Zionist activities during challenging times.
Louis Brandeis was an influential American lawyer and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving from 1916 to 1939. Born in Louisville, Kentucky, in 1856 to Jewish immigrant parents from Bohemia, he graduated from Harvard Law School at a young age and quickly gained a reputation as a dedicated advocate for public causes. Image: Louis Brandeis (1856 – 1941).
President Woodrow Wilson, sympathetic to the Jews’ plight in Europe and supportive of Zionist goals, endorsed the Balfour Declaration and, in 1919, expressed strong support for a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine. Although Wilson’s support did not immediately alter U.S. State Department policies, it influenced U.S. political attitudes. This culminated in the U.S. Congress passing the Lodge-Fish resolution on September 21, 1922, officially supporting the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, coinciding with the League of Nations approving the Mandate of Palestine.
During World War II, while U.S. foreign policy was largely reactionary due to wartime pressures, the Zionist movement at the Biltmore Conference in May 1942, significantly shifted its stance. Previously, the movement aimed to establish a Jewish “national home” in Palestine.
However, they adopted a new goal at the conference, advocating for Palestine to become a Jewish Commonwealth, aligning with the United States rather than Britain. In 1944, despite two congressional attempts to support this transformation into a Jewish state, both were thwarted by the U.S. Departments of War and State, influenced by wartime dynamics and Arab opposition.
After World War II, the United States significantly increased its involvement in the Middle East, marking a departure from its previously detached stance. During the Truman administration, the U.S. was compelled to redefine its policy in the region due to three main factors: the threat posed by the Soviet Union, the establishment of Israel, and the strategic importance of petroleum.
This period of heightened engagement was characterized by efforts to address these critical issues, shaping the foundation of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The new policies aimed to counter Soviet influence, support the newly-formed state of Israel, and secure access to vital oil resources, reflecting America’s evolving geopolitical priorities and interests in the postwar era.
The U.N. Partition Plan in 1947
The U.N. Partition Plan for Palestine, formally Resolution 181, was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 29, 1947. This plan proposed the end of the British Mandate for Palestine and the partition of the territory into two independent states, one Arab and one Jewish, with Jerusalem designated as a separate international entity to be administered by the UN due to its religious significance.
The proposal emerged in response to escalating conflict between Jewish and Arab populations in Palestine and the urgent need to address the aftermath of World War II, including the displacement of Jewish Holocaust survivors. The plan was intended to provide a peaceful solution to the long-standing disputes by ensuring sovereignty and self-determination for both Jewish and Arab peoples in the region.
The Jewish community, represented by the Jewish Agency, accepted the plan as it provided a legal basis for establishing a Jewish state. In contrast, the Arab leaders and the Arab League rejected the plan, arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the case of Palestine’s majority Arab population. The rejection led to heightened tensions, resulting in the outbreak of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War immediately following the end of the British mandate.
Prior to the U.N. Partition Plan in 1947, American presidents supported the concept of a Jewish homeland, as alluded to in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. However, their official stance was one of “acquiescence,” influenced by concerns about Arab opposition and potential impacts on oil supplies, which led the Departments of War and State to advise against overt intervention on behalf of the Jews.
As the British mandate neared its end, there was significant contention within the U.S. government about recognizing the Jewish state. Key disagreements occurred between President Truman and his advisers, particularly with Secretary of State George Marshall, who opposed recognition based on concerns about U.S. relations with the Muslim world, access to Middle Eastern oil, and regional stability.
President Truman’s recognition of the State of Israel
Despite the internal disagreements and the considerable opposition from the State and Defense Departments, President Truman decided to recognize the State of Israel shortly after its declaration of independence by David Ben-Gurion on May 14, 1948. This made the U.S. the first country to extend recognition to the new state.
The 1948 Arab-Israeli War ended with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, mediated by American diplomat Ralph Bunche. The U.S. then participated in the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 with Britain and France, pledging to maintain peace and stability, oppose force, and prevent an arms race in the region. Image: A 1966 photo of Ralph Bunche (left) with then-Israeli prime minister, Levi Eshkol.
Initially, U.S. policy aimed to support Arab states’ independence and prevent Soviet influence while providing moderate economic aid to Israel, primarily for food due to the larger contributions from German war reparations. However, by the early 1960s, the U.S. began to sell defensive weapons to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan to maintain a balance of power and prevent any one state from dominating the region due to Soviet or other external influences.
What was the U.S.-Israel Relation like during the Kennedy Administration?
As president, John F. Kennedy significantly shaped U.S.-Israeli relations by initiating security ties and establishing the foundation for a U.S.-Israeli military alliance. Unlike previous administrations, Kennedy circumvented the State Department, which was traditionally more cautious due to its focus on maintaining balanced Arab relations, and instead relied on his White House advisors. This shift marked a key development in U.S. foreign policy towards Israel.
Kennedy’s approach to the Middle East was influenced by the complex geopolitical landscape of the time, including the Soviet Union’s outreach to Arab nations, which had shifted from its initial support for Israel’s creation. The ongoing plight of Palestinian refugees, numbering 1.2 million by 1961 and dispersed across Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt, was another critical issue. The broader U.N. context also played a role; while the U.N. General Assembly often appeared anti-Israel, the U.S. wielded its veto power in the Security Council to influence outcomes in Israel’s favor.
In 1962, Kennedy ended the arms embargo on Israel imposed by previous administrations, selling Israel Hawk anti-aircraft missiles—a significant pivot that signaled deeper military cooperation. This sale, often seen as politically motivated to garner Jewish support ahead of elections, also reflected a genuine admiration for Israel’s potential role in stabilizing the Middle East.
Furthermore, Kennedy was the first to articulate the concept of a ‘special relationship’ between the U.S. and Israel during discussions with Golda Meir, emphasizing a moral and national commitment to Israel’s defense. However, his administration was also marked by concerns over Israel’s nuclear ambitions. Kennedy pressed for regular inspections of Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona, fearing that nuclear armament could spark a regional arms race. This led to a tense relationship with Israeli leaders, particularly around the transparency of nuclear capabilities, which remained a contentious issue throughout his presidency.
Kennedy’s efforts to balance U.S. strategic interests with a commitment to Israel’s security laid crucial groundwork for the enduring military alliance between the two nations, despite the complexities and challenges of navigating domestic political pressures and international diplomatic landscapes.
What were U.S.-Israeli Relations like during the 1970s?
On June 19, 1970, amid the War of Attrition, Secretary of State William P. Rogers launched the Rogers Plan, advocating for a 90-day ceasefire and a military standstill along the Suez Canal, aligned with the aims of UN Resolution 242. This resolution called for Israel’s withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 alongside mutual recognition of sovereignty. Although Egypt accepted the plan, Israel did not, due to internal divisions within its unity government. Notably, Menachem Begin and the Gahal alliance strongly opposed withdrawing from Palestinian Territories, leading to the resignation of the second-largest party in the government in August 1970.
The plan ultimately foundered due to President Nixon’s lack of support, preferring instead the advice of his National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, to not pursue the initiative. Even significant events, such as Egyptian President Sadat expelling Soviet advisers in 1972 and signaling a readiness to negotiate, failed to achieve a breakthrough.
The diplomatic stalemate persisted until the Yom Kippur War of October 1973, when Egypt and Syria launched simultaneous attacks on Israel. Despite forewarnings, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir chose not to preemptively strike, fearing it would alienate the United States, on which Israel heavily relied for support. The war saw initial Arab successes, but Israeli forces eventually repelled the advances and gained the upper hand, prompting a full-scale U.S. military airlift to support Israel.
Post-war, the U.S. and USSR were concerned about being drawn into a larger conflict. The U.S. played a critical role in mediating, leveraging Egypt’s dependency on American aid to initiate a peace process, eventually leading to the Israeli-Egyptian peace. This involvement also sparked the 1973 OPEC oil embargo against the United States.
By 1975, when Israel rejected a U.S. proposal for further Sinai redeployments, President Ford initiated a “reassessment” of relations, briefly halting arms shipments to Israel. However, this crisis was resolved with the signing of the Israeli-Egyptian disengagement agreement in September 1975, marking a cautious continuation of U.S. diplomatic efforts in the region.
The Carter administration actively engaged in the Middle East peace process, particularly after Menachem Begin’s election as Israel’s Prime Minister in 1977, which marked a shift as Likud took power after 29 years of opposition. This transition led to significant friction in US-Israeli relations, as the U.S. pressured Israel for territorial withdrawals from occupied areas for peace with Egypt.
The Camp David Accords initiated by President Carter pushed for these withdrawals, culminating in the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty signed at the White House. This treaty resulted in Israel’s withdrawal from Sinai by 1982. However, tensions persisted due to Carter’s support for Palestinian political rights and a homeland, topics that saw little advancement and continued to strain relations with Israel’s Likud-led government.
U.S.-Israel Relation during the Reagan Administration
Early in Ronald Reagan’s presidency, concerns emerged among Israeli supporters due to the appointment of officials with past Arab ties, like Secretaries Caspar Weinberger and George P. Shultz from Bechtel Corporation. Despite these concerns, Reagan’s personal backing and shared views on terrorism, security, and the Soviet threat significantly bolstered US-Israeli relations.
In 1981, the Strategic Cooperation Agreement was signed, enhancing bilateral security cooperation. This was followed by the formation of a Joint Political Military Group in 1983 and the start of joint military exercises in 1984. The US also built facilities in Israel to store military supplies, accessible to Israel if needed. Although relations were tested by events like the 1982 Lebanon War and the Israeli airstrike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, which led to temporary suspensions of military shipments and criticism from the US, the overall strategic partnership remained strong.
Israel was designated a major non-NATO ally in 1989, benefiting from expanded defense cooperation and economic ties, highlighted by the $1.5 billion loan guarantees in 1985 to support Israel’s economy. Despite opening a dialogue with the PLO in 1988, the Reagan era is often viewed by pro-Israeli groups as highly supportive of Israel, maintaining a fundamentally pro-Israel stance throughout.
What was the U.S.-Israel Relation like during the Bush Administration?
During the first Intifada, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker expressed to AIPAC in 1989 that Israel should cease its “expansionist policies.” Tensions between the U.S. and Israel were evident when President George H.W. Bush in 1991 described East Jerusalem as occupied territory, contradicting Israel’s claim of sovereignty following its 1980 annexation, which lacked international recognition.
Disagreements continued over Israeli plans for Palestinian elections and investigations into violent incidents in Jerusalem. However, relations improved slightly during the Persian Gulf War when Israel, under U.S. advice, refrained from retaliating against Iraqi Scud missile attacks, earning praise for its restraint. Post-war, President Bush sought to leverage the U.S.’s enhanced standing from the Gulf War victory to advance the Arab-Israeli peace process, proposing a peace conference in Madrid without additional U.S. aid, emphasizing process over direct financial inducements.
This period was marked by a cool relationship with Israel’s Likud government under Yitzhak Shamir, highlighted by disputes over $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and Israeli settlement policies. The dynamic shifted slightly after Israel agreed to participate in the Madrid Conference following the repeal of a UN resolution equating Zionism with racism, setting a more cooperative tone as the Labor party took office in Israel in 1992.
U.S.-Israel Relation during the Clinton Administration
In the 1990s, significant strides were made in Middle East peace efforts under President Bill Clinton’s administration. On September 10, 1993, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) exchanged letters recognizing each other. This was followed by the signing of the Oslo Accords on September 13, laying a foundation for future peace negotiations.
President Clinton played a key role in facilitating these agreements, reestablishing U.S. dialogue with the PLO, and later witnessing the Jordan-Israel peace treaty on October 26, 1994. His involvement continued with the signing of the 1995 Interim Agreement at the White House, alongside significant regional leaders.
Clinton’s commitment extended to attending the funeral of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and supporting Israel’s security through substantial aid for anti-terror measures. However, tensions arose with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over expanding Jewish settlements and perceived delays in the peace process. These tensions were partially addressed at the Wye River negotiations in 1998, although subsequent complications delayed further implementation. The election of Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 1999 marked a hopeful turn, with Clinton actively mediating high-stakes talks aimed at forging a lasting peace.
Since the 1960s, the United States has been a robust supporter of Israel, providing substantial military and economic aid. The U.S. has also played a pivotal role in fostering good relations between Israel and its neighboring Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon, and has acted to counter hostility from nations like Syria and Iran. Image: Israeli flag (left) and US flag (right).
What was the U.S.-Israel Relation like during the G.W. Bush Administration?
During George W. Bush’s presidency, the relationship with Israel was marked by complex dynamics. Initially, strong ties were established with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, despite Sharon’s controversial accusation in October 2001 that the U.S. was appeasing Palestinians to gain Arab support for its anti-terror campaign, which the White House deemed unacceptable. Despite this, Sharon gained U.S. backing for Israel’s targeted assassinations campaign, balanced against a commitment to halt new settlements.
During the Second Intifada and an economic downturn in 2003, the U.S. provided Israel with significant financial aid in the form of $9 billion in conditional loan guarantees.
President Bush’s “Roadmap” for peace acknowledged new realities, such as existing major Israeli settlements, while also focusing on Israel’s security needs and the envisioned two-state solution, yet emphasized that detailed borders should be negotiated.
U.S. policy sought balance, advocating for mutual restraint in violence and supporting Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza as a step towards peace, reflecting ongoing U.S. involvement in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and broader regional stability efforts.
What was the U.S.-Israel Relation like during the Obama Administration?
Israeli-U.S. relations experienced tension during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s second term and the Obama administration. President Obama prioritized a Middle East peace deal, pressuring Netanyahu to recognize a Palestinian state and halt settlement expansion.
In 2009, Netanyahu agreed to a ten-month construction freeze in the West Bank, but it excluded East Jerusalem and ongoing projects, leading Palestinians to delay talks, seeing the freeze as insufficient.
The relationship faced further strains when, in 2010, Israel announced the continuation of housing projects in East Jerusalem during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit, causing significant diplomatic upset. Obama responded with a stringent ultimatum that included demands for freezing all Jewish construction in East Jerusalem and making gestures toward peace with the Palestinians.
Despite these tensions, strategic cooperation continued. The U.S. authorized significant military aid to Israel, including the sale of bunker buster bombs and support for the Iron Dome missile defense system. Obama also opposed unilateral Palestinian moves toward statehood at the UN, reflecting a complex relationship where strategic cooperation coexisted with significant diplomatic disagreements over peace process tactics and settlement policies.
What was the U.S.-Israel Relation like during the Trump Administration?
Upon taking office in January 2017, President Donald Trump appointed David M. Friedman as the U.S. ambassador to Israel, signaling a shift in U.S. policy towards more robust support for Israeli initiatives.
Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced plans to expand construction in the West Bank, illustrating immediate policy changes in response to the new U.S. administration.
Throughout Trump’s term, significant actions included the controversial move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem in May 2018, recognizing the city as Israel’s capital, which had profound implications for U.S.-Palestinian relations.
Additionally, Trump’s administration saw the U.S. exit from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, shortly after Netanyahu’s claims of Iranian deception about its nuclear program.
In 2019, Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and in 2020, he facilitated the Abraham Accords, establishing normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations, marking a significant shift in regional dynamics. These moves reflected a distinct approach by the Trump administration, favoring strong support for Israeli national priorities.
What was the U.S.-Israel Relation like during the Biden Administration?
Under President Joe Biden’s administration, U.S.-Israeli relations have navigated through a series of significant events, reflecting both continuity and change. Early on, the Biden administration affirmed that the U.S. Embassy would remain in Jerusalem, recognizing it as Israel’s capital, and expressed support for expanding the Abraham Accords, although it preferred to call them “the normalization process.”
During the Biden presidency, the U.S. continued its robust defense support for Israel, including a $38 billion defense aid package and collaborative efforts in technology and security through initiatives like the I2U2 forum with India and the UAE.
Tensions arose, particularly over Israeli settlement policies and actions in the West Bank and Gaza. The Biden administration has been vocal in its criticism of certain Israeli actions, such as settlement expansions and military operations in Gaza, emphasizing the need for adherence to international law and expressing concerns over the humanitarian impact on Palestinian civilians.
These positions have led to strained moments, such as the U.S. summoning the Israeli ambassador to express displeasure over Israeli legislative actions, and President Biden’s decision to delay a formal White House invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu. The administration has also shown willingness to use its influence more assertively in the peace process, as indicated by its actions in the UN Security Council and statements by leading U.S. politicians.
How did the United States respond to the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel?
Following the Hamas-led attack on Israel in 2023, the United States responded by deploying warships and military aircraft to the Eastern Mediterranean and increased military supplies to Israel. The Joe Biden administration stated that Israel would receive “whatever it needs” to support its offensive against Hamas in Gaza.
What was the international reaction to the Israel–Hamas war and U.S. support for Israel?
After an initial period of Western support, international calls for a ceasefire grew, and both Israel and the United States found themselves increasingly isolated. The U.S. faced criticism for vetoing three United Nations Security Council resolutions that called for a humanitarian ceasefire.
Why have international rights groups criticized the U.S. during the Israel-Hamas war?
International rights groups have condemned the U.S. for its military and diplomatic support to Israel, arguing that this support risks making the U.S. complicit in potential war crimes committed by Israel during its offensive in Gaza.
The U.S. significantly ramped up its military support to Israel during the conflict, sending over 100 weapons shipments to Israel since the beginning of the war in 2023. Image: A 2021 portrait of Joe Biden.
Did U.S.-Israel relations change during the course of the war?
As the war progressed and Palestinian civilian casualties increased, U.S.-Israel relations became increasingly strained. The U.S. government began to voice more critical views on Israel’s actions, and in February 2024, it required written assurances from Israel that U.S.-supplied weapons were being used in compliance with international law.
By March 2024, the U.S. had called for an immediate and sustained ceasefire linked to the release of hostages and voiced opposition to much of Israel’s post-war plan for Gaza. Despite these tensions, on March 29, 2024, the Biden administration authorized the transfer of billions of dollars worth of bombs and fighter jets to Israel.
In May 2024, President Biden publicly declared that the U.S. would not provide Israel with offensive weapons potentially used for a major assault on Rafah, marking his strongest criticism yet of Israel’s controversial military actions.
